Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines - WSP · PDF fileWater Supply and Sanitation in...

Water Supply and Sanitation in the PhilippinesTurning Finance into Services for the Future

February 2015Service Delivery Assessment

This report is the product of extensive collaboration and information sharing between many government agencies, non-government organizations and private sector. The core team of the National Economic Development Agency (NEDA) has been a key partner with the Water and Sanitation Program of the World Bank in facilitating the Service Delivery Assessment. The authors acknowledge the valuable contributions of all other agencies that participated, specifically the Department of Budget and Management, Department of Health, Department of Interior and Local Government, Department of Public Works and Highways, Department of Social Welfare and Development, Development Bank of the Philippines, Land Bank of the Philippines, Local Water Utilities Administration, Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System, the National Water Resources Board as well as other government agencies, development partners and international and local NGOs active in the sector.

The Task Team Leader for the Service Delivery Assessment (SDA) in East Asia and the Pacific is Susanna Smets. The following World Bank staff and consultants have provided valuable contributions to the service delivery assessment process and report: Rosario Aurora L. Villaluna and U-Primo E. Rodriguez, Edkarl Galing, Aileen Castro, and Almud Weitz. Thanks go to World Bank staff Sudipto Sarkar, Sector Leader, and Ousmane Dione, Practice Manager, who peer reviewed the report.

The SDA was carried out under the guidance of the World Bank’s Wa ter and Sanitation Program and local partners. This regional work, implemented through a country-led process, draws on the experience of water and sanitation SDAs conduct ed 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 infrastructure and hardware but also what specific issues need to be addressed to ensure that fi nance is effectively turned into 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 [email protected]. 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

Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines

Service Delivery Assessment

Turning Finance into Services for the Future

Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippinesiv

Strategic Overview

Data from the UNICEF-WHO Joint Monitoring Programme indicate that the Philippines is on track to meet its Millennium Development Goal targets for water supply and sanitation.1 However, with a population of more than 94 million in 2011, there are still some 7.5 million Filipinos without access to improved water supply facilities and 24 million without access to improved sanitation. Roughly 8.3 million people still defecate in the open and just 3% are connected to centralized sewerage systems.

Sector stakeholders are looking beyond the MDG attainment, and sector roadmaps for water supply and sanitation set out a vision of universal coverage by 2025 for water supply2 and 2028 for sanitation.3 Furthermore, the Department of Health National Sanitation Policy issued in 2009 calls for zero open defecation in all barangays4 by 2022. Without political commitment, improved institutional arrangements, increased funding for the sector and the adoption of viable operational strategies that emphasize sustainable user outcomes and equity, it is unlikely that these ambitious targets will be met.

To achieve the country’s vision of inclusive growth and poverty reduction,5 improved water supply and sanitation services are essential. In urban growth centers, reliable access to adequate water for domestic, commercial and other uses is vital to sustain economic activities. For the country as a whole, sustainable access to adequate water and sanitation services is needed to protect health and

reduce the costs associated with water- and sanitation-related illness, malnutrition and losses in productivity.

To achieve government targets for 2025 for water supply, the additional population requiring access is estimated at 2.75 million per year with a total investment requirement of US$838 million per year. For sanitation to achieve universal coverage by 2028, the additional population requiring access annually is estimated at 3.0 million with a total investment requirement of US$619 million per year.

The obstacles to achieving universal, sustainable access to improved water supply and sanitation services are primarily institutional and financial in nature. In particular, the sector has suffered from a lack of leadership and poor co-ordination among the many agencies involved in service provision. Until recently there has been no designated lead agency for the sector, which complicates planning and operations. Regulation remains fragmented and is generally weak, except in the case of the large concessions in Manila, government-owned water utilities (districts) and for some private utilities/associations that have a license. In particular, local governments, who self-regulate their own water systems, are not held accountable for meeting performance targets either in terms of service quality or coverage. The limited capacity of many local service providers contributes to the problem to sustain and expand service beyond the urbanised center of municipalities and cities.

1 Joint Monitoring Programme of the WHO-UNICEF, 20132 Philippine Water Supply Sector Roadmap, 2nd Edition, 20103 Philippine Sustainable Sanitation Roadmap, April 20104 The barangay is the smallest unit of governance in the Philippines. The country has 41,994 barangays nationwide.5 Societal goal of the Philippine Development Plan 2010 to 2016

Service Delivery Assessment v

The water and sanitation sector is not given a high priority on the national government agenda and annual allocations are inadequate to improve and expand access to services for the underserved poor. Only the urban water supply sub-sector enjoys a near-adequate level of funding, but the bulk of the resources are reserved for Metro Manila; funding for other urban centers (both capital and operational) is inadequate, as it is for both water supply and sanitation in rural areas. The inequalities in access are starkest and most persistent for rural areas: 93% of the richest rural households have access to improved sanitation, as compared to only 27% among the poorest quintile; and for water supply, 69% of the richest quintile enjoys piped house connections, while only 4% of the poorest quintile does, for other improved water sources the richest have near universal access, and the poorest quintile remains low at 66%.6

Rural sanitation remains the subsector where access remains lowest, progress is expected to rely heavily on household self-investments, and government financing for communications campaigns, operational expenses and targeted support for the poor require scale-up to reach the ambitious goal of the elimination of open defecation in the next decade. The urban sanitation sector, with a high level of access to improved and shared on-site facilities, is at a critical junction where city-level investments in treatment facilities and septage management are to be prioritized, alongside adequate institutional and regulatory frameworks.

While the challenges are many, the prospects for progress are improving as government has signalled its high-level commitment to rationalize institutional arrangements for the sector. It intends to a) clarify leadership and coordination through appointing a lead department for the water and sanitation sector, b) separating institutional responsibilities for service provision through a utility approach, and c) consolidating regulation, presumably under a future National Water Resources Management Office, while during transition expanding the mandate of the National Water Resources Board. The ongoing institutional review is expected to help identify which organization would be most suitable to host the “lead department”. The proposed new arrangements will help to establish a better enabling environment for operational improvements within each of the four sub-sectors. While Philippine government banks and the Philippines Local Water Utilities Administration agencies already offer attractive products for water supply financing, further innovations and leveraging commercial finance, are expected to help reduce sector financing gaps in order to reach the universal access goals.

This Service Delivery Assessment was a multi-stakeholder process in cooperation with government agencies in the Philippines. Priority action points emerging from the analysis are summarised on the next page.

6 JMP/UNICEF Equity trees, special tabulation based on NDHS 2008.

Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippinesvi

Sector-Wide: Institutions, Financing and Monitoring

• Implement new institutional arrangements including an expanded role for the National Water Resources Board as the sector regulator and its transition to a National Water Resources Management Office, and the establishment of a dedicated Water and Sanitation Unit as a lead sector agency (hosting department/agency to be identified through institutional review).

• Improve coordination mechanisms between actors at provincial and municipal levels

• Establish a national capacity building program, especially to address rural subsectors, by consolidating various initiatives already in place including the regional capacity building hubs established under DILG

• Harmonise data collection systems, standardise the definition of terms and develop a coherent sector monitoring framework

• Establish a collective platform for a multi-stakeholder review process to monitor subsector performance (for example Joint Annual Sector Reviews)

• Increase sector investment, particularly in rural areas where large disparities exist between rich and poor, as well as funding for “software”, specifically for rural sanitation programs

• Align budgeting to support the implementation of long-term strategies and investment plans by public service providers, and translate these into annual work plans and budget

• Introduce key results areas for local water supply and sanitation services to increase local accountability for service improvements and incentivize LGUs to access additional funding sources including matching grants from national government and private sector sources

• Create a national account for water and sanitation, disaggregated between urban and rural to enable monitoring of financial flows towards the subsectors

Priority Actions for Rural Water Supply

• Enable economies of scale and financial viability in service provision by encouraging the consolidation of small service providers

• Formalize the management of small piped schemes and introduce light-handed regulation including the use of performance contracts to drive service quality and reliability and incentivize service provision to the poor

• Expand the provision of technical support to small providers, combined with business planning services to facilitate access to finance for system expansion

• Operationalise policies for full cost recovery for rural scheme operation to reduce the investment gap and improve sustainability of services

• Enhance rural water supply improvements (piped schemes) via other poverty alleviation programs such as the Bottom-Up Budgeting Process and the National Community Development Driven program

• Develop systems for management support to schemes operated by community-based organizations, through partnerships with private sector and water districts

Service Delivery Assessment vii

Priority Actions for Urban Water Supply

• Establish a comprehensive regulatory framework covering all types of service providers, including local government-run schemes, water districts plus private and independent operators, both large and small, and consolidate these roles gradually within a national regulator

• Develop a financing policy and strategy, linked with a graduation policy for utilities based on creditworthiness, in order to attract commercial finance, and accelerate access to concessional finance to support the expansion of services

• Strengthen the capacity of local government to contract, manage and oversee private sector participation modalities, in order to leverage private sector investment, use professional capabilities of the private sector and encourage the consolidation of small-scale service providers

• Introduce multi-stakeholder, performance-based planning and monitoring including a system of annual subsector reviews

• Build capacity and increase the accountability of LGUs for improving the quality and sustainability of service provision, using performance benchmarks and an incentive and/or penalty system

Priority Actions for Rural Sanitation and Hygiene

• Operationalize the Zero Open Defecation program, within the framework of an equitable rural sanitation and hygiene promotion policy, a capacity building plan, an implementation plan and a monitoring system

• Develop a financing strategy for the program that includes public investments to generate household demand for sanitation, output-based subsidies to the very poor and collective incentives for barangays and LGUs in achieving Zero Open Defecation

• Strengthen rural sanitation promotion via other poverty alleviation programmes, such as the Bottom-Up Budgeting Process, the National Community Development Driven programme and target poor households through the National Cash Transfer Program (4Ps)

Priority Actions for Urban Sanitation and Hygiene

• Establish institutional arrangements to facilitate implementation of the National Sewerage and Septage Management Program (NSSMP) and increase Local Government and Water District accountability for the coverage and quality of urban sanitation services

• Develop a sanitation investment framework and mandate local governments to adopt City Sanitation Plans incorporating measures to improve cost recovery and extend affordable services to the poor

• Adopt a cost-effective approach to investment whereby the gradual expansion of sewerage is complemented by measures to maximize connections and to improve fecal sludge management, since most households will continue using septic tanks for the foreseeable future

• Build local capacity to enable successful planning and implementation of the NSSMP

Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippinesviii

Contents

Strategic Overview .............................................................................................................................................................ivContents ........................................................................................................................................................................... viiiAbbreviations and Acronyms ..............................................................................................................................................ix

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 12. Sector Overview: Coverage, Trends and National Goals ............................................................................................. 33. Reform Context ............................................................................................................................................................ 84. Institutional Framework .............................................................................................................................................. 115. Financing and its Implementation .............................................................................................................................. 146. Sector Monitoring and Evaluation .............................................................................................................................. 167. Subsector: Rural Water Supply .................................................................................................................................. 188. Subsector: Urban Water Supply ................................................................................................................................ 229. Subsector: Rural Sanitation and Hygiene .................................................................................................................. 2610. Subsector: Urban Sanitation and Hygiene ................................................................................................................. 2911. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................. 33

Annex 1: Scorecard and Explanation ............................................................................................................................... 38Annex 2: Key Assumption and Inputs for Costing Analysis ............................................................................................. 67Annex 3: Comparative Explanation of SDA costing ......................................................................................................... 74

Service Delivery Assessment ix

APIS Annual Poverty Indicators SurveyBOT Build Operate TransferCDA Co-operative Development AuthorityDAR Department of Agrarian ReformDBM Department of Budget and ManagementDILG Department of Interior and Local GovernmentDOF Department of FinanceDOH Department of HealthDPWH Department of Public Works and HighwaysDSWD Department of Social Welfare and DevelopmentEO Executive Order GOCC Government-owned and Controlled CorporationINFRACOM Infrastructure Committee JMP UNICEF-WHO Joint Monitoring Programme KALAHI-CIDSS Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan (Comprehensive, Integrated Delivery of Social Services)LBP Land Bank of the PhilippinesLGC Local Government CodeLGU Local Government UnitLWUA Local Water Utilities AdministrationMDF Municipal Development FundMDG Millennium Development GoalMWSS Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage SystemMWCI Manila Water Company IncorporatedMWSI Maynilad Water Services IncorporatedNAPC National Anti-Poverty CommissionNAWASA National Water and Sanitation Association of the PhilippinesNCDDP National Community-Driven Development Program NCR National Capital Region NDHS National Demographic and Health SurveyNEDA National Economic and Development AuthorityNHTS-PR National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction NSO National Statistics Office

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippinesx

NSSMP National Sewerage and Septage Management ProgramNWRB National Water Resources BoardO&M Operation and MaintenanceODA Official Development AssistanceP3W President’s Priority Program for Water PDAF Priority Development Assistance FundPhP Philippine PesoSALINTUBIG Sagana at Ligtas na Tubig para sa Lahat ProgramSCWR Sub Committee on Water Resources (of NEDA Infrastructure Committee) TISP Transition Investment Support PlanUNDP United Nations Development ProgramUNICEF United Nations Children’s FundUSAID United States Agency for International Development WB World BankWD Water DistrictWHO World Health Organization WSP Water Service ProviderWSP-WB Water and Sanitation Program of the World BankWSS Water Supply System

Service Delivery Assessment xi

Service Delivery Assessment 1

1. Introduction

Water and sanitation Service Delivery Assessments (SDAs) are being carried out in seven countries in East Asia and the Pacific region under the guidance of the World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Program and local partners. This regional work, implemented through a country-led process, draws on the experience of water and sanitation SDAs conducted in more than 40 countries in Africa, Latin America, and South Asia.7

The SDA analysis has three main components: a review of past water and sanitation coverage, a costing model to assess the adequacy of future investments and a scorecard that allows diagnosis of bottlenecks along the service delivery pathway. SDA’s contribution is to not only determine whether past trends and future finance are sufficient to meet sector targets for infrastructure and hardware but also to identify specific issues that need to be addressed to ensure that finance is effectively turned into accelerated and sustainable water supply and sanitation service delivery. Bottlenecks can, in fact, occur throughout the service delivery pathway—all the institutions, processes and actors that translate sector funding into sustainable services. Where the pathway is well developed, sector funding should turn into services at the estimated unit costs. Where the pathway is not well developed, investment requirements may be gross underestimates because additional investment may be needed to ‘unblock’ the bottlenecks in the pathway.

The scorecard looks at nine building blocks of the service delivery pathway, which correspond to specific functions classified in three categories: three functions that refer to enabling conditions for putting services in place (policy

development, planning new undertakings, budgeting), three actions that relate to developing the service (expenditure of funds, equity in the use of these funds, service output), and three functions that relate to sustaining these services (facility maintenance, expansion of infrastructure, use of the service). Each building block is assessed against specific indicators and is scored from 0 to 3 accordingly. The scorecard uses a simple color code to indicate building blocks that are largely in place, acting as a driver for service delivery (score >2, green); building blocks that are a drag on service delivery and that require attention (score 1–2, yellow); and building blocks that are inadequate, constituting a barrier to service delivery and a priority for reform (score <1, red).

The SDA analysis relies on an intensive, facilitated consultation process, with government ownership and self-assessment at its core. The SDA in the Philippines is a joint initiative of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), the World Bank Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) and with support of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Kick-off workshops with perception scoring were held in the 3rd quarter of 2012, followed by extensive data collection. Two consultation workshops were subsequently organized in February and April 2013 where scorecard results and priority actions were identified. Initial results have also been presented to the Inter-Agency Sub-Committee on Water Resources of NEDA and to the Philippine Development Forum. The Service Delivery Assessment builds other recent assessments, and reform initiatives, currently being considered by the Office of the President, such as the Study on Developing the Institutional Framework for the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector and Identifying Investment Plans and Programs.8

7 For example, refer to the Africa CSO synthesis report available at http://www.wsp.org/sites/wsp.org/files/publications/CSO-Synthesis-Report.pdf8 These includes the following: the recently concluded UNDP-MDGF 1919 study on Determining Investment Requirements for the Water Supply Sector (2013), the study on Developing the Institutional Framework for the Water Supply & Sanitation Sector and Identifying Investment Plans and Programs (2013) and the study on the proposed National Water Resources Management Office (2012).

Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines2

Figure 1.1 Map of the Philippines

110° 130°120°

5°

10°

15°

20°

S U L US E A

C E L E B E SS E A

S O U T HC H I N A

S E A

P H I L I P P I N ES E A

L u z o n S t r a i t

P A C I F I CO C E A NSamar

Mindanao

Taiwan

Palawan

Panay

Negros

Mindoro

Luzon

PHILIPPINES

VIET NAM

CHINA

BRUNEIDARUSSALAM

P A L A U

MALAYSIA

INDONESIA

Manila


Coverage: Assessing Past Progress

The 2008 National Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) of the National Statistics Office (NSO, 2009, JMP, 2012a and 2012b) found that about 90% of the Philippine population had access to improved water supply. Based on the survey, common sources of improved drinking water were piped water into dwelling/yard/plot (30%) and tube wells or boreholes (22%). Access to improved water supply sources in urban areas (94%) was higher compared to rural areas (86%). Access to piped water into dwelling/yard/plot among the urban population (38%) was also nearly two times higher than their counterparts in rural areas (22%).

Estimates from the Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) of the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF are not very different from the results of the NDHS 2009. The JMP (2013) shows that access to improved water supply for 2011 was about 92%. However, it indicates a narrower gap in access to improved water supply between urban (93%) and rural (92%) areas for the same period.

The 2008 NDHS also found that about 68% of the Philippine population had access to improved sanitation facilities. This rises to about 86% if one includes shared facilities as improved.9 Pour-flush toilets to septic tanks (68% of the total population) were the dominant facility and access to sewer facilities remained very low (3%). An estimated 10% of the population practiced open defecation. Access to improved sanitation facilities (including shared facilities) was much higher in urban areas (94%) compared to rural areas (79%). Access to septic tanks was also more common among the

2. Sector Overview: Coverage, Trends and National Goals

urban population (84%) compared to rural population (53%). Open defecation was close to four times more prevalent in rural areas (15%) than in urban areas (4%).

The JMP (2013) calculated that 74% of the Philippine population has access to improved sanitation facilities. As with the NDHS, JMP estimates also reflect higher access rates to improved facilities in urban areas (79%) compared to rural areas (69%) in 2011.

Figure 2.1 shows that based on JMP and government (NDHS) estimates, access to improved water supply and sanitation has increased over time. Owing to different methodologies, the increases in the access rates for water supply with the government estimates are smaller than the JMP estimates. In the case of sanitation, changes in access rates do not vary too much but government estimates are higher than JMP estimates due to the treatment of shared facilities as improved.

The Philippines is on its way to attaining the Millennium Development Goals targets for water supply and sanitation in 2015.10 However, the target of universal access by 2025, which is expressed in the Philippine Water Supply Sector Roadmap (NEDA, 2010), seems out of reach if present trends continue. The target of universal access by 2028, which is expressed in the Philippine Sanitation Roadmap (DOH, 2009), seems attainable if current trends continue and if shared facilities are included in the definition of ‘safe and adequate sanitation’.

9 The JMP does not count shared toilets as improved facilities. 10 The MDGs for water supply and sanitation state that by 2015, the country would halve the proportion of its 1990 population who did not have sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation facilities, respectively 93% for improved source of water supply and 79% for improved sanitation.


key assumptions and sources of information are presented in Annex 2.

The costing tool also requires information on investments from the various sources – government, development partners, NGOs, utilities, private sector and households. The information is used to generate estimates of anticipated investments for 2012 to 2014 and recent investments for 2009 to 2011. Estimated investments are grouped into three sources of funding: domestic (government, public utilities, local NGOs), households, and external (development partners and foreign NGOs).

Investment data were collected from publicly available documents and websites such as various releases of the General Appropriations Act and the Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing. The process was followed by stakeholder visits to validate the data and to disaggregate

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Wat

er s

uppl

y co

vera

ge

Government estimates Government target

JMP estimates MDG target

Water supply

1995 20250%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1990 2000 2005 2010

Impr

oved

san

itatio

n co

vera

ge

2015 2020


JMP improved estimates MDG target

Sanitation

1995 2025 2030

JMP, improved + shared

Investment Requirements: Testing the Sufficiency of Finance

This section presents estimates of the financial investments needed to meet the targets for the four subsectors; namely, rural water supply, urban water supply, rural sanitation and urban sanitation. Investment or capital expenditure (CAPEX) requirements, which are calculated using the SDA costing tool, represent hardware costs of new facilities and replacing existing facilities (replacement costs). Estimated CAPEX requirements are also disaggregated between public and private/household investments.

Key inputs in the estimation of investment requirements are (a) baseline and target year coverage rates, (b) population projections, (c) unit costs of different facilities, and (d) technology mix at the initial and target years. Coverage rates for the base year (2008) were taken from the NDHS 2008 while coverage rates for the target years were 100% in 2025 for water supply and 100% for sanitation in 2028. A more detailed description of the other inputs along with the

Figure 2.1 Progress in Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage


expenditures as follows: (a) sector - water supply or sanitation, (b) location – rural or urban, (c) nature – hardware or software, (d) year, and (e) budget versus actual. A more detailed description of the sources and limitations of the information used in the analysis is presented in Annex 2.

Investment gaps are calculated by comparing investment requirements with anticipated investments and recent investments.

Table 2.1 presents the annual averages of the CAPEX requirements and anticipated investments that were estimated for the Philippines. It indicates that national targets will be met if about 2.8 million people per year gain access to improved water supply and 3.0 million people per year gain access to improved sanitation facilities. Due mostly to its relatively fast population growth, a slightly larger proportion of the beneficiaries are situated in urban areas (around 55%).

The 2.8 million people per year that will need access to improved water supply facilities translate to CAPEX requirements of US$838 million per year.11 Mostly explained by relatively high unit cost per capita, CAPEX requirements for water supply are 35% higher than sanitation. CAPEX requirements for the urban population are also estimated to be higher than the rural population because of the higher number of required beneficiaries and per capita costs.

Table 2.1 also shows that anticipated public CAPEX for water supply and sanitation is estimated at US$338 million per year and US$296 million per year, respectively. Combined, these account for about 0.3% of the 2012 Gross Domestic Product. Domestic funding sources are expected to provide a very large share (97%) of anticipated public expenditures,12 with the large majority (95%) of anticipated public CAPEX targeted at urban areas, even though these only represent 55% of all people that need to gain access to achieve the targets.

Table 2.1 Coverage and investment figuresa

Coverage Target year (2025/ 2028) b

Population requiring access

Annual CAPEX requirements

Anticipated public CAPEX

2012-2014Anticipated household

CAPEX

Annual surplus (deficit)c

1993 2008 Total Public Domestic External Total

% % % ‘000/year US$ million/year

Rural water supply 83% 86% 100% 1,343 324 189 29 3 32 23 -269

Urban water supply 93% 94% 100% 1,410 514 315 302 4 306 194 -14

Total water supply 88% 90% 100% 2,754 838 503 331 7 338 217 -283

Rural sanitation 59% 79% 100% 1,171 182 12 1 0 1 20 -162

Urban sanitation 83% 94% 100% 1,811 437 274 284 11 295 163 21

Total sanitation 71% 86% 100% 2,982 619 285 286 11 296 183 -140

Note: a) Columns may not add up due to rounding. b) The target years for water supply and sanitation are 2025 and 2028, respectively. c) This is equal to Total anticipated public CAPEX for 2012-2013 plus Anticipated household CAPEX less Total annual CAPEX requirement.

Source: SDA costing

11 Estimates in the current analysis are substantially higher than those presented in the study of De Vera et al. (2013). The differences in the two sets of estimates are presented in detail in Annex 3.12 External sources represent anticipated expenditures of development partners or donor agencies. The domestic private sector is represented by Manila Water, Maynilad, and some private financial institutions.


Subtracting CAPEX requirements from the sum of anticipated CAPEX contributions of the public and households suggests deficits of US$ 283 million per year and US$ 140 million per year for water supply and sanitation, respectively. If the anticipated spending pattern continues, targets are unlikely to be met. It also means that governments and service providers are expected to invest even more in water supply and sanitation after 2014.

The small surplus estimated for urban sanitation and the small deficit for urban water supply in Table 2.1 should be interpreted with care. Most of the domestic component of anticipated public CAPEX is represented by expenditures of the two private concessionaires in Metro Manila – Manila Water and Maynilad.13 This implies potentially large deficits in urban areas outside Metro Manila. The anticipated household CAPEX for urban water supply and sanitation are also both larger than the estimated deficit and surplus for urban water supply and sanitation, respectively. Since anticipated household CAPEX was modelled in the analysis as a fixed share of the total costs, the assumption is that

governments are successful in eliciting such investments by households as user contributions. The key implication is that the estimated surplus in urban sanitation is shallow and could easily become deficit should households spend less than their estimated contribution.14 For the same reason, the deficit for urban water supply could be much larger than reported in Table 2.1.

Aggregate and subsector-specific deficits can be reduced by accounting for omitted expenditures of local government units, water districts and other stakeholders. While the extent of the reduction is difficult to determine, it seems unlikely that the observed pattern can be reversed at least for rural areas. In addition, although some expenditures in rural services might have been missed in the data collection, one needs to considers the fact that the rural sanitation subsector in particular, but also the rural water supply sector, are assumed to rely heavily on household CAPEX. The same arguments hold here, only if government and stakeholders are successful in promotion and social mobilisation, it will successfully mobilise these household self-investments.

Figure 2.2 Sector Financing: Required, Anticipated (2012-2014) and Recent Expenditures, (2009-2011)

Totalinvestmentrequirement

Anticipatedinvestment

Recentinvestment

Ann

ual i

nves

tmen

t in

mill

ion

US

$

Ann

ual i

nves

tmen

t in

mill

ion

US

$

Household External Other Replacement NewDomestic

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700



Recentinvestment

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700Total sanitationTotal water supply

800

900

13 The details are provided in succeeding chapters. Also note that planned capital expenditures of Maynilad and Manila Water are tentative. The values are still being reviewed and subject to the approval of the regulatory office of the Manila Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS).14 A similar situation could also occur if the MWSS substantially reduces the planned capital expenditures of Maynilad and Manila Water.

Source: SDA costing


Table 2.2 Annual operation and maintenance costs

Subsector O&M US$ million/year

Rural water supply 62

Urban water supply 148

Water supply total 210

Rural sanitation 32

Urban sanitation 100

Sanitation total 132

Note: Totals may not add-up due to rounding

Source: SDA cousting

Figure 2.2 indicates that anticipated investments (excluding the contribution of households) for 2012-2014 in water supply and sanitation are higher than recent investments from 2009-2011. While this is a good sign, anticipated investments still fall short of investment requirements.

Current and future infrastructure would also need to be supported by an estimated US$342 million/year in operation and maintenance (O&M) expenditures (Table 2.2). A large proportion (62%) of this amount is for water supply. The critical issue here is whether tariffs of the utilities are sufficiently high to cover operation and maintenance requirements to support the water supply and sanitation facilities they need to maintain (and on top of that allow for depreciation to replace investments and support expansion). For facilities that are maintained by households, e.g. toilets and hand pumps, the issue is whether such O&M services are readily available and affordable for rural households, to avoid breakdown and collapse.


3. Reform Context

In 1995, the legal basis for the world’s largest water privatisation was approved through the National Water Crisis Act. Two years after, two joint venture companies succeeded in each securing for themselves a 25-year concession agreement under the MWSS. Halfway through this agreement, both companies succeeded in negotiating a 15-year extension to address their urban sanitation performance targets, extending their service provision arrangements until 2037.

In 2009-2010, the Philippine Water Supply Sector Roadmap and the Philippine Sustainable Sanitation Roadmap was prepared using multi-stakeholder dialogues. In 2011, the National Sewerage and Septage Management Program were approved for implementation.

Since 2011, government has introduced a number of measures designed to resolve the longstanding problems of fragmented and overlapping institutional mandates and a lack of direction in the sector. They include the following:

1. In 2011, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) was charged to act as lead agency for the water supply and sanitation sector with the aim of improving sector performance. A team was subsequently established with World Bank support to identify an appropriate structure for a lead water and sanitation unit, develop an operational plan for water supply and sanitation and identify targets, investment plans and programs for the sector. The report and recommendations of the team were published in May 2013. Among others, proposals included the

Since the Philippines’ independence in 1946 until 1955 most water supply systems were operated by local authorities. From 1955 to 1971, control of urban water supply was passed to the national government.15 In the early years of the Marcos Administration, several Presidential Decrees were passed that were designed to organize urban water supply and sanitation service delivery through national agencies such as the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS), the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) and the Rural Waterworks Development Corporation (which was eventually absorbed by LWUA). MWSS was a service provider while LWUA and the RWDC were specialized lending agencies that also provided organisational and technical assistance. LWUA organized Water Districts in urban areas and the RWDC organized the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Associations in rural areas. The RWDC was eventually absorbed by LWUA after seven years.

With the devolution of responsibilities on basic service provision to the local government units (LGUs) under the Local Government Code in 1991, barangays, municipalities, cities and provinces were allowed to finance, operate and maintain their own water supply systems. Since then a number of management and private sector partnership models have emerged. The scope for private sector participation increased further following a Supreme Court ruling that Water Districts do not have the exclusive right to operate public water supplies in cases where they fail to provide an acceptable service to the entire population in the service area. This has opened the door for private sector operators (as well as not-for-profit associations) to deliver services in areas with high demand.

15 World Bank Water and Sanitation Program – East Asia and the Pacific (2003-06-06). Management Models for Small Towns Water Supply. Lessons learned from case studies in the Philippines.


establishment of a dedicated “lead” Water and Sanitation Unit (proposed within DPWH). As a follow-up action, the government is currently in the process of an institutional review to identify which department and/or agency would be the most suitable for hosting the dedicated “lead water and sanitation unit”.

2. A High Level Inter-Agency Committee on Water was created in 2011 to formulate a master plan for water resources management.16 The plan was submitted to the President in April 2012 and contains key proposals to reconstitute the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) as the National Water Resources Management Office (NWRMO) under the Office of the President, with overall responsibility for water resources management and the economic regulation of water service providers.

These measures, if implemented, should pave the way for improved sector performance by articulating institutional responsibilities for service provision, consolidating regulation functions, and assigning responsibility for the overall planning and management of water supply and sanitation services unambiguously to a single lead agency. Having said this, sanitation and hygiene promotion would remain the responsibility of the Department of Health (DOH) and national (rural) water supply programs such as SALINTUBIG with the Department of Interior and Local Government, and LGUs playing a role in facilitating implementation, while the role of the proposed lead water and sanitation unit would be to ensure the effective coordination of water supply and sanitation planning and progress monitoring.

Milestones in the Philippine water and sanitation sector reform are summarized in Table 3.1.

16 This committee is led by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) with the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), the Office of the President (OP), the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and other concerned agencies as members.


Table 3.1 Key dates in the reform of the water and sanitation sector in the Philippines

Year Event

1955 Creation of the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority ( NAWASA).

1971 Republic Act 6234: Transformed NAWASA into the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) where it was responsible for service provision in Metro Manila, whereas other cities and towns were transferred back to local governments.

1973 Creation of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) and the Water District (WD) Model through Presidential Decree 198. LWUA was capitalised to provide financial, technical and institutional assistance to urban water service providers.

1974 Creation of the National Water Resources Council attached to the Department of Public Works, Transportation and Communications (later renamed the National Water Resources Board) to coordinate and integrate water resources development activities.

1975 Presidential Decree 856 (the Sanitation Code of the Philippines) provided for the enforcement of various sanitation policies including standards for water supply, sanitary facilities, sewerage and sewage management, food processing and servicing, abattoirs, markets, funeral parlors, and industrial hygiene.

1976 Presidential Decree 1067 (Water Code of the Philippines) on resource regulation and mandated the NWRB as the government agency responsible for the implementation of the Water Code.

1978 Barangay Water Projects. Creation of the DILG Water Supply and Sanitation Project Management Office ( DILG WSSPMO).

1980 Creation of the Rural Waterworks Development Corporation (RWDC) responsible for areas where neither LWUA nor MWSS operates.

1987 LWUA took over the work of the RWDC.

1991 Republic Act 7160 (The Local Government Code) provided for the decentralization of basic service provision and barangays, municipalities, cities and provinces were authorized to finance, operate and maintain their own water supply systems.

1995 Republic Act 8041 (National Water Crisis Act) provided the legal framework for the privatization of MWSS.

1997 25-years concession agreements were awarded the by MWSS to Maynilad Water Services, Inc (for the west zone) and to the Manila Water Company Inc (for the East Zone).

2004 Republic Act 9275 (Philippine Clean Water Act) that mandated DPWH to prepare a National Sewerage and Septage Management Program.

2005 Presidential Priority Program on Water (P3W) was approved and implemented by DPWH and NAPC through the adhoc Water and Sanitation Co-ordinating Office.

2009- 2010

Multi stakeholder preparation of the Philippine Water Supply Roadmap. 2nd edition in 2010.

Multi stakeholder preparation of the Philippine Sustainable Sanitation Roadmap.

2011 INFRACOM approved the National Sewerage and Septage Management Plan.

2011 SALINTUBIG Program (for the ‘waterless’ municipalities) replaced the P3W; is jointly implemented by the DOH, NAPC, DILG and LWUA.

2011 Executive Order 62. Creation of the Inter-Agency Committee on Water under the leadership of the DPWH.


4. Institutional Framework

The Philippine water and sanitation sector has for years been constrained by institutional fragmentation that impedes progress in service delivery and the protection of water resources. Until recently there has been no single agency to oversee the sector, but significant efforts are now underway to address this as outlined in Section 2.

Table 4.1 illustrates the complexity of current institutional arrangements. Urban water supply services are provided by a host of agencies including the Metropolitan Water and Sewerage System (MWSS) in Manila and its two private concessionaires,17 the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), that provides finance and technical assistance to around 600 water districts.18 Moreover, there are numerous small private service providers including housing developers and water cooperatives. For a number of large service providers, regulation is done by contract.19 At present the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) regulates only

Priorty actions for the institutional framework

• Implement new institutional arrangements including an expanded role for the National Water Resources Board as the sector regulator and its transition to a National Water Resources Management Office, and the establishment of a dedicated Water and Sanitation Unit as a lead sector agency (hosting department/agency to be identified through institutional review)

• Improve coordination mechanisms between actors at provincial and municipal levels

• Establish a national capacity building program to address rural subsectors by consolidating various initiatives already in place including the regional capacity building hubs established under the DILG

small private service providers, while LWUA regulates some Water Districts, but only those in which they have a financial interest. There is no agency regulating service provision by LGUs. The lack of a strong, independent regulator has impeded the achievement of universal access to adequate, reliable services and in some cases allowed poor performance to continue unchecked.

While there is no formal clear-cut distinction between the rural and urban subsectors, most rural piped water schemes are operated by local government units with the support of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) through the SALINTUBIG Program for so-called ‘waterless’ municipalities.20 The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) through the KALAHI CIDDS program21 is a major supporter of rural water supplies usually for point source or communal water systems. The Department of Agrarian Reform also funds

17 Manila Water Company, Inc and the Maynilad Water Services, Inc. 18 Water Districts are quasi private water service providers, officially categorized as Government Owned and Controlled Corporations (GOCC). Under Philippine Laws, waterless municipalities are those where less than 50% of their population have access to potable water. GOCCs are stock or non-stock corporations established by a special charter or law for the interest of everyone and subject to the test of economic viability. It is owned or controlled by the government directly, or indirectly through a parent corporation or a subsidiary corporation. 19 This means that the contractual agreements of the private provider and government agency provide for a regulator specific for their area of operation. Such regulation by contract exists in Metro Manila, Subic, and other LGU-based service contracts. 20 Waterless municipalities are those where less than 50% of their population have access to potable water.21 The KALAHI-CIDDS Program is a major anti-poverty program managed by the DSWD that has sub-project components that include among others, community water supply and sanitation projects. The recent MDGF Study on Investment Requirements report that DSWD plans to invest up to PhP 1.9 Billion a year from 2013 to 2019 for rural water supply projects alone.


some water supply projects as part of the Agrarian Reform Communities. These schemes are usually operated by cooperatives and barangay/rural water and sanitation associations. NWRB is officially mandated to regulate those private utilities and associations/cooperatives, however, their current resources are limited to effectively do so, and likewise small-scale providers lack the capacities to comply with the regulatory requirements.

Oversight for urban sanitation services in Metro Manila rests with the MWSS with service delivered through its concessionaires. Only a few Water Districts and LGUs invest in and operate sewerage systems. The DPWH National Sewerage and Septage Management Program (NSSMP), which was approved in 2011 is still in its infancy, with little planning, investments and no clear accountability at LGU level for sanitation services.

Table 4.1 Roles and responsibilities of agencies involved in water and sanitation

Current Roles and Responsibilities of Sector Agencies

Local Government Units (LGUs)

• Mandates generally based on the Local Government Code and include resource regulation, water supply provision and economic regulation of utilities. This includes responsibility for the planning, implementation and monitoring of water supply and sanitation programs.

• Provision of support to water service providers such as the Rural Water and Sanitation Associations, the Barangay Water and Sanitation Associations and cooperatives including funding from their development funds.

Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA)

• Capacity building support to water districts, including technical, institutional and financial assistance.• Regulation of Water Districts.

Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)

• Management of the water grants under SALINTUBIG Program of the government.• Capacity building support to LGUs.

– Provision of capacity building training to LGUs. – Coordination of LGU master plan preparation. – Provision of information to LGUs on available sector programs and financing.

National Water Resources Board (NWRB)

• Resource, Economic and Service Regulation of water service providers.

National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA)

• Coordinates the preparation of national development plans and investment programs.• Monitoring implementation of policies, programs and projects.

Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)

• Provision of technical support to LGUs upon request including implementation of piped water supply projects.• DPWH is hosting the Project Management Office for the National Sewerage and Septage Management Office. • They also provide oversight functions over LWUA and the MWSS.• Leads the Inter-Agency Committee on Water created under Executive Order 62.

Department of Finance(DOF)/Government Financing Institutions (GFIs)

• Financing support for the water supply sector.• DOF oversees performance of GFIs like the Development Bank of the Philippines, the Land Bank of the Philippines and the Local Water

Utilities Administration.

Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS)

• For water supply and sewerage services in Metro Manila through its two private concessionaires. It also has its own economic regulatory office, created by contract to regulate tariff and performance of the utilities.

DWSD • Implements the KALAHI-CIDDS program, a major anti-poverty program of the national government that have water supply and sanitation sub-projects in rural areas.

NAPC • Coordinates the pro-poor water supply projects of the national government.

22 DOH Administrative Order No. 2010-0021 on the subject of Sustainable Sanitation as a National Policy and a National Priority Program of the Department of Health (DOH) states as objectives that by 2022, all barangays will be declared open defecation free, all LGUs will have sanitation plans and budgets and with 100% of the population in all cities/municipalities with sanitary toilets.


Table 4.2 Proposed roles of the lead water and sanitation unit/agency (de vera, 2013)

Monitoring • Maintaining a centralized database of information on water service providers, service coverage and selected information on performance levels.

Financing • Lead agency for OBA activities• Implementer of source development programs funded by GOP grants• Allocate government resources for the WSS sector

Planning/Policy/ Programming

• Master planning for the sector • CAPEX programming • Policy formulation (in coordination with other agencies)• Setting and monitoring sector targets• Establishing operational standards• Implementation of the NSSMP

Reform Accountability

• Establishing reward and penalty systems for service providers • Initiating reforms within attached institutions

The mandates for rural sanitation are not clearly defined, with two agencies having an operational role. The Department of Health (DOH) holds lead responsibility and has adopted a policy objective22 to achieve open defecation free status for all barangays, and universal access to sanitary toilets in cities and municipalities. This policy has, however, received very little attention so far and little or no funding has been allocated for its implementation. At the same time, the Local Government Code assigns responsibility for rural sanitation to LGUs, though there are no plans, targets or monitoring systems in place against which LGUs can be held accountable. Local private sector providers of sanitation goods and services are neither organized nor regulated.

It is clear from the table that many roles and responsibilities overlap. For instance, while resource regulation is by the NWRB, economic regulation is done by a number of agencies: NWRB, LWUA, MWSS and a number of other smaller regulatory offices created by contract to oversee special zones, for example Subic Bay. LGU water systems, however, are outside the remit of any regulatory agency,

which is a major sector concern given that they serve a very large number of users.

Following the designation of DPWH as lead agency for the sector, the team tasked with the development of a new structure and mandate for the “lead water and sanitation unit”, and identification of investment plans and programs, proposed responsibilities for this lead sector agency in its 2013 draft report, as listed in Table 4.2 below.23 It also proposed that the lead water and sanitation unit would be hosted by DPWH. The report also recommended that a national capacity development program should be developed for the sector.

With comprehensive proposals developed, the priority now is for government to adopt and implement the reforms, complemented by a clear capacity development strategy and plan. The government is in the process of an institutional review to provide clarity as to which agency or department would be most suitable to host the proposed lead water and sanitation unit.

23 De Vera et al (2013)


5. Financing and its Implementation

(US$118,000 – 166,000) to each waterless LGU which then develops proposals for the amount allocated. In other words, short-term plans are made to fit given annual budgets, rather than budgets being allocated to support phased plans to meet town- or district-wide targets. In fact few, if any, cities outside the capital have a comprehensive plan for achieving universal coverage. The capacity to utilize the funds allocated is in any case compromized by the limited capacity of LGUs to meet project requirements relating to technical design and procurement.

The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DWSD) recently disclosed that through the KALAHI-CIDDS program, a total of PhP 1.9 billion (US$44 million) shall be allocated annually from 2013 to 2019 for pro-poor water supply sub-projects. This amount plus the SALINTUBIG Funds brings to PhP 3.4 billion (US$78 million) the total amount available for water supply projects annually, up to 2016.25 These amounts, though significant, still fall short

Total investments contributed by different stakeholders are difficult to track as there is no lead agency collating this information. Some LGUs invest in water enterprises; legislators contribute to water supply projects from the Philippine Development Assistance Fund (more commonly known as pork barrel funds); and further investments are made by the private sector (large, medium and small), water districts, some government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) and a number of NGOs. The establishment of a national account for water and sanitation would enable the monitoring of financial flows for water and sanitation programs, projects and investments.

Annual allocations for the implementation of various government programs are approved under the General Appropriations Act (GAA). Since 2005, this has authorised an annual investment of PhP 1.5 billion (US$36 million) for water supply projects in ‘waterless’ municipalities under the SALINTUBIG Program.24 This allocates PhP 5-7 million

Priority actions for financing

• Create a national account for water and sanitation, disaggregated between urban and rural to enable monitoring of investments towards the subsectors

• Increase investments towards water supply and sanitation, particularly in rural areas where large disparities exist between the rich and the poor

• Align budgeting processes to support the implementation of long-term strategies and investment plans by public service providers and translate these into annual work plans

• Improve local capacity in procurement and other financial management processes to facilitate budget releases.

• Introduce key result areas for local water supply and sanitation services to increase local accountability for service improvements and incentivise LGUs to access additional funding sources including matching grants from government

24 For 2012, the Salintubig Program was given a budget of PhP 800 million through the DILG and PhP 700 Million through LWUA. An additional PhP 500 million was also received by the DILG in 2012 to finance a number of water projects under the Transition Investment Support Plan (TISP) for ARMM. For 2013, a total of PhP 1.5 billion Salintubig Fund was allocated through the DILG. These budgets are mostly for water infrastructure with DILG allocating 4-5% of project costs for capacity development.25 Salintubig Program Funds is a commitment from 2010 to 2016 only.


of the total annual investments required to meet water supply universal coverage by 2025 by about PhP 18 billion (US$424 million).

Previous attempts to rationalize the sector financing framework were unsuccessful26 and instead there are a number of government institutions and commercial windows for financing water and sanitation investments by LGUs, water districts and the private sector. These remain under-utilized, however, as LGUs are reluctant to borrow, hoping instead that they can access grant funds from national projects or the ‘pork barrel’ funds of local legislators. Moreover, LGUs do not generally prioritise water and sanitation in local investment plans as they lack incentives to commit to performance targets during their three-year term of office.

While accurate figures are not available, there is considerably more funding available for water supply than for sanitation and sewerage, with grants, loans and output-based aid on offer for water supply projects. Since 2005, pro-poor water supply grants to waterless municipalities were provided to LGUs and through the water districts either as grants or soft loans27 with the intention that these would leverage additional resources from LGUs, the private sector and other actors. In addition, a Philippine Water Revolving Fund (PWRF)28 operated from 2008-2013 to encourage private banks to lend to water projects. A total of PhP 4.3 billion (US$102 million) was allocated to 22 projects, mainly for source development, rehabilitation and network expansion.

Moreover, government banks, such as the Land Bank and the Philippines Development Bank, are actively involved—with support of development partners—in lending to water districts as well as to the Manila concessionaires, and have expressed intention to move into market segments targeting semi-creditworthy water districts and lending for smaller private utilities.

Private water service providers are generally more assiduous than their public counterparts in expanding services in urban areas, partly as a result of their contractual obligations. The two largest private sector operators are expected to invest in expansion and efficiency improvements for both water supply and sewerage.29 Grants established under output-based aid agreements have also enabled subsidized connection fees to be provided for poor households in Manila.30 For rural areas, however, finance is more difficult to access and many piped schemes not falling under water districts are subsidised by LGUs.

For sanitation, particularly urban sewerage projects, the National Economic Development Authority Infrastructure Committee (NEDA INFRACOM) authorized a 40% national government subsidy for highly urbanised cities under the National Sewerage and Septage Management Program approved in 2011. To date, however, no projects have been established. Rural sanitation, meanwhile, receives very little funding from government and is generally regarded as a household responsibility, taking its toll on public health.

26 Executive Order 279 of 2004 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations provided for reforms in the financing policies for the water supply and sewerage sector and water service providers and for the rationalization of LWUA’s organizational structure and operations. LWUA Employee’s Union filed a case in court where they were granted a Temporary Restraining Order that prevented the implementation of this policy. 27 LWUA provided soft loans to the water districts operating in waterless municipalities. 28 The PWRF was set up by the Philippine government, American aid agency USAID and JICA to leverage concessional financing for water projects by bringing in private financial institutions. USAID supported the capacity-building program, while JICA provided a 40-year soft loan to be lent on to individual projects. The fund is administered by the Development Bank of the Philippines. 29 In 2009, Manila Water managed to get Presidential Approval for contract extension until 2037. Maynilad Water’s contract extension was approved in 2010. The longer concession period will allow the concessionaires to implement a higher investment plan while at the same time lowering the scheduled tariff adjustments to ensure customer affordability. 30 Manila Water is implementing a Global Partnership on Output-Based Aid funded project under the World Bank since 2007.


6. Sector Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring Programme. For example, government coverage figures do not specify whether water supplies are safe to drink, pressure in the pipes is adequate or 24-hour supply is available.

The harmonization of definitions and adoption of appropriate criteria for assessing the adequacy of hardware and services is needed in order for reliable monitoring data that is useful in planning and tracking progress in the sector to be produced. Pilot projects are currently underway to establish performance benchmarking systems for LGUs and for a few water service providers; these need to be scaled up if they are be useful for broader sector monitoring.

The absence of a central regulatory agency contributes to the lack of information on sector performance. There is no national asset registry system in place and while there is a water permit process under the National Water Resources Board, there is no obligation for those operators without a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) to register any new system that is being built.

Subsector monitoring is a difficult task in the Philippines given the absence (until recently) of a lead agency to coordinate this important function. Currently, each agency monitors its own concerns—for instance, LWUA monitors only the water districts that have outstanding loan obligations with them, while MWSS monitors exclusively the performance of their concessionaires. Furthermore, there is concern about the definition of terms, data collection strategies and approaches to monitoring and evaluation.

There are several sources of population-based coverage data including the National Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) and the annual poverty indicators survey undertaken by the National Statistics Office. The Department of Health conducts its Field Health Services Information System (FHSIS) survey annually and NEDA regularly collects agency level information that it collates and integrates in national plans and reports. An added complication in tracking progress in the sector is that these surveys do not apply the same criteria for classifying facilities, and determining their adequacy as those used by the UNICEF-WHO Joint

Priority actions for monitoring and evaluation

• Harmonise data collection systems, standardise the definition of terms and develop a coherent sector monitoring framework

• Establish a collective platform for a multi-stakeholder review process to monitor subsector performance (for example Joint Annual Sector Reviews)

31 Compared to the JMP list, no distinction is made in the NSO’s census on whether dug wells or springs are protected or not making them fall in the list of unimproved sources of water. Rain collection is also not in the NSO list. For sanitation, ventilated improved pit latrine and composting toilets are not in the NSO list considering that these types of toilets are not common in the Philippines. Water-sealed toilets with other depository in the NSO list would be similar to the flush or pour-flush to elsewhere category in the JMP list. However, the NDHS and APIS surveys also conducted by NSO use the JMP categories. The FHSIS reports do not have the different categories of sources of water and sanitary toilets in their reporting. 32 Licensed operators hold a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) and are registered service providers regulated by the National Water Resources Board. Water permits are only for resource extraction.


Much of the available data on urban water supply and sanitation relate to Metro Manila where the private sector concessionaires submit regular reports to MWSS. Outside of Metro Manila, water districts generally report to LWUA, while for non-water districts, regulated CPC holders of the NWRB are only required to report every five years.

Responsibility for monitoring rural water supply and sanitation coverage rests with provincial and municipal LGUs. The DILG has started to collect this information, but mostly for the waterless municipalities under their SALINTUBIG Program.

A proposal to set up an inter-agency, multi-stakeholder platform for sector monitoring was strongly supported in the SDA stakeholder consultation workshops. The approval of the proposed National Water Resources Management Office provides for the creation of one national, and several local level, multi-stakeholder platforms for monitoring progress and for knowledge, information sharing and collaboration.


7. Subsector: Rural Water Supply

Priority actions for rural water supply

• Establish a dedicated rural water supply section within the “lead water and sanitation unit” to spearhead subsector strategy development, monitoring and coordination

• Increase funding to expand access to piped services in rural areas and operationalise policies for full cost recovery to reduce the investment gap and improve sustainability of services

• Enable economies of scale and financial viability in service provision by consolidating small service providers and/or providing access to finance for system expansion

• Formalize the management of small piped schemes and introduce light-handed regulation including the use performance contracts to drive service quality and reliability and incentivize service provision to the poor

• Enhance rural water supply improvements (piped schemes) via other poverty alleviation programs such as the Bottom-Up Budgeting Process and the National Community Development Driven programme

• Expand the provision of technical support to small providers, combined with business planning services to facilitate access to finance for system expansion

• Develop systems for management support to schemes operated by community-based organisations, through partnerships with private sector and water districts

Government uses data from the National Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) to report on water supply. This indicates that about 86% of the rural population (40 million people) had access to improved water supply facilities in 2008.33 The dominant facilities were tubewells or boreholes (30%) and piped water into dwelling or yard (22%). While access rates are high relative to rural areas in other countries, there has been sluggish annual growth over the last two decades (just 0.2% between 1993 and 2008) although the level of service has improved somewhat, with slow but steady growth in access to piped supplies (see Figure 7.1).

Figure 7.1 Rural Water Supply Coverage

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1990 2000 2005 2010

Rur

al w

ater

sup

ply

cove

rage


JMP, improved JMP, piped

2015 20201995 2025

Source: JMP (2013); SDA costing

33 This includes households that use bottled water for drinking but have access to improved sources for washing and cooking.


JMP estimates, using multiple country survey data-sets, illustrate an annual increase in access to improved water supply of 0.8% between 1990 and 2011, when the level reached 92%. With an assumed population growth rate of 1.2% per year, the target of universal access implies that an estimated 1.3 million people per year will need to gain access to improved water supply facilities between 2009 and 2025. This is about 70% higher than the roughly 0.8 million people per year who gained access to improved water supply facilities between 1993 and 2008.34

Meeting the 2025 water supply target in rural areas is estimated to require US$ 324 million per year capital expenditures between 2009 and 2025 (Figure 7.2). Combined with the US$ 62 million per year in expenditures for operations and maintenance (see Section 2), this implies total financing requirements of US$ 386 million per year. These estimates are rather conservative because these are focused on hardware expenditures and ignore software costs incurred in delivering services (project management and transport) and capacity building.

Anticipated investments (i.e. measured as the annual average for 2012-2014) in rural water supply are likely to be substantially below the level required. Estimated to be about US$ 55 million per year (Figure 7.2), more than 90% of the anticipated investments are expected to come from households (US$ 23 million per year) and other domestic stakeholders (US$ 29 million per year), most of which are represented by the SALINTUBIG program of the DILG.

Recent investments or average annual expenditures for 2009-2011, which exclude the contribution of households, were also way below the required CAPEX for the subsector. Having said this, LGU investments are not recorded systematically hence the exact financial flows to the sub-sector are unclear.

While LGUs have a key role in the provision of rural water supply services, successive studies have found LGU-operated systems to have the worst performance of all utilities benchmarked. There are no clear performance targets or incentives for LGUs and accountability for service

Figure 7.2 Rural Water Investment Requirements (2009-2025)



Recentinvestment

Ann

ual i

nves

tmen

tin

mill

ion

US

$

0

50

100

150

200

250

Other

Replacement

New

Household

External

Domestic

300

350

Household anticipated investmentDeficit

Domestic anticipated investmentExternal anticipated investment

Total : US$ 324,000,000Per capita (new) : US$ 67

Source: SDA costing

34 The estimates are based on NDHS access rates.


provision remains diffuse. Underlying these constraints is the reality that water provision by LGUs is politically driven and there is no emphasis on professionalizing service delivery or achieving financial sustainability. Given the current weaknesses in the rural water supply service delivery, a dedicated section focusing on rural water supply will need to be established within the proposed lead water and sanitation unit. Its role should include strategic leadership; the co-ordination of national and local investment streams; target setting and monitoring; and fostering sustainable service provision through support systems, including strategies for resilience in the face of climate change impacts.

Figure 7.3 shows the result of the scorecard benchmarking process. The questions, scoring criteria and evidence are included in Annex 1.

The country generally scored low in four main areas: planning, expenditure, output and use outcomes. Within the enabling pillar, it was noted that there is no nationally approved policy for rural water supply. The lack of leadership and fragmentation of implementing agencies leads to inconsistent service delivery principles, for example on counterpart financing, and irrational and overlapping grant schemes. There is no overall investment strategy or plan to reach universal coverage in rural water supply, neither is there an annual process that reviews progress in the sub-sector.

Scores in the developing services pillar reflect the fact that data on subsector expenditure are fragmented, service providers are poorly monitored and details of new facilities developed each year are not properly recorded, making it very difficult to monitor progress towards national or local targets. Programs such as SALINTUBIG, and the national CDD program do support LGUs with low levels of access and high poverty rates, however, no regular review is done to see if these strategies are actually reducing inequalities in water supply access. In terms of equity of services in rural areas, the richest rural quintile is 1.7 times more likely to have access to improved water as the poorest quintile. However for piped house connection, the richest quintile has 17 times higher access than lowest quintile.

Turning to sustainability, the score on outcomes is low. Many schemes do not operate on a full cost recovery basis, capacities for management, operation and maintenance are limited and systems tend to fall into disrepair unless LGUs, particularly at barangay level, provide additional funds. Many rural operators do not have regulatory licenses and, being outside of the formal framework, receive little support through capacity building and performance regulation. There is no centralised or decentralised asset register or inventory system, detailing where water scheme points are located, their condition and functionality.

Enabling Developing SustainingPlanning

0.4

Policy

1

Budget

1

Output

0.5

Expenditure

0.5

Maintenance

1.13

Equity

1

Expansion

1.5 0.5

Outcomes

Figure 7.3 Rural Water Supply Scorecard


Strategies are needed to improve the quality and sustainability of service delivery and facilitate greater access to piped schemes by the poor. One element in achieving this would be to encourage water service providers to develop operations large enough to achieve economies of scale, though the consolidation of small providers and/or by enabling access to finance for system expansion via tariffs, borrowing or public grants.

At national level, another important initiative would be to formalize the management of smaller schemes such as those under LGU control and bring them within the remit of the sector regulator. It is encouraging that plans for this are already underway, with regulatory requirements differentiated according to the level of service offered. Performance contracts could be a vehicle for regulation, helping to drive service quality and reliability and incentivising service provision to the poor.


8. Subsector: Urban Water Supply

changed very little over this period; with around 0.8 million people per year gaining access to improved sources, the level of access barely kept pace with population growth. The rate will need to almost double to about 1.4 million people per year between 2009 and 2025 if the country is to achieve the target of universal access to improved water supply.

An estimated capital expenditure of US$514 million per year is required for the country to meet its targets by 2025 (Figure 8.2). This implies a financing requirement of US$662 million per year if the US$148 million per year in operations and maintenance expenditures (see Section 2) are considered in the analysis. As with rural water supply, the estimated financing requirements are conservative because software costs are ignored in the analysis.

Priority actions for urban water supply

• Establish a comprehensive regulatory framework covering all types of service providers, including local government-run schemes, water districts plus private and independent operators, both large and small, and consolidate these roles gradually within a national regulator

• Develop a financing policy and strategy, linked with a graduation policy for utilities based on the creditworthiness, in order to attract commercial finance, and accelerate access to concessional finance to support the expansion of services

• Develop capacity of local government to contract, manage and oversee private sector participation modalities, in order to leverage private sector investment, use professional capabilities of the private sector and encourage the consolidation of small-scale service providers

• Introduce multi-stakeholder, performance-based planning and monitoring including a system of annual subsector reviews

• Build capacity and increase the accountability of LGUs for improving the quality and sustainability of service provision, using performance benchmarks and an incentive and/or penalty system

Information from the NDHS indicates that about 94% of the urban population (41 million people) had access to improved water supply facilities in the Philippines in 2008.35 About 38% of the population used piped water into the dwelling or yard as their drinking water source while 14% had a tube well or borehole. Reported access rates for these facilities are in fact conservative since one third of respondents reported bottled water as their drinking source but also had access to improved water sources for washing and cooking.

Access to piped water supplies has risen substantially from 40% of the urban population in 1990 to 61% by 2011 (Figure 8.1). However, the proportion of the population with access to improved water supply, which was already quite high,

35 This includes households that use bottled water for drinking but have access to improved sources for washing and cooking.


Anticipated investments in urban water supply are likely to be slightly smaller than required capital expenditure. Estimated at about US$500 million per year (Figure 8.2), most of the anticipated investments are expected to come from households (US$194 million per year) and other domestic stakeholders (US$302 million per year). Furthermore, the bulk of the investment will be in Metro Manila and nearby urban areas: nearly US$288 million (95%) of the US$302 million per year that is contributed by (other) domestic stakeholders are from the projected expenditures of Manila Water and Maynilad.36 This suggests that the surplus is confined only to Metro Manila and nearby regions. Urban areas farther away from Metro Manila are likely to have deficits which may not be too different in terms of scale form the rural regions.

Figure 8.3 illustrates the urban water supply scorecard (see detailed questions in Annex 1). Among the four subsectors, urban water supply has the most developed service delivery pathway, due largely to the focus of national government and private sector on Metro Manila and other larger cities. Since some scorecard questions relate only to the three largest cities and utilities, the scorecard tends to reflect the

Figure 8.1 Urban Water Supply Coverage

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1990 2000 2005 2010

Urb

an w

ater

sup

ply

cove

rage

2015 20201995 2025


JMP, improved JMP, piped


Figure 8.2 Urban Water Investments Requirements



Recentinvestment

Annu

al in

vest

men

t in

milli

on U

S$

0

100

200

300

400

Other

Replacement

New

Household

External

Domestic

500

600




Source: SDA costing

situation in these growth centers, which is not reflective of water provision in other urbanised areas. This discrepancy between Metro Manila and other urban areas could also be observed in the financial model, where the picture looks fairly positive while investment deficits remain in other urban centers.

36 Also note that part of the remaining amount is expected to be allocated to Metro Manila as well.


For the subsector as a whole, there are some important gaps in the current institutional framework, not the least of which is that there is no lead agency tasked with coordination, planning and policy development, nor any platform for sector-wide, multi-stakeholder assessment of subsector performance. Furthermore, it is impossible to clearly identify investments and subsidies for urban water supply in the relevant budgets.

The Philippine Water Supply Sector Roadmap was produced through a multi-stakeholder consultative process and is the key policy document for the subsector, though it does not disaggregate between urban and rural areas. While not officially approved by the cabinet-level NEDA Infrastructure Committee, its Sub-Committee on Water Resources has used the outcome of the consultative process as a reference point for new sector policies and strategies, including those in the Philippine Development Plan 2010-2016 that has been approved and is currently undergoing mid-term updating.

There is a need for sector policy to make separate provisions for urban and rural services since these different contexts have significant implications both technically (use of bulk water schemes and clustered connections rather than household connections, for instance) and in institutional terms (for example, the need for formal service provision rather than management by informal user groups).

There are various funding sources that can be tapped for urban water supply development. However, there is general concern that while loan funds are available, the average utilisation rate has been less than 50% over the past three years. Many LGUs or service providers (such as water districts and small private operators) do not have the capacity to prepare successful loan proposals, have little appetite to borrow and in general have a low capacity to absorb large investments, which are subject to bureaucratic public disbursement procedures. Similarly, many LGUs lack the capacity respond to the increasing number of proposals received from large private sector operators interested in taking over water district services.

Regulation is better developed in urban water supply compared to the other subsectors and licensed water service providers are legally required to submit independent audited annual reports and balance sheets.37 In the three largest cities (Metro Manila, Davao City and Cebu City), service providers keep good records of new asset development and this is reported to the regulators. However, economic regulation remains fragmented with MWSS regulating the concessionaires by contract, LWUA regulating water districts and NWRB regulating other licensed service providers. Economic regulation also requires regulated entities to conduct public hearings for tariff approval. Until now, only about 44% of the urban population is served by providers under economic regulation; many private

Figure 8.3 Urban Water Supply Scorecard


0

Policy

1.5

Budget

1

Output

1.5

Expenditure

1.5

Maintenance

1.9

Equity

2.5

Expansion

2.5 2.5

Outcomes

37 Securities Regulation Code Rule 68 requires all juridical entities to file standard Philippine Financial Reports.


or association-like service providers continue to operate unregistered and unregulated. The NWRB is planning to carry out a nationwide inventory to gradually register and license all service providers, introducing a light-handed regulatory regime for those multiple small-scale service providers.38

It is estimated that only 36% of the urban population is served by either a water district or regulated private sector provider and only the three largest cities have specific plans to extend services to the unserved poor, for example via bulk service provision, socialised rates or payment of connection fee by instalment. Here, current rules on economic regulation indicate that an average water bill should not exceed 5% of the income of the lowest quintile group. Furthermore, there is socialised pricing39 built in the progressive block tariff structure. Other innovative schemes to serve the poor are largely project-based but could potentially be replicated and scaled up.

In terms of system functionality and maintenance, the three largest utilities report non-revenue water (NRW) to be in the range of 20 to 40%.40 All regulated utilities implement

cost recovery tariffs which enable them to have an average operating ratio of about 1.2. The tariffs are subject to review every five years or when adjustments are required, and this practice is generally adhered to. Most water districts perform fairly well, while LGU-run and non-ring fenced utilities have the worst performance. It is likely, therefore, that LGU subsidies are flowing to unsustainable services. For all water supply services, climate change impacts present a threat to sustainability, calling for the adoption of strategies to enhance resilience.

All regulated utilities prepare business plans that include measures to expand access and are allowed to take commercial loans to offset current investment needs against future revenues. However, while the major utilities are able to do this, many small providers would be unable to do so because their operations are not commercially viable.

Regarding equity, NDHS 2008 data indicate that urban access to improved water is 91% for the lowest quintile and 100% for the richest. However, access to a house connection is three times higher for the richest quintile (98%) than for the poorest quintile (32%).

38 The Water and Sanitation Program of the World Bank is supporting this NWRB project. 39 The Maynilad scheme for instance offers poor households a special bulk meter rate (called AVERES or average residential rate) limited to 10 cu.m. per month per household. 40 Average non-revenue water of the three largest utilities: Manila Water Company, Inc ( 2011): 13%, Maynilad Water Services Inc ( 2013), 38% and Davao City Water District (2012), 25%.


9. Subsector: Rural Sanitation and Hygiene

pits (16%). About 15% of the rural population was reported as not having access to a facility and therefore assumed to practice open defecation. Rural sanitation improvements are also monitored through the regular census on access to sanitary toilet facilities. These reports, however, are not disaggregated between urban and rural areas and there is no systematic annual multi-stakeholder review process that formulates pro-poor policy and implementation recommendations.

Starting from a fairly low base, access to improved sanitation facilities has considerably increased in the past decades (Figure 9.1). Data from the NDHS (government estimates) suggest a 1.3 percentage point annual increase in access rates (including shared access) between 1993 (59%) and 2008 (79%). On the other hand, JMP estimates imply annual increases of 1.2 percentage points between 1990 (45%) and 2011 (69%). With an assumed population growth rate of 1.2% per year, the target of universal access requires an estimated 1.2 million people per year to gain access to improved sanitation facilities between 2009 and 2028.

Based on information from the NDHS, about 79% of the rural population (37 million people) had access to improved sanitation facilities in the Philippines in 2008.41 The dominant facilities were pour-flush toilets to septic tank (53%) and wet

Priority actions for rural sanitation and hygiene

• Operationalise and fund the Zero Open Defecation Program, within the framework of an equitable rural sanitation and hygiene promotion policy, a capacity building plan, an implementation plan and a monitoring system

• Develop a financing strategy for the programme that includes public investments to generate household demand for sanitation, output-based subsidies to the very poor and collective incentives for barangays and LGUs in achieving Zero Open Defecation

• Strengthen rural sanitation promotion via other poverty alleviation programmes, such as the Bottom-Up Budgeting Process, the National Community Development Driven Programme and the National Cash Transfer Programme (4Ps)

Figure 9.1 Rural Sanitation Coverage

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1990 2000 2005 2010

Rur

al im

prov

ed s

anita

tion

cove

rage


JMP, improved JMP, improved + shared

2015 20201995 2025 2030


41 This includes households that have access to shared facilities.


Meeting the 2028 sanitation target for rural areas is estimated to require about US$182 million per year in capital expenditures (Figure 9.3). Combined with the US$32 million per year in expenditures for operations and maintenance (see Section 2), this implies a total financing requirement of US$214 million/year. As with rural water supply, the estimated financing requirements are conservative because these only include hardware costs and exclude software costs. Such software costs could be significant because there is a need to invest in demand generation among households and capacity building among all stakeholders.

Anticipated investments in rural sanitation are insignificant compared to required CAPEX. Estimated to be about US$21 million per year (Figure 11), most of the anticipated investments are expected to come from households (US$20 million per year) and (other) domestic stakeholders (US$1 million per year).

In 2010, the Department of Health formally announced the adoption of a policy and national priority program for sanitation commonly known as the ‘Zero Open Defecation’ programme.43 This is yet to be funded, however, while the ongoing SALINTUBIG program focuses only on water supply investments. LGU and barangay budgets for sanitation are not known but based on anecdotal evidence are generally restricted to ‘some bowls and bags of cement’ and there are no financing targets or coordination mechanisms for domestic and donor expenditures. Furthermore, the only initiatives underway to expand the role of the domestic private sector in promoting and supplying accessible, affordable and aspirational facilities are small projects run by external agencies.

Most of the progress in recent years has been achieved by households investing in toilets under their own initiative, without external support or encouragement, as masons, sanitary hardware and building materials are readily available

Figure 9.2 Rural Sanitation Investment Requirements



Recentinvestment

Ann

ual i

nves

tmen

tin

mill

ion

US

$

020406080

100

Other

Replacement

New

Household

External

Domestic

120140160180200

Although this is only a little more than the roughly 1.1 million people per year that gained access to improved facilities between 1993 and 2008, the task will be more challenging as it is the hard-to-reach and poor households that are not using improved sanitation facilities.42 NDHS data indicate that the richest quintile is 3.4 times as likely to have access to an improved sanitation facility (93%) as compared to the lowest quintile (27%), while open defecation in the richest quintile is zero and 46% for the lowest quintile.




Source: SDA costing

42 The estimates were based on NDHS access rates.43 Department of Health Administrative Order No. 2010-0021 declaring Sustainable Sanitation as a National Policy and a National Priority Program of the Department of Health. This policy defined the objectives of achieving universal access to safe and adequate sanitary facilities by 2028 and that all barangays shall be declared Open Defecation Free by 2022.


in most of the country. Affordability is a constraint for poor households, however, and there are other purchasing barriers such as price perceptions and the lack of low-cost products that can be purchased through ‘one-stop shop’ arrangements.

Implementation of the Zero Open Defecation programme should be expedited, plus there are other rural development and poverty reduction programmes that could also incorporate sanitation and hygiene promotion into their operations, such as the Community–Driven Development Programme and the national Cash Transfer scheme (4Ps) that could help target effective messages to poor households, combined with support for sanitation mobilised through the Bottom-Up Budgeting Process of LGUs. There may also be scope for developing a substantive sanitation and hygiene promotion component within SALINTUBIG. Ground work on sanitation marketing by external support agencies also has the potential for scaling up, but this can only happen with government support at national and local levels.

LGUs have a pivotal role to play in promoting and sustaining rural sanitation and hygiene but their capacity, interest and commitment need to be strengthened. LGU accountability systems, key results indicators and/or other incentives should be introduced to motivate both the political leadership and LGU operational staff to reach sanitation targets, securing additional resources where necessary from local development funds or the bottom up budgeting and planning (BUBP) funding route. Coordination between DILG and DOH will be paramount, with LGUs in the implementing and local policy making role, and DOH with a focus on national policy, implementation guidance and technical assistance for the roll our Zero Open Defecation Programme, empowering the DILG-hosted regional hubs for capacity building of implementers.

The rural sanitation scorecard (Figure 9.3) shows clear blockages for service delivery that need to be addressed across the enabling, developing and sustaining pillars.

Figure 9.3. Rural Sanitation Scorecard


0.4

Policy

2.5

Budget

0

Output

0

Expenditure

1.5

Markets

1.1

Equity

0

Up-take

1

Outcomes

2


10. Subsector: Urban Sanitation and Hygiene

Priority actions for urban sanitation and hygiene

• Establish institutional arrangements to facilitate implementation of the National Sewerage and Septage Management Program (NSSMP) and increase local government and water district accountability on the coverage and quality of urban sanitation services

• Develop a sanitation investment framework and mandate local governments to adopt city sanitation plans incorporating measures to improve cost recovery and extend affordable services to the poor

• Adopt a cost-effective approach to investment whereby the gradual expansion of sewerage is complemented by measures to maximize connections and to improve fecal sludge management, since most households will continue using septic tanks for the foreseeable future

• Build local capacity to enable successful planning and implementation of the NSSMP

Information from the NDHS indicates that about 94% of the urban population (41 million people) had access to improved sanitation facilities in 2008.44 About 84% of the urban population had access to pour-flush toilets to septic

tanks. However, access to treated sewers was, and remains, low (3.5%). Nearly 4% of the urban population continues to practice open defecation. JMP (2013) estimates access to improved sanitation at 79%, excluding shared facilities.

Access rates in urban areas have risen noticeably in recent decades (see Figure 10.1), with an annual increase of about 0.5% per year. In absolute numbers, NDHS estimates imply that about one million people per year gained access to improved facilities between 1993 and 2008. With rapid urbanization, this must almost double to about 11.8 million people per year up to 2028 if the country is to achieve its universal access target.

While access rates are high, a major challenge for the sector is the low level of safe collection and treatment of wastewater, currently estimated at just 4%; and of septage, estimated at 10% (see Figure 10.2).

Figure 10.1. Urban Sanitation Coverage

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1990 2000 2005 2010

Urb

an im

prov

ed s

anita

tion

cove

rage


JMP, improved JMP, improved + shared

2015 20201995 2025 2030


44 This includes shared facilities.


any of the urban centers. In most cities, the primary service providers are unregulated desludging contractors and there are only a few formal septage management services operated by either local government units (LGUs) or water districts.45

There is very limited information on current sanitation expenditure in the Philippines. Information available from 2001-2007 indicates that only about 3% of the total water supply and sanitation budget was spent on sanitation, and this represented only about 0.03% of the GDP.

Figure 10.2. Wastewater and Septage Flow

Totalwastewater

treated~4%

Septage safelydisposed/

treated10%

Septage+wastewater

unsafelydisposed

Wastewatersafely

collected

Septagesafely

collected30%

Direct Sewerage(no Septic Tank)

~3%

Septic Tankswith Sewerage

~1%

Septic TanksNO Sewerage

84%

Other On Site9%

OpenDefecation

3%

URBANPopulation61 million

The urban sanitation landscape of the Philippines presents two very different pictures, one for Metro Manila and the other for the remainder of the country. In Metro Manila, the two concessionaires are accelerating investments and targeting universal access to sewerage by 2037, the end of the concession period. This is being achieved through a cost-effective approach that maintains the use of combined systems and septic tanks in much of the city, and includes a septage management component. Outside of Metro Manila, apart from the Baguio City and a few other locations (Boracay, Clark, Subic), there are no sewerage systems in

45 World Bank and AusAid (2013)


An estimated US$437 million per year in capital expenditure is required for the country to meet its targets by 2028 (Figure 10.3). This implies a financing requirement of US$537 million per year if the US$100 million per year in operations and maintenance expenditures (see Section 2) are considered in the analysis. As with rural sanitation, the estimated financing requirements are conservative because software costs are ignored in the analysis.

Anticipated investments are estimated to be higher than required CAPEX by about US$21 million per year. Calculated to be about US$458 million per year (Figure 10.3), the anticipated investments are expected to come from households (US$163 million per year) and (other) domestic stakeholders (US$284 million per year) and external sources (US$11 million per year). However, this result should be interpreted with care. Firstly, there is no assurance that households are going to spend US$163 million per year. Hence, the estimated surplus in the sector could easily become a deficit. Secondly, as with urban water supply, the investments are heavily skewed towards Metro Manila and nearby urban areas as 93% of the US$284 million per year that is contributed by other domestic stakeholders is based on projected expenditures by the concessionaires Manila Water and Maynilad Water. As with urban water supply, this suggests that the surplus (or excess of anticipated over required CAPEX) may be confined to Metro Manila and nearby urban areas. The story is likely to be the opposite for urban areas that are farther away from Metro Manila.

Efforts are now being made to improve sanitation in urban centers outside of Metro Manila via the National Sewerage and Septage Management Program (NSSMP)46 developed by DPWH as a consequence of the Clean Water Act 2004. Formally adopted in 2011, the program focuses on 17 highly urbanised centers and includes targets such as those that declare that by 2020, 60 LGUs have local sanitation plans; 76 sewerage or septage management systems are built

and locally managed; and almost 10 million people have access to improved sanitation. Of these, just over 2 million will have new sewer connections. PhP 13.4 billion (US$317 million) has been allocated to the programme so far, but plans are a work in progress as the DPWH is still promoting the programme and soliciting LGU interest (counterpart investment) to participate. While the national government has agreed to provide counterpart commitments, concrete projects have not yet materialised.



Recentinvestment

Ann

ual i

nves

tmen

tin

mill

ion

US

$

0

100

200

300

Other

Replacement

New

Household

External

Domestic

400

500

50

150

250

350

450




Source: SDA costing

Figure 10.3. Urban Sanitation Investment Requirements

46 The NSSMP provides for the following six intervention areas: a) Septage management (collection, treatment and reuse of biosolids); b) Sewerage systems (interceptors, piped sewerage and centralized treatment plants); c) Ecological sanitation (dry sanitation or urine diversion dry toilet [UDDT], arbor loo, excreta reuse); d) Toilets (public toilets, programs to reduce open defecation); e) Systems for point sources (factories, markets, high rise buildings, schools, slaughterhouses); and f) Systems for non-point sources (open bottom septic tanks, backyard hog farms).


A further obstacle to the implementation of the NSSMP is that governance arrangements for urban sanitation are fragmented and under-developed at all levels. The subsector is not regulated except (by contract) in Metro Manila and there is no clear approach for managing sanitation systems at the local government level. Against this backdrop the ongoing establishment of a lead agency/unit for the sector and a single regulator (NWRMO) are positive steps that should enable improved subsector performance. These initiatives are, however, in their early stages and much remain to be done, for example an NSSMP office has recently been established in the DPWH but is not yet fully operational.

The amalgamation of small water and sanitation service providers to create stronger and more efficient organizations is also under consideration, including the introduction of performance contracts to incentivize progress in service coverage and quality.

Whether urban sanitation services should be managed separately from water supply is a subject of much debate

in the sector, the potential for cost recovery being a major consideration. The World Bank East Asia Sanitation review found that sewerage systems are best managed in conjunction with water supply under a single operator.

No detailed assessment has been made of human resource capacity needs in the subsector, nevertheless it is evident that water districts and local governments do not have the skills to professionally plan, implement and manage sewerage systems, though some are managing septage management programmes. A recent World Bank review47 on the status of urban sanitation in the Philippines noted that most of the available sanitation experts resides either within the Metro Manila concessionaires or elsewhere in the private sector. Only one quarter of registered sanitary engineers are currently practising, reflecting the low level of activity in the subsector.

The urban sanitation scorecard (Figure 10.4) reflects many of the findings outlined above, highlighting weaknesses in planning under the enabling pillar and for all sub-components under the developing and sustaining pillars.

Figure 10.4 Urban Sanitation Scorecard


0.4

Policy

2.5

Budget

1

Output

0

Expenditure

0.5

Markets

0.4

Equity

0.5

Up-take

1

Outcomes

0.5

47 World Bank (2013)


11. Conclusion

In order to reach national targets of universal access to water supply by 2025 and sanitation by 2028, an average of US$803 million per year will need to be spent on water supply and US$619 million per year on sanitation, plus US$210 million per year to finance the operation and maintenance of current and future water supply infrastructure and US$132 million per year for sanitation. Anticipated public capital expenditure is estimated at US$338 million per year for water supply and US$298 for sanitation. Combined, these account for about 0.3% of the 2012 GDP. Domestic funding sources are expected to provide a very large share (97%) of anticipated public expenditures, with the majority (95%) of anticipated public capital expenditure targeted at urban areas.

The national targets will only be met if there is strong political will to mobilize the investments required, streamline sector leadership, resolve institutional fragmentation, develop capacity at all levels and enhance regulation in order to create incentives for expanding and improving service provision, particularly to the poor. The sustainability of new and improved services is also threatened by climate change, calling for strategies to enhance resilience. The scorecard results highlight these and other bottlenecks to progress that need to be resolved by action at national and local levels.

In addition to specific subsectoral actions recommended in the previous sections, reflecting the bottlenecks as

indicated in the overview scorecard (Figure 11.1), the following sector wide priority actions are recommended to resolve the challenges highlighted by this Service Delivery Assessment:

• Implement new institutional arrangements including an expanded role for the National Water Resources Board as the sector regulator and its transition to a National Water Resources Management Office, and the establishment of a dedicated Water and Sanitation Unit as a lead sector agency (hosting department/agency to be identified through institutional review).

• Improve coordination mechanisms between actors at provincial and municipal levels.

• Establish a national capacity building programme, especially to address rural subsectors, by consolidating various initiatives already in place including the regional capacity building hubs established under the DILG.

• Harmonise data collection systems, standardise the definition of terms and develop a coherent sector monitoring framework.

• Establish a collective platform for a multi-stakeholder review process to monitor subsector performance (for example Joint Annual Sector Reviews).


• Increase sector investment, particularly in rural areas where large disparities exist between the rich and the poor, as well as funding for “software”, specifically for rural sanitation programs.

• Align budgeting to support the implementation of long-term strategies and investment plans by public service providers, and translate these into annual work plans and budgets.

• Introduce key result areas for local water supply and sanitation services to increase local accountability for service improvements and incentivize LGUs to access additional funding sources including matching grants from national government and private sector sources.

• Create a national account for water and sanitation, disaggregated between urban and rural to enable better monitoring of financial flows towards the subsectors.


RURAL WATER SUPPLY

URBAN WATER SUPPLY

RURAL SANITATION

URBAN SANITATION


0.4

Policy

1

Budget

1

Output

0.5

Expenditure

0.5

Maintenance

1.13

Equity

1

Expansion

1.5 0.5

Outcomes


0

Policy

1.5

Budget

1

Output

1.5

Expenditure

1.5

Maintenance

1.9

Equity

2.5

Expansion

2.5 2.5

Outcomes


0.4

Policy

2.5

Budget

0

Output

0

Expenditure

1.5

Markets

1.1

Equity

0

Up-take

1

Outcomes

2


0.4

Policy

2.5

Budget

1

Output

0

Expenditure

0.5

Markets

0.4

Equity

0.5

Up-take

1

Outcomes

0.5

SUMMARY OF SCORECARD RESULTSFigure 11.1 Summary of Scorecard Result

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in t

he P

hilip

pin

es38

Ann

ex 1

: Sco

reca

rd a

nd E

xpla

natio

nSu

b-se

ctor

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

Scor

eCr

iteria

for s

corin

gEx

plan

atio

n fo

r sco

reSo

urce

of e

vide

nce

ENAB

LING

RUR

AL W

ATER

SUP

PLY

RWS

1Se

ctor

targ

ets

Are

ther

e RW

S ac

cess

targ

ets

in th

e na

tiona

l lev

el d

evel

opm

ent p

lan?

0.5

Ther

e m

ight

be

targ

ets

in th

e de

velo

pmen

t pl

an b

ut th

is c

ould

be

very

gen

eral

; i.e

. not

hing

sp

ecifi

c fo

r rur

al. T

he s

corin

g re

flect

s th

is

situ

atio

n.

• Th

ere

is a

n ex

istin

g na

tiona

l tar

get b

ut n

ot

stan

dard

ized

and

not d

isag

greg

ated

Philip

pine

Dev

elop

men

t Pla

n, M

DG

Prog

ress

Rep

orts

, the

PW

SSR

and

the

PSSR

, the

NSS

MP

and

the

NOH

RWS

2Se

ctor

pol

icy

Is th

ere

a ru

ral w

ater

pol

icy

that

is

agre

ed b

y st

akeh

olde

rs, a

ppro

ved

by g

over

nmen

t, an

d is

pub

lical

ly av

aila

ble?

0If

ther

e is

a d

raft

polic

y an

d th

is h

as b

een

agre

ed b

y st

akeh

olde

rs b

ut n

ot y

et a

ppro

ved

this

will

be s

core

d as

0.5

Ach

ievin

g a

scor

e of

1

requ

ires

that

the

polic

y/st

rate

gy/ o

rder

/act

ha

s be

en c

onsu

lted

on w

ith s

take

hold

ers,

is

offic

ially

end

orse

d by

the

gove

rnm

ent a

nd th

at

is p

ublic

and

ther

efor

e al

l sec

tor a

ctor

s ha

ve

unre

stric

ted

acce

ss.

• No

nat

iona

l pol

icy,

with

no

spec

ific

polic

y fo

r rur

al w

ater

sup

ply

• Gu

idel

ines

end

orse

d bu

t not

app

rove

d,

ther

efor

e no

t mad

e pu

blic

ly av

aila

ble

for a

ll

The

wat

er c

ode

and

the

sani

tatio

n co

de d

o no

t spe

cify

pol

icie

s on

rura

l wat

er s

uppl

y.

RWS

2Se

ctor

pol

icy

Is th

ere

a ru

ral w

ater

pol

icy

that

is

agre

ed b

y st

akeh

olde

rs, a

ppro

ved

by g

over

nmen

t, an

d is

pub

lical

ly av

aila

ble?

0If

ther

e is

a d

raft

polic

y an

d th

is h

as b

een

agre

ed b

y st

akeh

olde

rs b

ut n

ot y

et a

ppro

ved

this

will

be s

core

d as

0.5

Ach

ievin

g a

scor

e of

1

requ

ires

that

the

polic

y/st

rate

gy/ o

rder

/act

ha

s be

en c

onsu

lted

on w

ith s

take

hold

ers,

is

offic

ially

end

orse

d by

the

gove

rnm

ent a

nd th

at

is p

ublic

and

ther

efor

e al

l sec

tor a

ctor

s ha

ve

unre

stric

ted

acce

ss.

• N

o na

tiona

l pol

icy,

with

no

spec

ific

polic

y fo

r rur

al w

ater

sup

ply

• Gu

idel

ines

end

orse

d bu

t not

app

rove

d,

ther

efor

e no

t mad

e pu

blic

ly av

aila

ble

for a

ll

The

wat

er c

ode

and

the

sani

tatio

n co

de d

o no

t spe

cify

pol

icie

s on

rura

l wat

er s

uppl

y.

RWS

2Se

ctor

pol

icy

Is th

ere

a ru

ral w

ater

pol

icy

that

is

agre

ed b

y st

akeh

olde

rs, a

ppro

ved

by g

over

nmen

t, an

d is

pub

lical

ly av

aila

ble?

0If

ther

e is

a d

raft

polic

y an

d th

is h

as b

een

agre

ed b

y st

akeh

olde

rs b

ut n

ot y

et a

ppro

ved

this

will

be s

core

d as

0.5

Ach

ievin

g a

scor

e of

1

requ

ires

that

the

polic

y/st

rate

gy/ o

rder

/act

ha

s be

en c

onsu

lted

on w

ith s

take

hold

ers,

is

offic

ially

end

orse

d by

the

gove

rnm

ent a

nd th

at

is p

ublic

and

ther

efor

e al

l sec

tor a

ctor

s ha

ve

unre

stric

ted

acce

ss.

• No

nat

iona

l pol

icy,

with

no

spec

ific

polic

y fo

r rur

al w

ater

sup

ply

• Gu

idel

ines

end

orse

d bu

t not

app

rove

d,

ther

efor

e no

t mad

e pu

blic

ly av

aila

ble

for a

ll

The

wat

er c

ode

and

the

sani

tatio

n co

de d

o no

t spe

cify

pol

icie

s on

rura

l wat

er s

uppl

y.

RWS

3In

stitu

tiona

l Rol

es0

Scor

e 0.

5 ev

en if

ther

e is

no

sing

le p

olic

y/st

rate

gy/ o

rder

/act

but

the

role

s m

ust b

e se

t ou

t in

reco

gnize

d of

ficia

l pol

icy

guid

ance

and

m

ust b

e di

stin

ct a

nd c

onsi

sten

t.

Scor

e 1

if th

e ro

les

are

dist

inct

and

con

sist

ent

and

that

thes

e ar

e op

erat

iona

lized

.

• Th

ere

is a

nee

d fo

r a ‘s

uper

body

’ to

mon

itor t

he s

ubse

ctor

, lac

k of

lead

ersh

ip

lead

s to

uns

tabl

e an

d in

cons

iste

nt p

olic

ies

no s

peci

fic a

genc

y in

cha

rge

for r

ural

w

ater

sup

ply

Natio

nal W

ater

Res

ourc

es M

anag

emen

t Fr

amew

ork

Plan

201

1

Stak

ehol

der w

orks

hop

asse

ssm

ents

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t39

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

RWS

4Fu

nd fl

ow c

o-or

dina

tion

Does

gov

ernm

ent h

ave

a pr

oces

s fo

r co

-ord

inat

ing

mul

tiple

inve

stm

ents

in

the

subs

ecto

r (do

mes

tic o

r don

or,

eg. N

atio

nal g

rant

s, s

tate

bud

gets

, do

nor l

oans

and

gra

nts

etc.

)?

0Th

e co

-ord

inat

ion

proc

ess

refe

rs to

the

leve

l of

gove

rnm

ent b

eing

ass

esse

d.

Capi

tal f

und

flow

s in

clud

e in

terg

over

nmen

tal

WSS

fund

ing

from

fisc

al tr

ansf

ers

betw

een

all

leve

ls o

f gov

ernm

ent,

spec

ial p

urpo

se g

rant

s,

flags

hip

prog

ram

s, o

wn

sour

ces

of re

venu

e at

na

tiona

l/sta

te le

vel,

offic

ial d

onor

ass

ista

nce,

in

frast

ruct

ure

fund

s an

d bo

rrow

ing

from

cap

ital

mar

kets

.

The

proc

ess

shou

ld b

e co

difie

d in

som

e w

ay

e.g.

as

term

s of

refe

renc

e of

a w

orki

ng g

roup

an

d th

ere

shou

ld b

e ev

iden

ce th

at th

ere

are

regu

lar m

eetin

gs to

co-

ordi

nate

the

mul

tiple

fu

nd fl

ows.

In d

onor

dep

ende

nt c

ount

ries

this

m

ay b

e kn

own

as a

sec

torw

ide

appr

oach

(S

WAp

) in

othe

r cou

ntrie

s as

an

infra

stru

ctur

e or

WSS

co-

ordi

natin

g co

mm

ittee

.

• On

ly na

tiona

l inv

estm

ents

are

bei

ng

mon

itore

d by

the

Natio

nal E

cono

mic

an

d De

velo

pmen

t Aut

horit

y. Th

is is

an

inco

mpl

ete

pict

ure

as th

is e

xclu

des

the

inve

stm

ents

of a

ll lo

cal g

over

nmen

ts,

priva

te s

ecto

r and

oth

ers.

NED

A re

ports

and

Sta

keho

lder

As

sess

men

ts.

RWS

5In

vest

men

t pla

nIs

ther

e a

med

ium

term

inve

stm

ent

plan

for r

ural

wat

er b

ased

on

natio

nal t

arge

ts th

at is

cos

ted,

pr

iorit

izes

inve

stm

ent n

eeds

, is

publ

ishe

d an

d us

ed?

0Sc

ore

1 if

the

sect

or in

vest

men

t pla

n is

use

d to

cha

nnel

fund

ing

acco

rdin

g to

the

crite

ria

set o

ut in

the

plan

, and

/or i

s us

ed fo

r ann

ual

budg

etin

g.

Scor

e 0.

5 if

such

a p

lan

exis

ts b

ut is

not

us

ed, o

r if a

pla

n ex

ists

but

lack

s so

me

of th

e ke

y qu

ality

feat

ures

, or a

nee

ds a

sses

smen

t ha

s be

en c

arrie

d ou

t and

the

plan

is u

nder

pr

epar

atio

n.

Scor

e 0

if th

e pl

an is

not

exis

ting.

• Th

ere

is n

o m

ediu

m-t

erm

inve

stm

ent p

lan

for t

he s

ubse

ctor

, onl

y bu

dget

-bas

ed a

nd

proj

ect-

base

d pl

ans

Sta

keho

lder

wor

ksho

p as

sess

men

ts

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in t

he P

hilip

pin

es40

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

RWS

6An

nual

revie

wIs

ther

e a

annu

al m

ulti-

stak

ehol

der

revie

w in

pla

ce to

mon

itor s

ubse

ctor

pe

rform

ance

, to

revie

w p

rogr

ess

and

set c

orre

ctive

act

ions

?

0Th

ere

shou

ld b

e a

regu

lar (

at le

ast a

nnua

l) m

ulti-

stak

ehol

der a

sses

smen

t of s

ubse

ctor

pe

rform

ance

that

revie

ws

the

corre

ctive

act

ions

co

mm

itted

to in

the

prev

ious

yea

r and

that

se

ts n

ew c

orre

ctive

act

ions

for t

he y

ear.

Thes

e re

view

s sh

ould

be

gove

rnm

ent-

led

but i

nvol

ve

sect

or s

take

hold

ers.

Not

e th

ese

are

sub-

sect

or

revie

ws

and

not i

ndivi

dual

pro

ject

/pro

gram

re

view

s.

Scor

e 0.

5 if

annu

al p

erfo

rman

ce re

view

s ar

e ei

ther

not

mul

ti-st

akeh

olde

r or d

o no

t set

co

rrect

ive a

ctio

ns.

Scor

e 1

if th

e re

view

is m

ulti-

stak

ehol

der,

it lo

oks

back

at t

he p

revio

us c

orre

ctive

act

ions

an

d se

ts n

ew c

orre

ctive

act

ions

.

• No

col

lect

ive p

latfo

rm fo

r dat

a co

llect

ion

and

mon

itorin

g –

no re

ports

pub

lishe

d,

ther

efor

e no

thin

g to

revie

w

Sta

keho

lder

wor

ksho

p as

sess

men

ts

RWS

7HR

Cap

acity

Has

an a

sses

smen

t bee

n un

derta

ken

of th

e hu

man

reso

urce

ne

eds

in th

e su

b se

ctor

to m

eet t

he

subs

ecto

r tar

get a

nd is

the

actio

n pl

an b

eing

impl

emen

ted?

0.5

Scor

e 0.

5 if

the

asse

ssm

ent i

s do

ne b

ut n

o fo

llow

up

actio

ns a

re ta

ken.

Sco

re 1

if th

e as

sess

men

t is

done

and

act

ions

are

bei

ng

take

n to

add

ress

ski

ll sh

orta

ges

and

capa

city

is

sues

.

Note

- in

a s

ituat

ion

whe

re a

d ho

c ac

tiviti

es

to d

evel

op h

uman

reso

urce

s ar

e ta

king

pla

ce,

how

ever

no

asse

ssm

ent h

as b

een

take

n, th

is

scor

e w

ould

be

0.

• Ca

paci

ty a

sses

sed

only

with

in th

e pr

iorit

y m

unic

ipal

ities

of t

he M

illeni

um

Deve

lopm

ent G

oal F

und

36 m

unic

ipal

ities

.

Dep

artm

ent o

f Int

erio

r and

Loc

al

Gove

rnm

ent C

apac

ity B

uild

ing

Hubs

Pla

ns

and

Repo

rts.

RWS

8Ad

equa

cyAr

e th

e pu

blic

fina

ncia

l co

mm

itmen

ts to

the

rura

l wat

er

subs

ecto

r suf

ficie

nt to

mee

t the

na

tiona

l tar

gets

for t

he s

ubse

ctor

?

0Sc

ore

1 w

here

pub

lic c

omm

itmen

ts a

re o

ver

75%

of t

hat r

equi

red

to re

ach

the

targ

ets.

Scor

e 0.

5 if

betw

een

50%

and

75%

of

the

publ

ic fi

nanc

e re

quire

men

ts fo

r new

an

d re

plac

emen

t inf

rast

ruct

ure

have

bee

n co

mm

itted

ove

r the

nex

t 3 y

ears

.

• Th

ere

is n

o su

ffici

ent fi

nanc

ial c

omm

itmen

t to

fund

the

sect

or to

mee

t nat

iona

l tar

gets

. Ta

rget

s ar

e bu

dget

-bas

ed a

nd n

ot ta

rget

-ba

sed.

Gen

eral

App

ropr

iatio

n Ac

t, SA

LINT

UBIG

re

ports

, KAL

AHI C

IDDS

repo

rts

Cost

ing

Tool

ana

lysis

RWS

9St

ruct

ure

Does

the

budg

et s

truct

ure

perm

it th

e in

vest

men

ts a

nd s

ubsi

dies

(o

pera

tiona

l cos

ts, a

dmin

istra

tion,

de

bt s

ervic

e, e

tc) f

or th

e ru

ral w

ater

se

ctor

to b

e cl

early

iden

tified

?

0.5

Scor

e 1

requ

ires

that

ther

e is

a b

udge

t lin

e fo

r in

vest

men

t, an

d w

here

they

exis

t an

addi

tiona

l bu

dget

line

for s

ubsi

dies

. Whe

re s

ubsi

dies

do

not e

xist,

a sc

ore

of 1

can

be

achi

eved

just

by

havin

g a

budg

et li

ne fo

r inv

estm

ent.

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

ther

e is

a b

udge

t lin

e fo

r in

vest

men

t but

not

for s

ubsi

dies

whe

re th

ey

exis

t.

• Ex

istin

g bu

dget

stru

ctur

e al

low

s on

ly fo

r in

vest

men

t but

not

for s

ubsi

dies

Gen

eral

App

ropr

iatio

ns A

ct 2

012

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t41

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

RWS

10Co

mpr

ehen

sive

Does

the

gove

rnm

ent b

udge

t co

mpr

ehen

sive

ly co

ver d

omes

tic

and

offic

ial d

onor

inve

stm

ent/

subs

idy

to ru

ral w

ater

?

0.5

Achi

evin

g a

scor

e of

1 re

quire

s th

at th

e bu

dget

cap

ture

s ov

er 7

5% o

f the

flow

s in

the

subs

ecto

r.

A sc

ore

of 0

.5 is

give

n w

here

the

budg

et is

de

emed

to c

aptu

re b

etw

een

50%

and

75%

of

thes

e flo

ws.

• T

he b

udge

t is

deem

ed to

cap

ture

bet

wee

n 50

-75%

of f

unds

of n

atio

nal f

unds

. Una

ble

to tr

ck lo

cal g

over

nmen

t inv

estm

ent a

nd

subs

idie

s

The

Nat

iona

l Eco

nom

ic a

nd D

evel

opm

ent

Auth

ority

repo

rts o

n of

ficia

l dev

elop

met

aid

,, Pu

blic

inve

stm

ent f

und

repo

rts

DEVE

LOPI

NG R

URAL

WAT

ER S

UPPL

IES

RWS

11Ut

ilizat

ion

of

dom

estic

fund

sW

hat p

erce

ntag

e of

dom

estic

fund

s bu

dget

ed fo

r rur

al w

ater

are

spe

nt

(3 y

ear a

vera

ge)?

0Sc

ore

0.5

for u

tiliza

tion

betw

een

50%

and

75

%.

Scor

e 1

if ut

ilizat

ion

is a

bove

75%

.Whe

re

ther

e is

sim

ply

no d

ata

on w

hich

to m

ake

the

anal

ysis

- s

core

as

0/re

d.

• Bu

dget

and

dis

burs

emen

ts a

re n

ot

regu

larly

pub

lishe

d;

• lim

ited

info

rmat

ion

on a

ctua

l exp

endi

ture

an

d ac

com

plis

hmen

ts.

SAL

INTU

BIG

Repo

rts; S

takh

ehol

der

Ases

smen

t Rev

iew

RWS

12Ut

ilizat

ion

of

exte

rnal

fund

sW

hat p

erce

ntag

e of

ext

erna

l fun

ds

budg

eted

for r

ural

wat

er a

re s

pent

(3

yea

r ave

rage

)?

0Th

e in

dica

tor r

equi

res

taki

ng a

nd a

vera

ge

utiliz

atio

n ra

te o

ver t

he p

ast 3

yea

rs a

nd s

houl

d be

com

bine

d fo

r bot

h do

mes

tic a

nd d

onor

flo

ws.

The

reas

ons

for >

25%

diff

eren

ces

betw

een

utiliz

atio

n ra

tes

from

dom

estic

and

do

nor s

ourc

es s

houl

d be

exp

lain

ed in

the

repo

rt na

rrativ

e.

A sc

ore

of 0

.5 is

give

n fo

r util

izatio

n be

twee

n 50

% a

nd 7

5%.

Achi

evin

g a

scor

e of

1 re

quire

s th

at u

tiliza

tion

is a

bove

75%

.

Ther

e is

lim

ited

inve

stm

ent f

or ru

ral w

ater

su

pply

from

ext

erna

l fun

ds. T

he D

SWD’

s Ka

lahi

CI

DDS

proj

ect a

nd th

e De

partm

ent o

f Agr

aria

n Re

form

’s w

ater

pro

ject

s ar

e th

e on

l pro

ject

s ar

e pr

obab

ly th

e on

ly ru

ral w

ater

sup

ply

proj

ects

th

at a

re e

xter

nally

fund

ed.

Bas

ed o

n ex

pert

judg

emen

t of

stak

ehol

ders

.

RWS

13Re

porti

ngIs

rura

l wat

er e

xpen

ditu

re v

ersu

s bu

dget

aud

ited

and

repo

rted

on in

a

cons

olid

ated

form

at fo

r all

sour

ces

of d

omes

tic a

nd o

ffici

al d

onor

ex

pend

iture

?

0Sc

ore

1 w

here

ther

e is

con

solid

ated

ex

pend

iture

repo

rting

for b

oth

dom

estic

and

do

nor s

ourc

es.

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

exp

endi

ture

on

all d

omes

tic

flow

s is

repo

rted

on. T

his

incl

udes

exp

endi

ture

fro

m o

wn

reve

nue

sour

ces,

blo

ck g

rant

s,

spec

ial p

urpo

se g

rant

s et

c.

• Th

ere

is a

nee

d to

impr

ove

the

qual

ity o

f re

ports

(if a

vaila

ble)

for t

he s

ubse

ctor

- re

ports

are

sub

mitt

ed o

nly

beca

use

it is

requ

ired

-no

con

solid

ated

form

at

-ne

ed fo

r a m

echa

nism

to c

onfir

m/

verif

y da

ta

Sta

keho

lder

ass

essm

ent r

evie

w.

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in t

he P

hilip

pin

es42

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

RWS

14Lo

cal p

artic

ipat

ion

Are

ther

e cl

early

defi

ned

proc

edur

es

for i

nfor

min

g, c

onsu

lting

with

an

d su

ppor

ting

loca

l par

ticip

atio

n in

pla

nnin

g, b

udge

ting

and

impl

emen

ting

for r

ural

wat

er

deve

lopm

ents

?

0.5

Scor

e 1

whe

re th

e pr

oced

ures

are

bot

h co

difie

d an

d co

nsis

tent

ly ap

plie

d ac

ross

the

maj

ority

(>50

%) o

f all

subs

ecto

r dev

elop

men

ts.

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

thes

e pr

oced

ures

are

cod

ified

. Th

e so

urce

sho

uld

be g

iven

in th

e re

port.

• Ex

istin

g pr

oced

ures

are

not

yet

fully

de

velo

ped

and

need

s to

be

mor

e sy

nchr

onize

d an

d im

prov

ed to

fost

er m

ore

activ

e pa

rtici

patio

n fro

m s

take

hold

ers

The

man

ual o

n th

e pr

epar

atio

n of

the

Mun

icip

al W

ater

and

San

itatio

n Pl

ans

and

the

proc

ess

for t

he B

otto

m U

p Bu

dget

ing

and

Plan

ning

App

roac

h pr

ovid

es fo

r loc

al

parti

cipa

tion.

RWS

15Bu

dget

allo

catio

n cr

iteria

Have

crit

eria

(or a

form

ula)

bee

n de

term

ined

to a

lloca

te ru

ral

wat

er fu

ndin

g eq

uita

bly

to ru

ral

com

mun

ities

and

is it

bei

ng a

pplie

d co

nsis

tent

ly?

0.5

Achi

evin

g a

scor

e of

1 re

quire

s th

at th

e cr

iteria

ar

e co

difie

d an

d co

nsis

tent

ly im

plem

ente

d ye

ar-o

n-ye

ar.

A sc

ore

of 0

.5 is

give

n w

here

ther

e ar

e co

difie

d cr

iteria

, but

not

con

sist

ently

app

lied

in b

udge

t al

loca

tion.

• Th

e SA

LINU

BIG

best

pra

ctic

es o

n bu

dget

al

loca

tion

crite

ria c

an b

e re

plic

ated

to

impr

ove

acco

unta

bilit

y an

d tra

nspa

renc

y to

re

duce

dup

licat

tion

of s

ervic

es

• M

ore

activ

e pa

rtici

patio

n of

the

LGUs

sh

ould

be

advo

cate

d as

they

may

be

in

the

bette

r pos

ition

to m

onito

r the

diff

eren

t go

vern

men

t int

erve

ntio

ns/p

roje

cts

com

ing

in th

eir a

rea

SAL

INTU

BIG

Man

ual o

f Ope

ratio

n

Stak

ehol

der A

sses

smen

t Wor

ksho

p re

ports

th

at c

riter

ia is

not

con

sist

ently

app

lied.

RWS

16Re

duci

ng in

equa

lity

Is th

ere

perio

dic

anal

ysis

to a

sses

s w

heth

er a

lloca

tion

crite

ria a

nd

loca

l par

ticip

atio

n pr

oced

ures

set

by

gov

ernm

ent h

ave

been

adh

ered

to

and

are

redu

cing

dis

parit

ies

in

acce

ss?

0Th

e al

loca

tion

crite

ria a

nd lo

cal p

artic

ipat

ion

proc

edur

es n

eed

to b

e ev

alua

ted

to fi

nd o

ut if

th

ey a

re re

duci

ng d

ispa

ritie

s in

acc

ess.

Is th

ere

perio

dic

anal

ysis

(min

imum

onc

e in

3 y

ears

) by

gov

ernm

ent e

.g. t

he n

atio

nal/s

tate

aud

itor

gene

ral,

or o

ther

age

ncy

that

ana

lyses

the

impa

ct o

f the

se e

quity

prin

cipl

es a

nd a

re th

ese

publ

ishe

d so

that

legi

slat

ors

and

civil

soc

iety

ca

n di

scus

s th

em w

ith g

over

nmen

t. Th

e ai

m

shou

ld b

e th

at th

is a

nalys

is is

act

ed o

n an

d le

ads

to im

prov

ed e

quity

prin

cipl

es.

Scor

e 1

whe

re th

ere

is e

viden

ce th

at th

ese

publ

ishe

d as

sess

men

ts o

r eva

luat

ions

are

ac

ted

upon

by

gove

rnm

ent l

eadi

ng to

impr

oved

eq

uity

prin

cipl

es b

eing

app

lied

to th

e su

bsec

tor.

Scor

e 0.

5 if

this

ana

lysis

is c

arrie

d ou

t pe

riodi

cally

and

pub

lishe

d fo

r the

sec

tor o

r su

bsec

tor

• Th

ere

is n

o pe

riodi

c an

alys

is d

one,

pu

blis

hed

and

disc

usse

d to

impr

ove

equi

ty

prin

cipl

es

• Th

e SA

LINT

UBIG

and

Kal

ahi C

iDDs

revie

w

perio

dica

lly b

ut a

re n

ot p

ublis

hed

for s

ecto

r re

view.

Sta

keho

lder

Ass

essm

ent W

orks

hop

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t43

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

RWS

17Qu

antit

yIs

the

annu

al n

umbe

r of n

ew

syst

ems

built

(and

sys

tem

s re

plac

ed) s

uffic

ient

to m

eet s

ecto

r ta

rget

s? (i

nclu

ding

out

put b

y go

vern

men

t dire

ctly

as w

ell a

s th

roug

h co

ntra

ctor

s an

d NG

Os)

0Ac

hiev

ing

a sc

ore

of 1

requ

ires

that

the

tota

l nu

mbe

r of s

yste

ms

bein

g bu

ilt/re

plac

ed is

ov

er 7

5% o

f tha

t req

uire

d to

mee

t sub

sect

or

targ

ets.

A sc

ore

of 0

.5 is

give

n w

here

tota

l num

ber o

f sy

stem

s be

ing

built

/repl

aced

mee

ts 5

0% o

f the

re

quire

d le

vel o

f out

put.

• •

No d

ata

and

no c

lear

sub

sect

or ta

rget

s

RWS

18Qu

ality

of w

ater

Are

ther

e dr

inki

ng w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s fo

r rur

al w

ater

and

are

all

new

inst

alla

tions

test

ed?

0.5

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

ther

e is

cod

ifica

tion

of

wat

er q

ualit

y st

anda

rds

for t

he s

ubse

ctor

in a

pu

blis

hed

polic

y/ s

trate

gy/ o

rder

s/ac

ts.

Scor

e 1

whe

re th

ere

is d

ocum

enta

ry e

viden

ce

that

thes

e pu

blis

hed

wat

er q

ualit

y st

anda

rds

are

appl

ied

in o

ver 7

5% o

f new

inst

alla

tions

.

• •

Ther

e ar

e ex

istin

g st

anda

rds

but t

here

is

no

docu

men

tary

evid

ence

that

thes

e st

anda

rds

are

appl

ied

in o

ver 7

5% o

f new

in

stal

latio

ns.

-W

ater

qua

lity

test

ing

depe

nds

on

avai

labl

e bu

dget

Philip

pine

Nat

iona

l Drin

king

Wat

er Q

ualit

y St

anda

rds

RWS

19Re

porti

ngIs

the

num

ber o

f new

sch

emes

an

d th

eir l

ocat

ions

repo

rted

in a

co

nsol

idat

ed fo

rmat

eac

h ye

ar?

0A

zero

sco

re o

n th

is a

rea

of e

viden

ce is

an

indi

catio

n th

at R

WS1

6 re

sults

are

unr

elia

ble.

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

ther

e is

doc

umen

tary

ev

iden

ce (p

hysi

cal/o

utpu

t rep

ortin

g) th

at o

ver

75%

of s

chem

es b

uilt

by a

ll ac

tors

in th

e se

ctor

are

repo

rted

to th

e le

ad a

genc

y.

Scor

e 1

if th

ose

phys

ical

repo

rts in

clud

e a

listin

g of

all

loca

tions

in w

hich

thos

e sc

hem

es

have

bee

n bu

ilt

• Th

ere

is a

nee

d fo

r a p

olic

y to

requ

ire

subm

issi

on o

f dat

a fo

r con

solid

atio

n

• Th

ere

is a

nee

d fo

r a s

peci

fic a

genc

y to

be

in c

harg

e of

con

solid

atio

n of

dat

a

Sta

keho

lder

wor

ksho

p as

sess

men

t

RWS

20Fu

nctio

nalit

yAr

e th

ere

regu

lar a

sset

regi

ster

up

date

s of

rura

l wat

er in

frast

ruct

ure

incl

udin

g th

eir f

unct

iona

l sta

tus?

0.5

Scor

e 0.

5 if

an a

sset

regi

ster

exis

ts.

Scor

e 1

if th

e as

set r

egis

ter i

s up

date

d pe

riodi

cally

(at l

east

eve

ry 3

yea

rs) a

nd th

at it

in

clud

es a

reco

rd o

f fun

ctio

nalit

y.

• Th

ere

is n

o na

tiona

l ass

et re

gist

ry, p

er

agen

cy o

nly

- th

us th

e ne

ed fo

r a c

entra

l co

-ord

inat

ing

body

to c

olle

ct d

ata

• No

sta

ndar

d fo

rmat

and

term

inol

ogie

s

Sta

keho

lder

ass

essm

ent w

orks

hop

RWS

21Co

st re

cove

ryIs

ther

e a

natio

nal p

olic

y on

O&M

co

sts

and

are

O&M

cos

ts k

now

n an

d co

vere

d fro

m s

ubsi

dies

and

/or

user

fees

?

0Sc

ore

0.5

whe

re th

ere

is a

n O&

M p

olic

y, co

sts

are

estim

ated

and

ove

r 50%

are

cov

ered

. An

est

imat

ion

wou

ld b

e ba

sed

on e

.g. a

% o

f ca

pita

l val

ue.

Scor

e 1

requ

ires

if th

ere

is a

n O&

M p

olic

y, co

sts

are

know

n an

d ov

er 7

5% a

re c

over

ed.

An a

sses

smen

t wou

ld b

e ba

sed

on a

ctua

l cos

t da

ta.

• Th

ere

is n

o na

tiona

l sch

eme

and

no c

o-or

dina

ting

body

- pe

r age

ncy/

proj

ect-

base

d on

ly an

d is

not

con

sist

ent a

s th

ere

is n

o na

tiona

l pol

icy.

Sta

keho

lder

ass

essm

ent w

orks

hop.

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in t

he P

hilip

pin

es44

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

RWS

22Sp

are

parts

cha

inIs

ther

e a

syst

em d

efine

d fo

r spa

re

parts

sup

ply

chai

n th

at is

effe

ctive

in

all

plac

es?

0.5

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

ther

e is

a s

yste

m o

f spa

re

parts

sup

ply

codi

fied

in p

olic

y/st

rate

gy/o

rder

s/ac

ts b

ut s

pare

par

ts a

re o

nly

avai

labl

e to

up

to

half

of ru

ral c

omm

uniti

es.

Scor

e 1

whe

re th

e sy

stem

of s

pare

par

ts

supp

ly is

cod

ified

and

spa

re p

arts

are

ava

ilabl

e to

ove

r 50%

of c

omm

uniti

es.

• Th

ere

is n

o na

tiona

l sys

tem

, spa

re p

arts

ac

quis

ition

is d

one

indi

vidua

lly/p

er a

genc

y S

take

hold

er W

orks

hop

Asse

ssm

ent.

RWS

23M

anag

emen

t of

Disa

ster

Ris

k an

d Cl

imat

e Ch

ange

Do ru

ral s

ervic

e pr

ovid

ers

have

pl

ans

for c

opin

g w

ith n

atur

al

disa

ster

s an

d cl

imat

e ch

ange

?

0.5

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

som

e se

rvic

e pr

ovid

ers

have

de

velo

ped

a cl

imat

e ac

tion

plan

or m

ost h

ave

unde

rtake

n vu

lner

abilit

y as

sess

men

ts.

Scor

e 1

whe

re th

e m

ajor

ity o

f rur

al s

ervic

e pr

ovid

ers

have

a p

lan

to re

duce

or p

repa

re fo

r cl

imat

e an

d di

sast

er im

pact

s.

• So

me

agen

cies

hav

e di

sast

er m

anag

emen

t pl

an a

nd/o

r clim

ate

chan

ge a

dapt

atio

n pl

an, b

ut d

oes

not i

nclu

de v

ulne

rabi

lity

asse

ssm

ents

.

• Th

ere

is a

nee

d to

con

firm

whi

ch a

genc

ies

have

wha

t pla

ns a

nd to

impr

ove

co-

ordi

natio

n be

twee

n ag

enci

es.

Busi

ness

Con

tinui

ty P

lans

of a

few

rura

l se

rvic

e pr

ovid

ers.

RWS

24In

vest

men

t sup

port

Are

pipe

d sy

stem

s in

rura

l are

as

reco

gnize

d as

man

agem

ent e

ntiti

es

and

give

n te

chni

cal a

nd fi

nanc

ial

supp

ort t

o ex

pand

thei

r sys

tem

s ei

ther

by

gove

rnm

ent o

r lar

ger

utilit

ies?

0.5

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

ser

vice

prov

ider

s of

pip

ed

wat

er s

yste

ms

are

reco

gnize

d as

lega

l ent

ities

.

Scor

e 1

if th

ey a

re re

cogn

ized

as le

gal e

ntiti

es

and

they

are

give

n te

chni

cal s

uppo

rt.

• No

t all

pipe

d sy

stem

s ar

e re

cogn

ized

lega

lly u

nder

any

of t

he re

gist

ratio

n ag

enci

es. b

ut th

ose

reco

gnize

d ar

e su

ppor

ted

for e

xpan

sion

Sta

keho

lder

Ass

essm

ent W

orks

hop

RWS

25Pl

ans

Are

ther

e sc

hem

e-le

vel p

lans

for

the

expa

nsio

n of

pip

ed s

yste

ms

in

rura

l are

as?

0.5

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

ther

e ar

e do

cum

ente

d pl

ans

for b

etw

een

25%

- 7

5% o

f rur

al a

reas

with

pi

ped

wat

er s

chem

es.

Scor

e 1

if ov

er 7

5% o

f rur

al a

reas

with

pip

ed

wat

er s

uppl

ies

have

doc

umen

ted

plan

s.

• Th

ere

are

less

than

75%

of r

ural

are

as

with

doc

umen

ted

plan

s fo

r exp

ansi

on.

Sta

keho

lder

Ass

essm

ent W

orks

hop

RWS

26In

vest

men

t fina

nce

Are

expa

nsio

n co

sts

for r

ural

wat

er

bein

g co

vere

d by

use

r fee

s an

d/or

pu

blic

gra

nts?

0.5

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

bet

wee

n 25

% a

nd 7

5% o

f ru

ral a

reas

are

abl

e to

acc

ess

fund

ing

eith

er

from

tarif

fs, b

orro

win

g or

pub

lic g

rant

s.

Scor

e 1

whe

re o

ver 7

5% o

f rur

al a

reas

are

ab

le to

acc

ess

fund

ing

eith

er fr

om ta

riffs

, bo

rrow

ing

or p

ublic

gra

nts.

• Ta

riffs

are

usu

ally

for o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

, and

are

not

eno

ugh

that

lo

cal g

over

nmen

t ten

d to

sub

sidi

ze

oper

atio

n bu

t not

exp

ansi

on c

osts

.

• Th

e SA

LINT

UBIG

pro

ject

pro

vides

for

the

publ

ic g

rant

s on

ly in

focu

s pr

iorit

y m

unic

ipal

ities

.

Stak

ehol

der A

sses

smen

ts W

orks

hop

Resu

lts

SALI

NTUB

IG M

anua

l of O

pera

tions

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t45

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

RWS

27Su

b-se

ctor

prog

ress

Is th

e su

b-se

ctor

on

track

to m

eet

the

stat

ed ta

rget

?0

This

indi

cato

r is

a ch

eck

on w

heth

er s

ubse

ctor

ou

tcom

e ta

rget

s w

ill be

met

. Not

e th

e ev

iden

ce

for t

his

ques

tion

will

be p

rovid

ed b

y th

e co

stin

g to

ol (i

nclu

ding

pop

ulat

ion

proj

ectio

ns).

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

the

natio

n is

at l

east

kee

ping

pa

ce w

ith p

opul

atio

n gr

owth

.

Scor

e 1

if th

e tra

ject

ory

in o

utco

me

repo

rting

is

with

in 9

0% o

f the

sub

sect

or ta

rget

.

• Se

ctor

is w

ay b

elow

its

targ

ets

of a

chie

ving

unive

rsal

cov

erag

e by

202

5. It

is n

ot

inve

stin

g en

ough

. Cos

ting

tool

indi

cate

s an

ex

pect

ed la

rge

defic

it.

Cos

ting

tool

RWS

28Eq

uity

of u

seW

hat i

s th

e ra

tio o

f im

prov

ed

drin

king

wat

er a

cces

s be

twee

n th

e lo

wes

t and

hig

hest

qui

ntile

in ru

ral

area

s?

0A

scor

e of

1 in

dica

tes

equi

ty b

etw

een

rich

and

poor

in s

ervic

e pr

ovis

ion.

Scor

e 0.

5 if

the

% o

f acc

ess

in th

e w

ealth

iest

qu

intil

e di

vided

by

the

% o

f acc

ess

in th

e po

ores

t qui

ntile

is b

etw

een

2 an

d 5

for t

he

subs

ecto

r.

Scor

e 1

if th

e %

of a

cces

s in

the

wea

lthie

st

quin

tile

divid

ed b

y th

e %

of a

cces

s in

the

poor

est q

uint

ile is

less

than

2 fo

r the

sub

sect

or.

Base

d on

the

2008

Nat

iona

l Dem

ogra

phic

Su

rvey

, for

Hou

seho

ld C

onne

ctio

ns, R

atio

is

17.2

5. F

or o

ther

impr

oved

, the

ratio

is 1

.69

EAP

RO E

quity

Tre

e, b

ased

on

data

on

JMP

2012

RWS

29Qu

ality

of u

ser

expe

rienc

eOf

the

hous

ehol

ds u

sing

an

impr

oved

drin

king

wat

er s

ourc

e,

wha

t pro

porti

on a

re u

sing

pip

ed

drin

king

wat

er in

the

dwel

ling

and

yard

/plo

t ?

0.5

‘Bas

ed o

n JM

P da

ta fo

r the

cou

ntry

, thi

s in

dica

tor i

s a

prox

y fo

r the

tim

e ta

ken

and

the

ease

of w

ater

col

lect

ion.

The

indi

cato

r loo

ks a

t th

e ru

ral p

opul

atio

n us

ing

an im

prov

ed w

ater

so

urce

and

cal

cula

tes

the

prop

ortio

n of

thes

e pe

ople

usi

ng a

pip

ed w

ater

into

dw

ellin

g an

d pi

ped

wat

er in

to y

ard/

plot

.

Scor

e 0.

5 if

this

pro

porti

on is

gre

ater

than

25%

Sc

ore

1 if

this

pro

porti

on is

gre

ater

than

50%

’

Pipe

d w

ater

con

nect

ion

in ru

ral a

reas

is 2

5%.

JM

P 2

013

data

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in t

he P

hilip

pin

es46

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

ENAB

LING

: URB

AN W

ATER

SUP

PLY

UWS1

Sect

or ta

rget

sAr

e th

ere

subs

ecto

r tar

gets

in th

e na

tiona

l lev

el d

evel

opm

ent p

lan?

0.5

The

targ

et m

ust b

e st

ated

for t

he u

rban

wat

er

supp

ly su

bsec

tor i

n pe

rcen

t (%

) of p

opul

atio

n w

ho h

ave

acce

ss to

impr

oved

ser

vices

.

MDG

targ

ets,

MTP

DP ta

rget

s ar

e al

l nat

iona

l in

scop

e, g

ener

al a

nd n

ot s

peci

fic fo

r urb

an.

Philip

pine

Wat

er S

uppl

y Se

ctor

Roa

dmap

(P

WSS

R) a

nd th

e Ph

ilippi

ne D

evel

opm

ent

Plan

(PDP

)

UWS

2Se

ctor

pol

icy

Is th

ere

an u

rban

wat

er p

olic

y th

at is

agre

ed b

y st

akeh

olde

rs,

appr

oved

by

gove

rnm

ent,

and

publ

icly

avai

labl

e?

0.5

Scor

e 0.

5 if

ther

e is

a d

raft

polic

y an

d th

is

has

been

agr

eed

by s

take

hold

ers

but n

ot y

et

appr

oved

.

Scor

e 1

if th

e po

licy/

stra

tegy

/ord

er/a

ct h

as

been

con

sulte

d on

with

sta

keho

lder

s, is

of

ficia

lly e

ndor

sed

by th

e go

vern

men

t and

that

is

pub

lic a

nd th

eref

ore

all s

ecto

r act

ors

have

un

rest

ricte

d ac

cess

.

The

Philip

pine

Wat

er S

uppl

y Se

ctor

Roa

dmap

(P

WSS

R), a

lthou

gh n

ot y

et fo

rmal

ly ap

prov

ed,

was

inco

rpor

ated

into

the

Philip

pine

De

velo

pmen

t Pla

n (P

DP) w

hich

has

bee

n ap

prov

ed.

Pres

iden

tial D

ecre

e 19

8 al

so d

efine

s th

e co

ncep

t of w

ater

dis

trict

s an

d ur

ban

wat

er

serv

ice

prov

isio

n.

Philip

pine

Wat

er S

uppl

y Se

ctor

Roa

dmap

(P

WSS

R)

Philip

pine

Dev

elop

men

t Pla

n (P

DP)

Pres

iden

tial D

ecre

e 19

8

UWS

3In

stitu

tiona

l Rol

esAr

e th

e in

stitu

tiona

l rol

es o

f urb

an

wat

er s

ubse

ctor

pla

yers

(nat

iona

l/st

ate

& lo

cal g

over

nmen

t, se

rvic

e pr

ovid

er, r

egul

ator

etc

) cle

arly

defin

ed a

nd o

pera

tiona

lized

?

0.5

Scor

e 0.

5 ev

en if

ther

e is

no

sing

le p

olic

y/st

rate

gy/o

rder

/act

but

the

role

s m

ust b

e se

t ou

t in

reco

gnize

d of

ficia

l pol

icy

guid

ance

and

m

ust b

e di

stin

ct a

nd c

onsi

sten

t. So

me

role

s m

ay b

e se

t out

in th

e Co

nstit

utio

n w

hile

the

role

of a

regu

lato

r is

for e

xam

ple

ofte

n se

t out

is

sep

arat

e le

gisl

atio

n to

that

of o

ther

sec

tor

inst

itutio

ns.

Scor

e 1

if th

e ro

les

are

dist

inct

and

con

sist

ent

and

thes

e ar

e op

erat

iona

lized

.

Inst

itutio

nal r

oles

are

cle

arly

defin

ed in

diff

eren

t la

ws.

How

ever

, som

e ro

les

over

lap.

The

re is

no

lead

ag

ency

for c

o-or

dina

tion,

pla

nnin

g an

d po

licy

deve

lopm

ent.

PDP

Natio

nal W

ater

Res

ourc

e M

anag

emen

t St

udy

PD 1

98 fo

r LW

UA a

nd W

Ds,

Loca

l Gov

ernm

ent C

ode,

Publ

ic S

ervic

e La

w,

UWS

4Fu

nd fl

ow c

o-or

dina

tion

0Sc

ore

1 if

ther

e is

a c

o-or

dina

tion

proc

ess

and

oper

atio

naliz

ed. S

core

0.5

if th

ere

is

co-o

rdin

atio

n pr

oces

s bu

t not

ope

ratio

naliz

ed.

Scor

e 0

if th

ere

is n

o pr

oces

s de

fined

.

The

proc

ess

for c

o-or

dina

ting

maj

or

inve

stm

ents

for w

ater

sup

ply

for d

onor

s an

d na

tiona

l gra

nts

exis

t , b

ut n

ot e

xclu

des

co-

ordi

natio

n lo

cal d

omes

tic fu

nd s

ourc

es s

uch

as fr

om L

GUs,

con

gres

sion

al fu

nds,

NGO

s an

d pr

ivate

inve

stm

ents

spe

cific

for u

rban

wat

er

supp

ly.

Sta

keho

lder

Ass

essm

ent W

orks

hop

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t47

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

UWS

5In

vest

men

t pla

n0

Scor

e 1

if th

e se

ctor

inve

stm

ent p

lan

is u

sed

to c

hann

el fu

ndin

g ac

cord

ing

to th

e cr

iteria

se

t out

in th

e pl

an, a

nd/o

r is

used

for a

nnua

l bu

dget

ing.

Scor

e 0.

5 if

such

a p

lan

exis

ts b

ut is

not

us

ed, o

r if a

pla

n ex

ists

but

lack

s so

me

of th

e ke

y qu

ality

feat

ures

, or a

nee

ds a

sses

smen

t ha

s be

en c

arrie

d ou

t and

the

plan

is u

nder

pr

epar

atio

n.

Scor

e 0

if th

e pl

an is

not

exis

ting.

Ther

e is

no

spec

ific

inve

stm

ent p

lan

for u

rban

w

ater

sup

ply.

Publ

ic In

vest

men

t Pla

ns, A

nnua

l Inv

estm

ent

Plan

s fo

r LGU

s

UWS

6An

nual

revie

wIs

ther

e an

ann

ual m

ulti-

stak

ehol

der

revie

w in

pla

ce to

mon

itor s

ubse

ctor

pe

rform

ance

, to

revie

w p

rogr

ess

and

set c

orre

ctive

act

ions

?

0Sc

ore

1 if

the

revie

w is

mul

ti-st

akeh

olde

r, th

at

it lo

oks

back

at t

he p

revio

us c

orre

ctive

act

ions

an

d se

ts n

ew c

orre

ctive

act

ions

.

Scor

e 0.

5 if

annu

al p

erfo

rman

ce re

view

s he

ld

are

eith

er n

ot m

ulti-

stak

ehol

der o

r do

not s

et

corre

ctive

act

ions

.

Ther

e is

a p

ortfo

lio re

view,

but

this

is li

mite

d to

com

plia

nce

with

don

or a

genc

y te

rms.

The

re

is n

o sp

ecifi

c m

ulti-

stak

ehol

der a

sses

smen

t of

urba

n w

ater

sup

ply

perfo

rman

ce.

Stak

ehol

der A

sses

smen

t Wor

ksho

p

UWS

7HR

Cap

acity

Has

an a

sses

smen

t bee

n un

derta

ken

of th

e hu

man

reso

urce

ne

eds

in th

e su

b se

ctor

to m

eet t

he

subs

ecto

r tar

get a

nd is

the

actio

n pl

an b

eing

impl

emen

ted?

0Sc

ore

0.5

if th

e as

sess

men

t is

done

but

no

follo

w u

p ac

tions

are

take

n.

Scor

e 1

if th

e as

sess

men

t is

done

and

act

ions

ar

e be

ing

take

n to

add

ress

ski

ll sh

orta

ges

and

capa

city

issu

es.

Note

- in

a s

ituat

ion

whe

re a

d ho

c ac

tiviti

es

to d

evel

op h

uman

reso

urce

s ar

e ta

king

pla

ce,

how

ever

no

asse

ssm

ent h

as b

een

take

n, th

is

scor

e w

ould

be

0.

Ther

e ar

e so

me

adho

c ac

tiviti

es o

n HR

ne

eds

(i.e.

stu

dy o

n ca

paci

ty a

sses

smen

t of

natio

nal g

over

nmen

t age

ncie

s in

volve

d in

th

e SA

LINT

UBIG

Pro

gram

). Th

ere

is n

o st

udy

spec

ific

for t

he s

ubse

ctor

and

a c

orre

spon

ding

ac

tion

plan

.

Stak

ehol

der A

sses

smen

t Wor

ksho

p

UWS

8Ad

equa

cyAr

e th

e pu

blic

fina

ncia

l co

mm

itmen

ts to

the

urba

n w

ater

su

bsec

tor s

uffic

ient

to m

eet t

he

natio

nal t

arge

ts fo

r the

sub

sect

or?

0.5

Scor

e 1

whe

re p

ublic

com

mitm

ents

are

ove

r 75

% o

f tha

t req

uire

d to

reac

h th

e ta

rget

s.

Scor

e 0.

5 if

betw

een

50%

and

75%

of

the

publ

ic fi

nanc

e re

quire

men

ts fo

r new

an

d re

plac

emen

t inf

rast

ruct

ure

have

bee

n co

mm

itted

ove

r the

nex

t 3 y

ears

.

Base

d on

Cos

ting

tool

ana

lysis

, the

ant

icip

ated

pu

blic

inve

stm

ents

for u

rban

wat

er s

uppl

y is

be

twee

n 50

-75%

of t

he fi

nanc

ial r

equi

rem

ents

.

Gene

ral A

ppro

pria

tion

Act

Publ

ic In

vest

men

t Pla

ns (P

IP)

Cost

ing

tool

ana

lysis

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in t

he P

hilip

pin

es48

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

UWS

9St

ruct

ure

Does

the

budg

et s

truct

ure

perm

it in

vest

men

ts a

nd s

ubsi

dies

(o

pera

tiona

l cos

ts, a

dmin

istra

tion,

de

bt s

ervic

e, e

tc) f

or th

e ur

ban

wat

er s

ecto

r to

be c

lear

ly id

entifi

ed?

0.5

Scor

e 1

requ

ires

if th

ere

is a

bud

get l

ine

for

inve

stm

ent a

nd w

here

they

exis

t an

addi

tiona

l bu

dget

line

for s

ubsi

dies

. Whe

re s

ubsi

dies

do

not e

xist a

sco

re o

f 1 c

an b

e ac

hiev

ed ju

st b

y ha

ving

a bu

dget

line

for i

nves

tmen

t.

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

ther

e is

a b

udge

t lin

e fo

r in

vest

men

t but

not

for s

ubsi

dies

whe

re th

ey

exis

t.

Ther

e is

a b

udge

t lin

e fo

r inv

estm

ent b

ut n

ot

for s

ubsi

dies

whe

re th

ey e

xist.

But i

nves

tmen

ts

and

subs

idie

s fo

r urb

an w

ater

sup

ply

cann

ot b

e cl

early

iden

tified

.

Gene

ral A

ppro

pria

tions

Act

201

2

UWS

10Co

mpr

ehen

sive

Does

the

gove

rnm

ent b

udge

t co

mpr

ehen

sive

ly co

ver d

omes

tic

and

offic

ial d

onor

inve

stm

ent/

subs

idy

to u

rban

wat

er?

0Sc

ore

1 if

the

budg

et c

aptu

res

over

75%

of t

he

flow

s in

the

subs

ecto

r.

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

the

budg

et is

dee

med

to

capt

ure

betw

een

50%

and

75%

of t

hese

flow

s.

Ther

e is

no

data

spe

cific

to u

rban

wat

er

supp

ly..

Gene

ral A

ppro

pria

tions

Act

201

2,

Offic

ial D

evel

opm

ent A

id re

ports

,

PIP

repo

rts

DEVE

LOPI

NG S

ERVI

CES:

URB

AN W

ATER

SUP

PLY

UWS

11Ut

ilizat

ion

of

dom

estic

fund

sW

hat p

erce

ntag

e of

dom

estic

fund

s bu

dget

ed fo

r urb

an w

ater

are

spe

nt

(3 y

ear a

vera

ge)?

0.5

The

subs

ecto

r dom

estic

bud

get o

uttu

rn o

r pe

rcen

tage

of e

xter

nal b

udge

t exp

ende

d/ut

ilized

is a

n in

dica

tor t

hat c

an id

entif

y cr

itica

l bot

tlene

cks

in b

oth

publ

ic fi

nanc

e di

sbur

sem

ent m

echa

nism

s an

d of

abs

orpt

ion

capa

city

of t

he re

leva

nt in

stitu

tions

. The

in

dica

tor r

equi

res

taki

ng a

n av

erag

e ut

ilizat

ion

rate

ove

r the

pas

t 3 y

ears

. Sco

re 0

.5 w

here

ut

ilizat

ion

is b

etw

een

50%

and

75%

.

Scor

e 1

requ

ires

that

util

izatio

n is

abo

ve 7

5%.

2013

GAA

requ

ires

impl

emen

tatio

n of

pro

ject

s by

adm

in, a

ppro

pria

tion

valid

for 1

yea

r onl

y;

no c

ontin

uing

app

ropr

iatio

n

Bottl

enec

ks in

fund

dis

burs

emen

t are

mai

nly

arou

nd c

ompl

ianc

e to

pro

gram

requ

irem

ents

(i.

e. m

emor

andu

m o

f Agr

eem

ents

, Fea

sibi

lity

Stud

ies,

Det

aile

d En

gine

erin

g De

sign

s an

d Pr

ocur

emen

t pro

cedu

res)

Depa

rtmen

t of B

udge

t Man

agem

ent r

ules

an

d Pr

oced

ures

;

NWRB

(ann

ual r

epor

ts o

f reg

ulat

ed u

tiliti

es,

SALI

NTUB

IG P

ROGR

AM R

EPOR

TS)

UWS

12Ut

ilizat

ion

of

exte

rnal

fund

sW

hat p

erce

ntag

e of

ext

erna

l fun

ds

budg

eted

for u

rban

wat

er a

re s

pent

(3

yea

r ave

rage

)?

0Th

e in

dica

tor r

equi

res

taki

ng a

n av

erag

e ut

ilizat

ion

rate

ove

r the

pas

t 3 y

ears

. Ext

erna

l fu

nds

incl

ude

mul

ti-la

tera

l and

bila

tera

l don

or

fund

s, b

ut o

nly

NGO

fund

s if

subs

tant

ial.

Scor

e 0.

5 fo

r util

izatio

n be

twee

n 50

% a

nd

75%

.

Scor

e 1

requ

ires

that

util

izatio

n is

abo

ve 7

5%.

Exte

rnal

fund

s: K

FW a

ssis

tanc

e (to

exp

ire in

20

13);

low

util

izatio

n (<

50%

) due

to is

sues

du

ring

prep

arat

ory

stag

e. T

he U

SAID

-JBI

C fu

nded

Phi

lippi

ne W

ater

Rev

olvin

g Fu

nd h

ad

repo

rted

low

util

izatio

n ra

tes

due

to b

ottle

neck

s in

impl

emen

tatio

n.

Sta

keho

lder

Ass

essm

ent W

orks

hop

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t49

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

UWS

13Re

porti

ngDo

urb

an u

tiliti

es (n

atio

nal o

r 3

larg

est u

tiliti

es) h

ave

audi

ted

acco

unts

and

bal

ance

she

et?

1Sc

ore

1 if

urba

n ut

ilitie

s ha

ve th

eir a

nnua

l ac

coun

ts p

rofe

ssio

nally

and

inde

pend

ently

au

dite

d.

The

Natio

nal W

ater

Res

ourc

es B

oard

requ

ires

audi

ted

annu

al re

ports

from

regu

late

d w

ater

ut

ilitie

s; W

ater

Dis

trict

s an

d LG

Us a

re a

ll au

dite

d by

the

Com

mis

sion

on

Audi

t.

NW

RB p

olic

y

UWS

14Lo

cal p

artic

ipat

ion

Are

ther

e cl

early

defi

ned

proc

edur

es

for i

nfor

min

g, c

onsu

lting

with

an

d su

ppor

ting

loca

l par

ticip

atio

n in

pla

nnin

g, b

udge

ting

and

impl

emen

ting

for u

rban

wat

er

deve

lopm

ents

?

1Sc

ore

1 if

the

proc

edur

es a

re b

oth

codi

fied

and

cons

iste

ntly

appl

ied

acro

ss th

e m

ajor

ity

(>50

%) o

f all

subs

ecto

r dev

elop

men

ts.

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

thes

e pr

oced

ures

are

cod

ified

. Th

e so

urce

sho

uld

be g

iven

in th

e re

port.

Plan

ning

and

bud

getin

g st

ages

don

e by

LGU

s,

WDs

and

NW

RB-r

egul

ated

util

ities

and

hol

d pu

blic

hea

rings

for t

ariff

app

rova

l. Co

ops

hold

ge

nera

l ass

embl

ies

for p

lann

ing,

bud

getin

g an

d im

plem

entin

g w

ater

dev

elop

men

t.

NW

RB P

olic

y

UWS

15Bu

dget

allo

catio

n cr

iteria

Have

crit

eria

(or a

form

ula)

bee

n de

term

ined

to a

lloca

te u

rban

wat

er

fund

ing

equi

tabl

y to

urb

an u

tiliti

es

or s

ervic

e pr

ovid

ers

and

amon

g m

unic

ipal

ities

and

is it

bei

ng

cons

iste

ntly

appl

ied?

0.5

Crite

ria o

r a fo

rmul

a to

mat

ch th

e fu

ndin

g al

loca

ted

to a

sub

sect

or w

ith n

eed

will

impr

ove

the

effic

ienc

y an

d ef

fect

ivene

ss o

f sub

sect

or

spen

d by

redu

cing

dup

licat

ion

and

deve

lopi

ng

serv

ices

for t

hose

peo

ple

who

alre

ady

have

th

em. T

hese

crit

eria

or f

orm

ulae

sho

uld

be

codi

fied

in p

olic

y/st

rate

gy/o

rder

s/ac

ts.

Scor

e 1

whe

re th

e cr

iteria

are

cod

ified

and

co

nsis

tent

ly im

plem

ente

d ye

ar-o

n-ye

ar.

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

ther

e ar

e co

difie

d cr

iteria

, but

no

t con

sist

ently

app

lied

in b

udge

t allo

catio

n.

For D

ILG

ther

e is

a b

udge

t allo

catio

n cr

iteria

fo

r wat

er, b

ut n

ot s

egre

gate

d to

urb

an a

nd

rura

l wat

er.

For L

WUA

, who

se W

Ds s

erve

urb

an a

reas

, the

y al

so h

ave

a cr

iteria

.

DIL

G AN

D LW

UA S

ALIN

TUBI

G gu

idel

ines

UWS

16Re

duci

ng in

equa

lity

Have

urb

an u

tiliti

es o

r ser

vice

prov

ider

s (n

atio

nal o

r in

3 la

rges

t ci

ties)

dev

elop

ed a

nd im

plem

ente

d sp

ecifi

c pl

ans

for s

ervin

g th

e ur

ban

poor

?

1Sc

ore

1 w

here

ther

e is

doc

umen

tary

evid

ence

th

at th

ese

plan

s to

ser

ve th

e un

serv

ed p

oor a

re

bein

g im

plem

ente

d. If

the

asse

ssm

ent i

s of

the

3 la

rges

t citi

es a

t lea

st 2

citi

es m

ust b

e ab

le

to s

how

that

pla

ns to

ser

ve th

e po

or a

re b

eing

im

plem

ente

d.

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

pro

-poo

r ser

vice

deliv

ery

deve

lopm

ent p

lans

hav

e be

en d

evel

oped

. If t

he

asse

ssm

ent i

s of

the

3 la

rges

t citi

es a

t lea

st 2

ci

ties

mus

t hav

e pl

ans

to s

erve

the

poor

.

Wat

er ta

riff c

onsi

ders

affo

rdab

ility

of ta

riff o

f ur

ban

poor

(wat

er b

ill up

to 5

% o

f urb

an p

oor

inco

me)

. The

re is

soc

ializ

ed p

ricin

g in

the

tarif

f stru

ctur

e. O

ther

sch

emes

are

Inst

allm

ent

paym

ent o

f new

con

nect

ion

fee,

OBA

for n

ew

conn

ectio

ns

Rep

orts

of C

once

ssio

naire

s in

Met

ro

Man

ila, N

atio

nal W

ater

Res

ourc

es B

oard

Gu

idel

ines

for T

ariff

stru

ctur

ing

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in t

he P

hilip

pin

es50

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

UWS

17Qu

antit

yIs

the

annu

al e

xpan

sion

of H

H co

nnec

tions

and

sta

nd p

osts

in

urba

n ar

eas

suffi

cien

t to

mee

t the

su

bsec

tor t

arge

ts?

0.5

This

indi

cato

r is

a ch

eck

whe

ther

the

annu

al

expa

nsio

n of

new

con

nect

ions

(hou

seho

ld a

nd

stan

dpos

ts) b

eing

bui

lt ea

ch y

ear i

s in

line

with

th

e ta

rget

s se

t for

the

subs

ecto

r. Th

e in

dica

tor

assu

mes

suf

ficie

nt tr

eatm

ent c

apac

ity is

av

aila

ble

for n

ew c

onne

ctio

ns. S

core

1 w

here

th

e to

tal n

umbe

r of n

ew c

onne

ctio

ns b

eing

bu

ilt/ r

epla

ced

is o

ver 7

5% o

f tha

t req

uire

d to

m

eet s

ubse

ctor

targ

ets.

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

tota

l num

ber o

f new

co

nnec

tions

bei

ng b

uilt/

repl

aced

mee

ts 5

0% o

f th

e re

quire

leve

l of o

utpu

t.

Targ

et is

not

alw

ays

reac

hed.

For

LGU

-run

ut

ilitie

s th

is is

bec

ause

of u

nava

ilabl

e w

ater

su

pply

sour

ce, c

apac

ity to

man

age

the

wat

er

syst

em. T

hese

lim

itatio

ns a

lso

appl

y to

sm

all

utilit

ies,

in a

dditi

on to

diffi

culty

in a

cces

sing

fin

anci

ng fo

r add

ition

al c

onne

ctio

ns.

Ann

ual r

epor

ts o

f lar

ge u

rban

wat

er s

ervic

e pr

ovid

ers.

UWS

18Qu

ality

of w

ater

Are

ther

e dr

inki

ng w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s fo

r urb

an w

ater

that

are

re

gula

rly m

onito

red

and

the

resu

lts

publ

ishe

d?

1Sc

ore

1 if

ther

e is

rout

ine

and

regu

lar

surv

eilla

nce

of m

ost u

rban

wat

er s

uppl

ies,

with

pu

blic

dis

sem

inat

ion

of th

e re

sults

of t

estin

g.

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

wat

er s

uppl

y st

anda

rds

exis

t an

d m

onito

ring

of m

ost i

mpr

oved

urb

an w

ater

su

pplie

s oc

curs

.

Com

plia

nce

to P

hilip

pine

Nat

iona

l Sta

ndar

ds

for D

rinki

ng W

ater

(PNS

DW) i

s us

ed b

y ur

ban

wat

er s

uppl

y pr

ovid

ers.

Rep

orts

of t

he L

ocal

Drin

king

Wat

er Q

ualit

y M

onito

ring

Com

mitt

ees

in m

ajor

urb

an

cent

ers.

UWS

19Re

porti

ngIs

the

num

ber o

f add

ition

al

hous

ehol

d co

nnec

tions

mad

e an

d st

and

post

s co

nstru

cted

repo

rted

on in

a c

onso

lidat

ed fo

rmat

for t

he

natio

n ea

ch y

ear?

0Is

ther

e a

cons

olid

ated

list

ing

or d

atab

ase

of

new

con

nect

ions

bui

lt ea

ch y

ear i

nclu

ding

th

ose

build

by

gove

rnm

ent p

rogr

ams,

de

velo

pmen

t par

tner

s an

d no

n-go

vern

men

tal

orga

niza

tions

?

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

ther

e is

doc

umen

tary

ev

iden

ce (p

hysi

cal/o

utpu

t rep

ortin

g) th

at o

ver

75%

of n

ew c

onne

ctio

ns b

uilt

by a

ll ac

tors

in

the

sect

or a

re re

porte

d to

the

lead

age

ncy

at

the

leve

l of g

over

nmen

t bei

ng a

sses

sed.

Scor

e 1

if ph

ysic

al re

ports

incl

ude

a lis

ting

of

all l

ocat

ions

in w

hich

thos

e ne

w c

onne

ctio

ns

have

bee

n bu

ilt.

Ther

e is

no

lead

age

ncy

colle

ctin

g an

d co

nsol

idat

ing

this

dat

a at

the

natio

nal l

evel

. Th

ere

are

som

e da

ta re

posi

torie

s w

ith th

e di

ffere

nt re

gula

tors

.

Stak

ehol

der W

orks

hop

Asse

ssm

ents

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t51

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

SUST

AINI

NG S

ERVI

CES:

URB

AN W

ATER

SUP

PLY

UWS

20Fu

nctio

nalit

yW

hat i

s th

e w

eigh

ted

aver

age

perc

enta

ge o

f non

reve

nue

wat

er

acro

ss u

rban

util

ities

(nat

iona

l or

3 la

rges

t util

ities

) (la

st 3

yea

rs

aver

age)

?

0.5

If th

ere

are

sepa

rate

ser

vice

prov

ider

s or

ut

ilitie

s th

is s

houl

d ap

ply

to th

e w

eigh

ted

aver

age

for t

he 3

larg

est s

ervic

e pr

ovid

ers

or

utilit

ies.

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

the

NRW

loss

es a

re b

etw

een

20%

and

40%

.

Scor

e 1

if NR

W lo

sses

are

bel

ow 2

0%.

Aver

age

NRW

of t

he th

ree

larg

est u

tiliti

es:

Man

ila W

ater

: 13%

NRW

May

nila

d 38

% N

RW

Dava

o Ci

ty W

ater

Dis

trict

: 25%

Web

repo

rts

UWS

21Co

st re

cove

ryAr

e al

l O&M

cos

ts fo

r util

ities

(n

atio

nal o

r 3 la

rges

t util

ities

) bei

ng

cove

red

by re

venu

es (u

ser f

ees

and/

subs

idie

s) (l

ast 3

yea

rs a

vera

ge)?

0.5

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

the

oper

atin

g ra

tio is

bet

wee

n 0.

8 an

d 1.

2.

Scor

e 1

if th

e op

erat

ing

ratio

is a

bove

1.2

.

All r

egul

ated

util

ities

impl

emen

t cos

t rec

over

y ta

riffs

.

Oper

atin

g ra

tio is

com

pute

d as

ope

ratin

g ex

pens

es /

oper

atin

g re

venu

es.

Philip

pine

Tow

ns W

ater

Util

ities

Dat

a Bo

ok

2004

UWS

22Ta

riff r

evie

ws

Are

tarif

f rev

iew

s re

gula

rly

cond

ucte

d us

ing

a pr

oces

s an

d ta

riffs

adj

uste

d ac

cord

ingl

y an

d pu

blis

hed?

1Sc

ore

0.5

whe

re ta

riff r

evie

ws

are

regu

larly

co

nduc

ted

but w

here

ther

e is

no

para

llel

regu

lar a

djus

tmen

t of t

he ta

riff.

Scor

e 1

whe

re b

oth

tarif

f rev

iew

s ar

e re

gula

rly

cond

ucte

d an

d th

ere

is a

par

alle

l adj

ustm

ent

of th

e ta

riff.

Tarif

f of a

ll re

gula

ted

utilit

ies

are

bein

g re

view

ed e

very

5 y

ears

, or i

f tar

iff a

djus

tmen

ts

are

requ

ired.

Regu

lato

ry ru

les

of th

e M

etro

polit

an M

anila

W

ater

and

Sew

erag

e Sy

stem

and

the

Natio

nal W

ater

Res

ourc

es B

oard

.

UWS

23M

anag

emen

t of

Disa

ster

Ris

k an

d Cl

imat

e Ch

ange

Do u

tiliti

es (n

atio

nal o

r 3 la

rges

t ut

ilitie

s) h

ave

plan

s fo

r cop

ing

with

nat

ural

dis

aste

rs a

nd c

limat

e ch

ange

?

0.5

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

som

e ut

ilitie

s ha

ve d

evel

oped

a

clim

ate

actio

n pl

an o

r mos

t util

ities

hav

e un

derta

ken

vuln

erab

ility

asse

ssm

ents

.

Scor

e 1

whe

re th

e m

ajor

ity o

f urb

an s

ervic

e pr

ovid

ers

have

a p

lan

to re

duce

or p

repa

re fo

r cl

imat

e an

d di

sast

er im

pact

s.

Not a

ll w

ater

util

ities

hav

e co

ping

mec

hani

sms

for n

atur

al d

isas

ters

and

clim

ate

chan

ge.

Bus

ines

s Co

ntin

uity

Pla

ns

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in t

he P

hilip

pin

es52

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

UWS

24Au

tono

my

Do u

tiliti

es o

r ser

vice

prov

ider

s (n

atio

nal o

r 3 la

rges

t) ha

ve

oper

atio

nal d

ecis

ion-

mak

ing

auto

nom

y in

inve

stm

ent p

lann

ing,

HR

, fina

nce

(sep

arat

e ba

lanc

e sh

eet)

and

proc

urem

ent m

anag

emen

t?

1Sc

ore

0.5

whe

re u

tiliti

es o

r ser

vice

prov

ider

s ha

ve a

uton

omy

over

HR,

fina

ncia

l man

agem

ent

and

proc

urem

ent m

anag

emen

t.

Scor

e 1

whe

re th

e ut

ility

also

has

aut

onom

y ov

er in

vest

men

t pla

nnin

g in

clud

ing

spec

ifyin

g w

here

and

wha

t typ

e of

inve

stm

ents

are

mad

e (e

ven

whe

re th

e ac

tual

inve

stm

ent c

omes

from

th

e pu

blic

bud

get).

Ther

e ar

e al

read

y LG

U-ru

n ut

ilitie

s th

at h

ave

ring-

fenc

ed th

eir a

ccou

nts

and

are

able

to

prep

are

sepa

rate

bal

ance

she

et. O

ther

wat

er

utilit

ies

have

ope

ratio

nal d

ecis

ion

mak

ing

auto

nom

y in

inve

stm

ent p

lann

ing,

HR,

fina

nce

and

proc

urem

ent m

anag

emen

t.

UWS

25Pl

ans

Do s

ervic

e pr

ovid

ers

(nat

iona

l/sta

te

or 3

larg

est u

tiliti

es) h

ave

busi

ness

pl

ans

for e

xpan

ding

acc

ess

to u

rban

w

ater

?

1Sc

ore

0.5

whe

re th

e ut

ility

or s

ervic

e pr

ovid

er

can

pres

ent a

bus

ines

s pl

an o

r one

und

er

prep

arat

ion

Scor

e 1

whe

re th

ere

is c

lear

evid

ence

that

th

e bu

sine

ss p

lan

not o

nly

exis

ts b

ut th

at b

oth

aspe

cts

of th

e bu

sine

ss p

lan

- se

curin

g w

ater

re

sour

ces

and

expa

ndin

g co

nnec

tions

- a

re

bein

g im

plem

ente

d.

All r

egul

ated

wat

er u

tiliti

es p

repa

re b

usin

ess

plan

s.Re

gula

tory

Req

uire

men

ts

UWS

26Bo

rrow

ing

0.5

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

util

ities

or s

ervic

e pr

ovid

ers

are

lega

lly a

ble

to a

cces

s co

mm

erci

al fi

nanc

e.

Scor

e 1

if th

ere

is e

viden

ce th

at th

e ut

ility

or

serv

ice

prov

ider

is b

orro

win

g co

mm

erci

ally

to

finan

ce in

vest

men

t (no

t rec

urre

nt c

osts

).

Base

d on

thei

r cre

dit w

orth

ines

s, w

ater

dis

trict

s an

d LG

U-ru

n ut

ilitie

s ca

n ac

cess

com

mer

cial

fin

ance

.

Pres

iden

tial D

ecre

e No

. 198

Exec

utive

Ord

er N

o. 2

79

Avai

labl

e pr

ivate

fina

ncin

g in

stitu

tions

with

le

ndin

g fa

cilit

ies

for u

rban

wat

er s

uppl

y.

UWS

27Su

b-se

ctor

prog

ress

Is th

e su

b-se

ctor

on

track

to m

eet

the

stat

ed ta

rget

?0.

5Sc

ore

0.5

whe

re th

e na

tion

is a

t lea

st k

eepi

ng

pace

with

pop

ulat

ion

grow

th.

Scor

e 1

if th

e tra

ject

ory

in o

utco

me

repo

rting

is

with

in 9

0% o

f the

sub

sect

or ta

rget

.

Prog

ress

is ju

st k

eepi

ng p

ace

with

pop

ulat

ion

grow

th.

JMP

2013

,

Annu

al P

over

ty In

dica

tors

Sur

vey

UWS

28Eq

uity

of u

seW

hat i

s th

e ra

tio o

f im

prov

ed

drin

king

wat

er a

cces

s be

twee

n th

e lo

wes

t and

hig

hest

qui

ntile

in u

rban

ar

eas?

1Sc

ore

0.5

if th

e %

of a

cces

s in

the

wea

lthie

st

quin

tile

divid

ed b

y th

e %

of a

cces

s in

the

poor

est q

uint

ile is

bet

wee

n 2

and

5 fo

r the

su

bsec

tor.

Scor

e 1

if th

e %

of a

cces

s in

the

wea

lthie

st

quin

tile

divid

ed b

y th

e %

of a

cces

s in

the

poor

est q

uint

ile is

less

than

2 fo

r the

sub

sect

or.

Base

d on

the

NDS

2008

dat

a, fo

r tot

al

impr

oved

wat

er s

ourc

es, r

iche

st q

uint

ile is

10

0% w

hile

poo

rest

is 9

2%. R

atio

is 1

.10.

EAPR

O Eq

uity

Tre

e An

alys

is

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t53

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

UWS

29Qu

ality

of u

ser

expe

rienc

eW

hat i

s th

e av

erag

e nu

mbe

r of

hour

s of

ser

vice

per d

ay a

cros

s ur

ban

utilit

ies?

(Wei

ghte

d by

num

ber

of H

H co

nnec

tions

per

util

ity)?

1Ba

sed

on p

erfo

rman

ce d

ata

from

the

natio

nal

utilit

y or

ser

vice

prov

ider

(or 3

big

gest

citi

es)

this

indi

cato

r mea

sure

s th

e av

erag

e nu

mbe

r of

hour

s of

ser

vice

per d

ay.

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

the

aver

age

num

ber o

f hou

rs

serv

ice

is b

etw

een

6 an

d 12

hou

rs a

day

.

Scor

e 1

if th

e av

erag

e nu

mbe

r of h

ours

ser

vice

is o

ver 1

2 ho

urs

a da

y.

WDs

sta

ndar

d is

24

hour

s. N

WRB

sta

ndar

d fo

r re

gula

ted

wat

er u

tiliti

es is

8 h

ours

, alth

ough

m

ost o

f the

m h

ave

over

12

hour

s av

aila

bilit

y.

Repo

rts fr

om M

etro

Man

ila, D

avao

and

Ce

bu in

dica

te 2

4 ho

ur s

ervic

e da

ily,

ENAB

LING

SER

VICE

S : R

URAL

SAN

ITAT

ION

RSH

1Se

ctor

targ

ets

Are

ther

e RS

H ac

cess

targ

ets,

for

hous

ehol

ds a

nd/o

r com

mun

ities

, in

the

natio

nal l

evel

dev

elop

men

t pla

n?

1Sc

ore

1 if

the

plan

has

targ

ets

for b

oth

rura

l ho

useh

old

acce

ss to

san

itatio

n an

d se

ttlem

ent-

wid

e sa

nita

tion

(ODF

com

mun

ities

). Sc

ore

0.5

if th

ere

are

acce

ss ta

rget

s fo

r rur

al h

ouse

hold

sa

nita

tion

but n

ot s

ettle

men

t tar

gets

for O

DF.

Scor

e 0

if th

ere

are

no s

peci

fic ru

ral s

anita

tion

targ

ets.

The

Sust

aina

ble

Sani

tatio

n po

licy

of th

e De

partm

ent o

f Hea

lth a

ims

to h

ave

unive

rsal

ac

cess

to s

afe

and

adeq

uate

san

itary

faci

litie

s by

202

8.

Furth

erm

ore,

it a

lso

targ

ets

to h

ave

all

bara

ngay

s de

clar

ed O

pen

Defe

catio

n Fr

ee b

y 20

22.

Depa

rtmen

t of H

ealth

Adm

inis

trativ

e Or

der

2010

-002

1

RSH

2Se

ctor

pol

icy

Is th

ere

a ru

ral s

anita

tion

polic

y, th

at

is a

gree

d by

sta

keho

lder

s, a

ppro

ved

by g

over

nmen

t, an

d pu

blic

ally

avai

labl

e?

1If

ther

e is

a d

raft

polic

y an

d th

is h

as b

een

agre

ed b

y st

akeh

olde

rs b

ut n

ot y

et a

ppro

ved

this

will

be s

core

d as

0.5

.

Scor

e 1

if th

e po

licy/

stra

tegy

/ord

er/a

ct h

as

been

con

sulte

d on

with

sta

keho

lder

s, is

of

ficia

lly e

ndor

sed

by th

e go

vern

men

t and

is

publ

ic a

nd th

eref

ore

all s

ecto

r act

ors

have

un

rest

ricte

d ac

cess

to it

.

No s

peci

fic s

ecto

r pol

icy

for r

ural

san

itatio

n;De

partm

ent o

f Hea

lth A

O 20

10-0

021

RSH

3In

stitu

tiona

l rol

esAr

e th

e in

stitu

tiona

l rol

es o

f rur

al

sani

tatio

n su

bsec

tor p

laye

rs

(nat

iona

l/sta

te &

loca

l gov

ernm

ent,

serv

ice

prov

ider

, reg

ulat

or e

tc)

clea

rly d

efine

d an

d op

erat

iona

lized

?

0.5

A sc

ore

of 0

.5 c

an b

e ac

hiev

ed e

ven

if th

ere

is n

o si

ngle

pol

icy/

stra

tegy

/ ord

er/ a

ct b

ut th

e ro

les

mus

t be

set o

ut in

reco

gnize

d of

ficia

l po

licy

guid

ance

and

mus

t be

dist

inct

and

co

nsis

tent

.

A sc

ore

of 1

requ

ires

that

the

role

s ar

e di

stin

ct a

nd c

onsi

sten

t and

that

thes

e ar

e op

erat

iona

lized

.

The

role

of t

he D

epar

tmen

t of I

nter

ior a

nd L

ocal

Go

vern

men

t (DI

LG) a

nd th

e De

partm

ent o

f He

alth

(DOH

) with

the

LGUs

as

prin

cipa

l dut

y be

arer

s in

pus

hing

for r

ural

san

itatio

n co

vera

ge

is c

lear

ly es

tabl

ishe

d bu

t are

not

con

sist

ently

op

erat

iona

lized

.

Reas

ons

why

this

may

not

be

the

case

incl

ude

polit

ical

inte

rfere

nce,

lack

of i

nstit

utio

nal

capa

city,

insu

ffici

ent r

ecur

rent

bud

get

allo

catio

ns to

a s

peci

fic s

ecto

r ins

titut

ion

etc.

Depa

rtmen

t of H

ealth

AO

2010

-002

1

1975

San

itatio

n Co

de o

f the

Phi

lippi

nes

Stak

ehol

der A

sses

smen

t Rep

orts

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in t

he P

hilip

pin

es54

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

RSH

4Fu

nd fl

ow c

o-or

dina

tion

Does

gov

ernm

ent h

ave

a pr

oces

s fo

r co

-ord

inat

ing

mul

tiple

inve

stm

ents

in

the

subs

ecto

r (do

mes

tic o

r don

or,

eg. n

atio

nal g

rant

s, s

tate

bud

gets

, do

nor l

oans

and

gra

nts

etc)

?

0.5

Scor

e 1

if co

-ord

inat

ion

proc

ess

is w

ell d

efine

d an

d is

ope

ratio

naliz

ed.

Scor

e 0.

5 if

co-o

rdin

atio

n pr

oces

s is

defi

ned

but n

ot o

pera

tiona

lized

.

NEDA

is c

o-or

dina

ting

mul

tiple

inve

stm

ents

but

is

not

abl

e to

trac

k al

l inv

estm

ents

. The

re is

no

WSS

co-

ordi

natin

g co

mm

ittee

that

regu

larly

m

eets

to c

o-or

dina

te m

ultip

le fu

nd fl

ows,

es

peci

ally

on ru

ral s

anita

tion.

Sta

keho

lder

Ass

essm

ent W

orks

hop

RSH

5In

vest

men

t Pla

nIs

ther

e a

med

ium

term

inve

stm

ent

plan

for r

ural

san

itatio

n ba

sed

on

natio

nal t

arge

ts th

at is

cos

ted,

pr

iorit

izes

inve

stm

ent n

eeds

, is

publ

ishe

d an

d us

ed?

0Sc

ore

1 if

the

sect

or in

vest

men

t pla

n is

use

d to

cha

nnel

fund

ing

acco

rdin

g to

the

crite

ria

set o

ut in

the

plan

, and

/or i

s us

ed fo

r ann

ual

budg

etin

g.

Scor

e 0.

5 if

such

a p

lan

exis

ts b

ut is

not

us

ed, o

r if a

pla

n ex

ists

but

lack

s so

me

of th

e ke

y qu

ality

feat

ures

, or a

nee

ds a

sses

smen

t ha

s be

en c

arrie

d ou

t and

the

plan

is u

nder

pr

epar

atio

n.

Scor

e 0

if th

e pl

an is

not

exis

ting.

Natio

nal l

evel

non

e S

take

hold

er A

sses

smen

t Wor

ksho

p

RSH

6An

nual

revie

wIs

ther

e a

annu

al m

ulti-

stak

ehol

der

revie

w in

pla

ce to

mon

itor s

ubse

ctor

pe

rform

ance

, to

revie

w p

rogr

ess

and

set c

orre

ctive

act

ions

?

0Th

e ho

ldin

g of

ann

ual p

erfo

rman

ce re

view

s th

at a

re e

ither

not

mul

ti-st

akeh

olde

r or d

o no

t se

t cor

rect

ive a

ctio

ns s

core

s 0.

5.

Scor

e 1

if th

e re

view

is m

ulti-

stak

ehol

der,

it lo

oks

back

at t

he p

revio

us c

orre

ctive

act

ions

an

d se

ts n

ew c

orre

ctive

act

ions

.

No n

atio

nal a

nnua

l mul

ti-st

akeh

olde

r rev

iew

Stak

ehol

der A

sses

smen

t Wor

ksho

p

RSH

7HR

Cap

acity

Has

an a

sses

smen

t bee

n un

derta

ken

of th

e hu

man

reso

urce

ne

eds

in th

e su

b se

ctor

to m

eet t

he

subs

ecto

r tar

get a

nd is

the

actio

n pl

an b

eing

impl

emen

ted?

0Sc

ore

0.5

if th

e as

sess

men

t is

done

but

no

follo

w u

p ac

tions

are

take

n.

Scor

e 1

if th

e as

sess

men

t is

done

and

act

ions

ar

e be

ing

take

n to

add

ress

ski

ll sh

orta

ges

and

capa

city

issu

es.

Note

- in

a s

ituat

ion

whe

re a

d ho

c ac

tiviti

es

to d

evel

op h

uman

reso

urce

s ar

e ta

king

pla

ce,

how

ever

no

asse

ssm

ent h

as b

een

take

n, th

is

scor

e w

ould

be

No a

sses

smen

t has

bee

n do

ne.

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t55

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

RSH8

Adeq

uacy

(of

finan

cing

)Ar

e th

e pu

blic

fina

ncia

l co

mm

itmen

ts to

the

rura

l san

itatio

n su

bsec

tor s

uffic

ient

to m

eet t

he

natio

nal t

arge

ts fo

r the

sub

sect

or?

0Sc

ore

1 if

publ

ic c

omm

itmen

ts a

re o

ver 7

5% o

f th

at re

quire

d to

reac

h th

e ta

rget

s.

Scor

e 0.

5 if

betw

een

50%

and

75%

of

the

publ

ic fi

nanc

e re

quire

men

ts fo

r new

an

d re

plac

emen

t inf

rast

ruct

ure

have

bee

n co

mm

itted

ove

r the

nex

t 3 y

ears

.

No a

ppro

pria

tion

for r

ural

san

itatio

n; s

anita

tion

beca

me

hous

ehol

d re

spon

sibi

lity;

gov

ernm

ent

has

no p

rogr

am; L

GUs

may

hav

e ex

istin

g bu

t no

t all;

DOH

- a

dvoc

acy

wor

k on

ly

Gene

ral A

ppro

pria

tions

Act

201

2,

Cost

ing

tool

ana

lysis

RSH

9St

ruct

ure

Does

the

budg

et s

truct

ure

perm

it in

vest

men

ts a

nd s

ubsi

dies

(o

pera

tiona

l cos

ts, a

dmin

istra

tion,

de

bt s

ervic

e, e

tc) f

or th

e ru

ral

sani

tatio

n se

ctor

to b

e cl

early

id

entifi

ed?

0Sc

ore

1 if

ther

e is

a b

udge

t lin

e fo

r pro

mot

ion/

mar

ketin

g an

d, w

here

they

exis

t, an

add

ition

al

budg

et li

ne fo

r hou

seho

ld s

ubsi

dies

. Whe

re

ther

e is

no

hous

ehol

d su

bsid

y a

scor

e of

1 c

an

be a

chie

ved

just

by

havin

g a

budg

et li

ne fo

r pr

omot

ion/

mar

ketin

g.

Scor

e 0.

5 if

ther

e is

a b

udge

t lin

e fo

r pr

omot

ion/

mar

ketin

g bu

t not

for h

ouse

hold

su

bsid

ies

whe

re th

ey e

xist.

no, i

n th

e cu

rrent

bud

get s

truct

ure,

ther

e is

no

men

tion

of ru

ral s

anita

tion.

The

re is

no

fina

ncin

g st

rate

gy fo

r sub

sidi

es fo

r poo

r ho

useh

olds

or c

olle

ctive

ince

ntive

s.

Gene

ral A

ppro

pria

tions

Act

201

2

RSH

10Co

mpr

ehen

sive

Does

the

gove

rnm

ent b

udge

t co

mpr

ehen

sive

ly co

ver d

omes

tic

and

offic

ial d

onor

inve

stm

ent/

subs

idy

to ru

ral s

anita

tion?

0Sc

ore

1 if

the

budg

et c

aptu

res

over

75%

of t

he

flow

s in

the

subs

ecto

r.

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

the

budg

et is

dee

med

to

capt

ure

betw

een

50%

and

75%

of t

hese

flow

s.

No, t

he g

over

nmen

t bud

get d

o no

t sho

w a

co

mpr

ehen

sive

pic

ture

of i

nves

tmen

t flow

s to

th

e se

ctor

.

2012

Phi

lippi

ne D

evel

opm

ent P

lan

and

the

Publ

ic In

vest

men

t Pla

n of

201

2

DEVE

LOPI

NG S

ERVI

CES:

RUR

AL S

ANIT

ATIO

N

RSH

11Ut

ilizat

ion

of

dom

estic

fund

sW

hat p

erce

ntag

e of

dom

estic

fund

s bu

dget

ed fo

r rur

al s

anita

tion

are

spen

t for

rura

l san

itatio

n?

1A

scor

e of

0.5

is g

iven

for u

tiliza

tion

betw

een

50%

and

75%

.

Achi

evin

g a

scor

e of

1 re

quire

s th

at u

tiliza

tion

is a

bove

75%

.

Natio

nal l

evel

has

lim

ited

fund

s fo

r san

itatio

n in

gen

eral

; mor

e th

an 7

5% o

f fun

ds a

re s

pent

, m

ainl

y be

caus

e th

e am

ount

s re

ferre

d to

are

qu

ite s

mal

l

DOH

repo

rts

RSH

12Ut

ilizat

ion

of

exte

rnal

fund

sW

hat p

erce

ntag

e of

ext

erna

l fun

ds

budg

eted

for r

ural

san

itatio

n ar

e sp

ent (

3 ye

ar a

vera

ge)?

0.5

A sc

ore

of 0

.5 is

give

n fo

r util

izatio

n be

twee

n 50

% a

nd 7

5%.

Achi

evin

g a

scor

e of

1 re

quire

s th

at u

tiliza

tion

is a

bove

75%

.

DOH

/UNI

CEF/

WSP

repo

rts

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in t

he P

hilip

pin

es56

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

RSH

13Re

porti

ngIs

rura

l san

itatio

n ex

pend

iture

ver

sus

budg

et a

udite

d an

d re

porte

d on

in a

co

nsol

idat

ed fo

rmat

for a

ll so

urce

s of

dom

estic

and

offi

cial

don

or

expe

nditu

re?

0Sc

ore

1 w

here

ther

e is

con

solid

ated

ex

pend

iture

repo

rting

for b

oth

dom

estic

and

do

nor s

ourc

es.

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

exp

endi

ture

on

all d

omes

tic

flow

s is

repo

rted

on. T

his

incl

udes

exp

endi

ture

fro

m o

wn

reve

nue

sour

ces,

blo

ck g

rant

s,

spec

ial p

urpo

se g

rant

s et

c.

The

two

indi

cato

rs c

an o

nly

be m

anag

ed if

th

ere

is a

con

solid

ated

exp

endi

ture

repo

rting

fo

r all

fund

flow

s.

So fa

r, th

ere

is n

o co

nsol

idat

ed fo

rmat

for a

ll fu

ndin

g so

urce

s fo

r rur

al s

anita

tion.

Stak

ehol

der w

orks

hop

Asse

ssm

ent

RSH

14Lo

cal p

artic

ipat

ion

Are

ther

e cl

early

defi

ned

proc

edur

es

for i

nfor

min

g, c

onsu

lting

with

an

d su

ppor

ting

loca

l par

ticip

atio

n in

pla

nnin

g, b

udge

ting

and

impl

emen

ting

for r

ural

san

itatio

n de

velo

pmen

ts?

0Sc

ore

1 w

here

the

proc

edur

es a

re b

oth

codi

fied

and

cons

iste

ntly

appl

ied

acro

ss th

e m

ajor

ity (>

50%

) of a

ll su

bsec

tor d

evel

opm

ents

. Sc

ore

0.5

whe

re th

ese

proc

edur

es a

re c

odifi

ed

Yes

loca

l par

ticip

atio

n is

ther

e in

bro

ad s

troke

s in

pol

icie

s su

ch a

s NS

SP/L

SSP

but t

here

are

no

clea

rly d

efine

d pr

oced

ures

for L

GUs

to fa

cilit

ate

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f Bar

anga

y Sa

nita

tion

Plan

s.

Stak

ehol

der w

orks

hop

Asse

ssm

ent

RSH

15Bu

dget

allo

catio

n cr

iteria

Have

crit

eria

(or a

form

ula)

bee

n de

term

ined

to a

lloca

te ru

ral

sani

tatio

n fu

ndin

g eq

uita

bly

acro

ss

rura

l com

mun

ities

and

is it

bei

ng

appl

ied

cons

iste

ntly?

0Sc

ore

1 if

the

crite

ria a

re c

odifi

ed a

nd

cons

iste

ntly

impl

emen

ted

year

-on-

year

.

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

ther

e ar

e co

difie

d cr

iteria

, but

no

t con

sist

ently

app

lied

in b

udge

t allo

catio

n.

No c

riter

ia h

ave

been

det

erm

ined

to a

lloca

te

rura

l san

itatio

n fu

ndin

g.DO

H co

nfirm

atio

n in

Sta

keho

lder

As

sess

men

t Wor

ksho

p.

RSH

16Re

duci

ng in

equa

lity

Is th

ere

perio

dic

anal

ysis

to a

sses

s w

heth

er a

lloca

tion

crite

ria a

nd

loca

l par

ticip

atio

n pr

oced

ures

set

by

gov

ernm

ent h

ave

been

adh

ered

to

and

are

redu

cing

dis

parit

ies

in

acce

ss?

0Sc

ore

1 w

here

ther

e is

evid

ence

that

thes

e pu

blis

hed

asse

ssm

ents

or e

valu

atio

ns

are

acte

d up

on m

y go

vern

men

t lea

ding

to

impr

oved

equ

ity p

rinci

ples

bei

ng a

pplie

d to

the

subs

ecto

r.

Scor

e 0.

5 if

this

ana

lysis

is c

arrie

d ou

t pe

riodi

cally

and

pub

lishe

d fo

r the

sec

tor o

r su

bsec

tor

No p

erio

dic

anal

ysis

bei

ng d

one

but t

here

w

ould

be

data

ava

ilabl

e to

do

the

anal

ysis

suc

h as

the

Natio

nal D

emog

raph

ic H

eath

Sur

vey.

Stak

ehol

der A

sses

smen

t Wor

ksho

p

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t57

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

RSH

17Qu

antit

yIs

the

annu

al e

xpan

sion

of r

ural

ho

useh

olds

gai

ning

acc

ess

to s

afe

sani

tatio

n su

ffici

ent t

o m

eet t

he

subs

ecto

r tar

gets

?

0Th

e qu

antit

y of

upt

ake

refe

rs to

whe

ther

su

ffici

ent n

umbe

rs o

f hou

seho

lds

are

taki

ng u

p sa

nita

tion

faci

litie

s ea

ch y

ear f

or th

e su

bsec

tor

targ

ets

to b

e m

et.

Scor

e 1

if th

ere

is v

erifi

able

evid

ence

that

the

quan

tity

of u

ptak

e is

suf

ficie

nt to

mee

t at l

east

75

% o

f sub

sect

or ta

rget

s.

Scor

e 0.

5 if

ther

e is

ver

ifiab

le e

viden

ce th

at th

e qu

antit

y of

upt

ake

is s

uffic

ient

to m

eet a

t lea

st

50%

of s

ubse

ctor

targ

ets.

Less

than

50%

. NDH

S da

ta;

NDHS

RSH

18Ca

paci

ty fo

r pr

omot

ion

Is th

ere

enou

gh c

apac

ity -

sta

ff,

expe

rtise

, too

ls, m

ater

ials

- to

de

liver

a s

anita

tion

prog

ram

me

at

scal

e, u

sing

tailo

red

com

mun

ity-

base

d an

d/or

oth

er a

ppro

ache

s?

0Sc

ore

0.5

if th

ere

is d

ocum

enta

ry e

viden

ce

codi

fied

in a

pol

icy/

stra

tegy

/ord

ers/

acts

that

th

ere

is in

tent

to d

elive

r a ta

ilore

d sa

nita

tion

prom

otio

n ap

proa

ch a

t sca

le. T

he a

ppro

ach

shou

ld in

tend

to c

over

the

who

le ju

risdi

ctio

n.

Scor

e 1

if th

ere

is b

oth

evid

ence

of t

he

appr

oach

at s

cale

and

that

ther

e is

ade

quat

e ca

paci

ty to

del

iver a

tailo

red

appr

oach

incl

udin

g of

abs

olut

e st

aff n

umbe

rs, e

xper

tise

and

tool

s/m

ater

ials

in o

ver 7

5% o

f the

juris

dict

ion.

Low.

The

re a

re C

LTS

prog

ram

s th

at h

ave

show

n so

me

prom

ise

for s

cale

but

ther

e is

st

ill a

huge

gap

in s

taff,

exp

ertis

e. to

ols,

and

m

ater

ials

to d

elive

r for

sca

ling

up.

CLTS

repo

rts ie

Sar

anga

ni, S

uSEA

, DOH

re

ports

RSH

19Re

porti

ngDo

es th

e go

vern

men

t reg

ular

ly m

onito

r and

repo

rt on

pro

gres

s an

d qu

ality

of r

ural

san

itatio

n ac

cess

, in

clud

ing

settl

emen

t-w

ide

sani

tatio

n,

and

diss

emin

ate

the

resu

lts?

0Sc

ore

1 if

the

Gove

rnm

ent m

aint

ains

and

pu

blis

hes

data

on

trend

s of

hou

seho

lds

build

ing

toile

ts, v

illage

s be

com

ing

ODF,

stan

dard

s be

ing

met

and

hyg

ieni

c be

havio

r, an

d if

ther

e ar

e pe

riodi

c au

dits

or c

heck

s of

the

info

rmat

ion.

Scor

e 0.

5 if

ther

e is

par

tial r

epor

ting

of b

asic

qu

ality

or q

uant

ity in

dica

tors

and

thes

e ar

e no

t ve

rified

thro

ugh

spot

che

cks.

Scor

e 0

if th

ere

is n

o re

porti

ng o

r no

usef

ul

repo

rting

.

No. Q

uant

ity y

es b

ut o

nly

ever

y 5

year

s ie

ND

HS. F

ield

Hea

lth S

tatis

tics

and

Info

rmat

ion

Surv

ey (F

HSIS

) is

annu

al b

ut d

oes

not

disa

ggre

gate

rura

l fro

m u

rban

. Qua

lity

of

acce

ss, n

o re

port

at a

ll.

Natio

nal D

emog

raph

ic H

ealth

Sur

vey

(NDH

S) a

nd th

e Fi

eld

Heal

th S

tatis

tics

and

Info

rmat

ion

Syst

em (F

HSIS

)

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in t

he P

hilip

pin

es58

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

SUST

AINI

NG S

ERVI

CES

: RUR

AL S

ANIT

ATIO

N

RSH

20Su

pply-

chai

nDo

es th

e su

pply-

chai

n fo

r san

itatio

n pr

oduc

ts m

eet h

ouse

hold

nee

ds

(read

y av

aila

bilit

y, qu

antit

y an

d co

st),

satis

fy g

over

nmen

t sta

ndar

ds a

nd

reac

h to

uns

erve

d ar

eas?

0.5

Scor

e 0.

5 if

the

supp

ly ch

ain

for s

anita

tion

equi

pmen

t (bu

ildin

g m

ater

ials

) mee

ts q

uant

ity

but n

ot th

e af

ford

abilit

y (c

ost)

requ

irem

ents

of

hous

ehol

ds.

Scor

e 1

if th

e su

pply

chai

n fo

r san

itatio

n eq

uipm

ent m

eets

bot

h qu

antit

y an

d af

ford

abilit

y (c

ost)

requ

irem

ents

of h

ouse

hold

s as

wel

l as

reac

h in

to re

mot

e ar

eas

and

com

plia

nce

with

gov

ernm

ent s

tand

ards

Sani

tary

pro

duct

s (to

ilet b

owls

, cem

ent,

etc.

) are

ava

ilabl

e in

mos

t pla

ces

arou

nd th

e co

untry

; but

stil

l affo

rdab

ility

is a

n is

sue

Stak

ehol

der A

sses

smen

t Wor

ksho

p

RSH

21Pr

ivate

sec

tor

capa

city

Is th

ere

suffi

cien

t mas

on/a

rtisa

n/sm

all b

usin

ess

capa

city

to m

eet

hous

ehol

d ne

eds

(qua

ntity

, qua

lity

and

cost

)?

0.5

Scor

e 0.

5 if

sani

tatio

n m

ason

s / a

rtisa

ns /s

mal

l bu

sine

ss c

apac

ity m

eets

qua

ntity

but

not

the

qual

ity o

r affo

rdab

ility

(cos

t) re

quire

men

ts o

f ho

useh

olds

.

Scor

e 1

if sa

nita

tion

mas

ons

/ arti

sans

/ sm

all b

usin

ess

mee

ts q

uant

ity, q

ualit

y an

d af

ford

abilit

y (c

ost)

requ

irem

ents

of h

ouse

hold

s;

incl

udin

g fo

r pit

empt

ying

serv

ices

.

Yes,

mas

ons

/ arti

sans

ava

ilabl

e bu

t not

sm

all

busi

ness

; qua

lity

and

cost

are

stil

l maj

or

bottl

enec

ks.

Asse

ssm

ent W

orks

hop

Stak

ehol

der

RSH

22Pr

ivate

sec

tor

deve

lopm

ent

Does

the

gove

rnm

ent h

ave

prog

ram

s to

pro

mot

e an

d gu

ide

the

dom

estic

priv

ate

sect

or a

nd

faci

litat

e in

nova

tion

for t

he p

rovis

ion

of s

anita

tion

serv

ices

in ru

ral a

reas

?

0Sc

ore

0.5

if th

e go

vern

men

t is

faci

litat

ing

priva

te s

ecto

r dev

elop

men

t in

the

sani

tatio

n su

bsec

tor t

o a

som

e ex

tent

.

Scor

e 1

if th

e go

vern

men

t is

faci

litat

ing

priva

te

sect

or d

evel

opm

ent t

o a

full

exte

nt.

No p

rogr

ams

for f

acilit

atin

g pr

ivate

sec

tor

deve

lopm

ent i

n th

e ru

ral s

anita

tion.

RSH

23M

anag

emen

t of

Disa

ster

Ris

k an

d Cl

imat

e Ch

ange

Do lo

cal g

over

nmen

t or r

ural

ser

vice

prov

ider

s ha

ve p

lans

for c

opin

g w

ith n

atur

al d

isas

ters

and

clim

ate

chan

ge?

0.5

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

som

e se

rvic

e pr

ovid

ers

have

de

velo

ped

a cl

imat

e ac

tion

plan

or m

ost h

ave

unde

rtake

n vu

lner

abilit

y as

sess

men

ts.

Scor

e 1

whe

re th

e m

ajor

ity o

f rur

al s

ervic

e pr

ovid

ers

have

a p

lan

to re

duce

or p

repa

re fo

r cl

imat

e an

d di

sast

er im

pact

s.

only

som

e m

unic

ipal

ities

hav

e th

is. B

ut th

ere

is

an e

nabl

ing

polic

y fo

r thi

s.St

akeh

olde

r Ass

essm

ent W

orks

hop

RSH

24Su

ppor

t for

ex

pans

ion

Are

expe

nditu

res

at th

e lo

cal l

evel

in

line

with

the

natio

nal s

anita

tion

polic

y an

d ar

e th

ey s

uffic

ient

to

achi

eve

natio

nal t

arge

ts?

0Sc

ore

1 if

loca

l lev

el e

xpen

ditu

re is

in li

ne w

ith

the

polic

y an

d su

ffici

ent t

o ac

hiev

e na

tiona

l ta

rget

s.

Scor

e 0.

5 if

loca

l exp

endi

ture

is in

ine

with

the

polic

y bu

t ins

uffic

ient

to a

chie

ve

natio

nal t

arge

ts. I

f the

re is

no

polic

y th

en th

e as

sess

men

t sho

uld

be o

n th

e ba

sis

of th

e lo

cal e

xpen

ditu

re a

nd it

s ad

equa

cy to

sup

port

expa

nsio

n to

mee

t the

nat

iona

l tar

gets

.

No s

peci

fic ru

ral s

anita

tion

polic

y. Bu

dget

s ar

e m

ostly

focu

sed

on to

ilet b

owl s

ubsi

dy. O

nly

few

LGU

s ha

ve ta

ken

a m

ore

dem

and

drive

n ap

proa

ch b

ut fu

ndin

g ha

s be

en e

xter

nal.

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t59

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

RSH

25In

cent

ives

Has

gove

rnm

ent (

natio

nal o

r loc

al)

deve

lope

d an

y po

licie

s, p

roce

dure

s or

pro

gram

s to

stim

ulat

e up

take

of

rura

l san

itatio

n se

rvic

es a

nd

beha

viors

by

hous

ehol

ds?

O.5

Scor

e 1

if th

ere

is a

var

iety

of i

nstru

men

ts

whi

ch h

as b

een

deve

lope

d an

d be

ing

impl

emen

ted

to s

timul

ate

upta

ke.

Scor

e 0.

5 if

som

e in

stru

men

ts h

ave

been

de

velo

ped

but n

ot im

plem

ente

d or

ther

e is

onl

y on

e in

stru

men

t to

stim

ulat

e ru

ral s

anita

tion

or h

ygie

ne b

ehav

ior u

ptak

e w

hich

has

bee

n de

velo

ped

and

impl

emen

ted.

Only

the

Natio

nal S

earc

h fo

r the

Bes

t Bar

anga

y in

San

itatio

n Pr

actic

es. B

ut o

nly

at s

mal

l sca

le

not n

atio

nwid

e, n

ot e

ven

mun

icip

al w

ide.

Onl

y se

lect

ed b

aran

gays

.

RSH

26Be

havio

rsIs

the

gove

rnm

ent g

ener

atin

g an

d us

ing

evid

ence

to m

onito

r an

d an

alyz

e ho

useh

old

sani

tatio

n be

havio

r cha

nge

and

take

act

ion

to

impr

ove

sust

aina

bilit

y?

0.5

Scor

e 1

if th

ere

is e

viden

ce th

at th

e go

vern

men

t is

usin

g re

sear

ch (o

wn

and/

or

by o

ther

s) to

und

erst

and

beha

vior a

nd ta

ke

rem

edia

l act

ions

acr

oss

a va

riety

of b

ehav

iors

.

Scor

e 0.

5 if

the

gove

rnm

ent i

s us

ing

rese

arch

(o

wn

and/

or b

y ot

hers

) to

unde

rsta

nd b

ehav

ior

chan

ge is

sues

but

is n

ot ta

king

act

ion,

or i

s on

ly fo

cuse

d on

a n

arro

w s

cope

of b

ehav

ior

chan

ge.

Yes.

For

mat

ive re

sear

ch D

eman

d an

d Su

pply

chai

n re

sear

ch o

n-go

ing

now

bei

ng tr

ansl

ated

in

to B

ehav

iour

Cha

nge

Cam

paig

n.

RSH

27Su

b-se

ctor

prog

ress

Is th

e su

b-se

ctor

on

track

to m

eet

the

stat

ed ta

rget

?0.

5Sc

ore

0.5

whe

re th

e na

tion

is a

t lea

st k

eepi

ng

pace

with

pop

ulat

ion

grow

th.

Scor

e 1

if th

e tra

ject

ory

in o

utco

me

repo

rting

is

with

in 9

0% o

f the

sub

sect

or ta

rget

.

If a

sim

ilar t

rend

follo

ws

its u

nlik

ely

to re

ach

the

natio

nal t

arge

t by

2028

targ

et o

f uni

vers

al

cove

rage

, but

at l

east

kee

ping

up

with

po

pula

tion

grow

th

RSH

28Eq

uity

of u

seW

hat i

s th

e ra

tio o

f im

prov

ed to

ilet

acce

ss b

etw

een

the

low

est a

nd

high

est q

uint

ile in

rura

l are

as?

0.5

Scor

e 0.

5 if

the

% o

f acc

ess

in th

e w

ealth

iest

qu

intil

e di

vided

by

the

% o

f acc

ess

in th

e po

ores

t qui

ntile

is b

etw

een

2 an

d 5

for t

he

subs

ecto

r.

Scor

e 1

if th

e %

of a

cces

s in

the

wea

lthie

st

quin

tile

divid

ed b

y th

e %

of a

cces

s in

the

poor

est q

uint

ile is

less

than

2 fo

r the

sub

sect

or.

Base

d on

NDH

S 20

08, t

he ra

tio o

f im

prov

ed

toile

t acc

ess

betw

een

the

poor

est q

uint

ile a

nd

the

riche

st q

uint

ile is

3.4

EAPR

O Eq

uity

Tre

e ba

sed

on th

e Na

tiona

l De

mog

raph

ic a

nd H

ealth

Sur

vey

RSH

29Hy

gien

ic u

se o

f qu

ality

faci

litie

sW

hat p

erce

ntag

e of

peo

ple

livin

g in

rura

l are

as u

se im

prov

ed

toile

t fac

ilitie

s (e

xclu

ding

sha

red

faci

litie

s)?

0.5

Scor

e 1

if us

e of

toile

ts is

abo

ve 7

5%.

Scor

e 0.

5 if

use

of to

ilets

is b

etw

een

50%

and

75

%

The

perc

enta

ge o

f peo

ple

livin

g in

rura

l are

as

that

use

impr

oved

toile

t fac

ilitie

s (e

xclu

ding

sh

ared

faci

litie

s) in

rura

l are

as is

69%

.

JMP;

NDH

S; U

NICE

F

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in t

he P

hilip

pin

es60

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

ENAB

LING

SER

VICE

S: U

RBAN

SAN

ITAT

ION

USH

1Se

ctor

Tar

gets

Are

ther

e US

H ac

cess

targ

ets

(hou

seho

ld le

vel a

nd s

ewer

age/

sept

age

man

agem

ent)

in th

e na

tiona

l lev

el d

evel

opm

ent p

lan?

1Th

e ta

rget

mus

t be

stat

ed fo

r urb

an s

anita

tion

and

hygi

ene

in p

erce

nt (%

) of p

opul

atio

n w

ho

has

acce

ss to

impr

oved

ser

vices

. Exa

mpl

es

of ta

rget

s co

uld

be %

of s

epta

ge c

olle

cted

an

d tre

ated

ade

quat

ely,

% o

f was

te c

olle

cted

th

roug

h se

wer

age

netw

ork;

% o

f sep

tic ta

nks

conn

ectin

g to

sew

er/d

rain

age

syst

em, %

of

colle

cted

was

tew

ater

and

/or s

epta

ge tr

eate

d.

The

NSS

SMP

wou

ld h

ave

defin

ed ta

rget

s fo

r 17

hig

hly

urba

nizin

g ci

ties.

For

Met

ro M

anila

, th

e M

WSS

wou

ld h

ave

the

targ

ets

of th

e tw

o pr

ivate

con

cess

iona

ires.

Natio

nal S

ewer

age

and

Sept

age

Man

agem

ent P

rogr

am (N

SSM

P)

MW

SS re

ports

Philip

pine

Cou

ntry

Stu

dy o

f the

EA

urba

n Sa

nita

tion

Flag

ship

Stu

dy

USH

2Se

ctor

pol

icy

Is th

ere

an u

rban

san

itatio

n po

licy

that

is a

gree

d by

sta

keho

lder

s,

appr

oved

by

gove

rnm

ent,

and

publ

ical

ly av

aila

ble?

1Sc

ore

1 if

the

polic

y/st

rate

gy/o

rder

/act

has

be

en c

onsu

lted

on w

ith s

take

hold

ers,

is

offic

ially

end

orse

d by

the

gove

rnm

ent a

nd is

pu

blic

and

ther

efor

e al

l sec

tor a

ctor

s ha

ve

unre

stric

ted

acce

ss to

.

Polic

y av

aila

ble.

Nee

d fo

r dis

sem

inat

ion

and

prom

otio

n to

em

phas

ize im

porta

nce

of th

e is

sue.

Sani

tatio

n Co

de

Build

ing

Code

USH

3In

stitu

tiona

l Rol

esAr

e th

e in

stitu

tiona

l rol

es o

f urb

an

sani

tatio

n su

bsec

tor p

laye

rs

(nat

iona

l/sta

te &

loca

l gov

ernm

ent,

serv

ice

prov

ider

, reg

ulat

or e

tc.)

clea

rly d

efine

d an

d op

erat

iona

lized

?

0.5

A sc

ore

of 0

.5 c

an b

e ac

hiev

ed e

ven

if th

ere

is

no s

ingl

e po

licy/

stra

tegy

/ord

er/a

ct b

ut th

e ro

les

mus

t be

set o

ut in

reco

gnize

d of

ficia

l pol

icy

guid

ance

and

mus

t be

dist

inct

and

con

sist

ent.

A sc

ore

of 1

requ

ires

that

the

role

s ar

e di

stin

ct a

nd c

onsi

sten

t and

that

thes

e ar

e op

erat

iona

lized

.

Agen

cies

hav

e cl

ear m

anda

tes

but a

re

over

lapp

ing;

no

over

arch

ing

inst

itutio

nal

fram

ewor

k. T

o as

sign

spe

cific

inst

itutio

n to

lead

an

d to

equ

ip fo

r the

pos

ition

.

USH

4Fu

nd fl

ow c

o-or

dina

tion

Does

gov

ernm

ent h

ave

a pr

oces

s fo

r co

-ord

inat

ing

mul

tiple

inve

stm

ents

in

the

subs

ecto

r (do

mes

tic o

r don

or,

eg. N

atio

nal g

rant

s, s

tate

bud

gets

, do

nor l

oans

and

gra

nts

etc.

)?

0Th

e pr

oces

s sh

ould

be

codi

fied

in s

ome

way

e.

g. a

s te

rms

of re

fere

nce

of a

wor

king

gro

up

and

ther

e sh

ould

be

evid

ence

that

ther

e ar

e re

gula

r mee

tings

to c

o-or

dina

te th

e m

ultip

le

fund

flow

s. In

don

or d

epen

dent

cou

ntrie

s th

is

may

be

know

n as

a s

ecto

rwid

e ap

proa

ch

(SW

Ap) i

n ot

her c

ount

ries

as a

an

infra

stru

ctur

e or

WSS

co-

ordi

natin

g co

mm

ittee

.

The

Dep

artm

ent o

f Bud

get a

nd M

anag

emen

t, De

partm

ent o

f Fin

ance

and

the

Com

mis

sion

on

Aud

it ne

eds

to ta

ke s

peci

al ro

les;

all

fund

s to

war

ds th

e se

ctor

(con

gres

sion

al, n

atio

nal,

LGU,

sen

ate,

don

atio

ns, g

rant

s) s

houl

d be

co

-ord

inat

ed.

Stak

ehol

der a

sses

smen

t wor

ksho

p

USH

5In

vest

men

t pla

nsIs

ther

e a

med

ium

term

inve

stm

ent

plan

for u

rban

san

itatio

n ba

sed

on n

atio

nal t

arge

ts th

at is

cos

ted,

pr

iorit

izes

inve

stm

ent n

eeds

, is

publ

ishe

d an

d us

ed?

0.5

Scor

e 1

if th

e se

ctor

inve

stm

ent p

lan

is u

sed

to c

hann

el fu

ndin

g ac

cord

ing

to th

e cr

iteria

se

t out

in th

e pl

an, a

nd/o

r is

used

for a

nnua

l bu

dget

ing.

Scor

e 0.

5 if

such

a p

lan

exis

ts b

ut is

not

us

ed, o

r if a

pla

n ex

ists

but

lack

s so

me

of th

e ke

y qu

ality

feat

ures

, or a

nee

ds a

sses

smen

t ha

s be

en c

arrie

d ou

t and

the

plan

is u

nder

pr

epar

atio

n.

Scor

e 0

if th

e pl

an is

not

exis

ting.

To c

over

mor

e ar

eas

of in

vest

men

t for

sa

nita

tion

proj

ects

.

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t61

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

USH

6An

nual

revie

wIs

ther

e an

ann

ual m

ulti-

stak

ehol

der

revie

w in

pla

ce to

mon

itor s

ubse

ctor

pe

rform

ance

, to

revie

w p

rogr

ess

and

set c

orre

ctive

act

ions

?

0Th

ese

revie

ws

shou

ld b

e go

vern

men

t-le

d bu

t in

volve

sec

tor s

take

hold

ers.

Not

e th

ese

are

sub-

sect

or re

view

s an

d no

t ind

ividu

al p

roje

ct/

prog

ram

revie

ws.

The

hol

ding

of a

nnua

l pe

rform

ance

revie

ws

that

are

eith

er n

ot m

ulti-

stak

ehol

der o

r do

not s

et c

orre

ctive

act

ions

sc

ores

0.5

.

Achi

evin

g a

scor

e of

1 re

quire

s th

at th

e re

view

is

mul

ti-st

akeh

olde

r, th

at it

look

s ba

ck a

t the

pr

evio

us c

orre

ctive

act

ions

and

set

s ne

w

corre

ctive

act

ions

.

Ther

e is

no

annu

al m

ulti

stak

ehol

der r

evie

w fo

r ur

ban

sani

tatio

n.St

akeh

olde

r Ass

essm

ent W

orks

hop

USH

7HR

Cap

acity

Has

an a

sses

smen

t bee

n un

derta

ken

of th

e hu

man

reso

urce

ne

eds

in th

e su

b se

ctor

to m

eet t

he

subs

ecto

r tar

get a

nd is

the

actio

n pl

an b

eing

impl

emen

ted?

0Sc

ore

0.5

if th

e as

sess

men

t is

done

but

no

follo

w u

p ac

tions

are

take

n.

Scor

e 1

if th

e as

sess

men

t is

done

and

act

ions

ar

e be

ing

take

n to

add

ress

ski

ll sh

orta

ges

and

capa

city

issu

es.

Note

- in

a s

ituat

ion

whe

re a

d ho

c ac

tiviti

es

to d

evel

op h

uman

reso

urce

s ar

e ta

king

pla

ce,

how

ever

no

asse

ssm

ent h

as b

een

take

n, th

is

scor

e w

ould

be

0.

No H

R ca

paci

ty a

sses

smen

t rel

ated

to

sani

tatio

n -

capa

city

bui

ldin

g an

d tra

inin

g.

USH

8Ad

equa

cyAr

e th

e an

nual

pub

lic fi

nanc

ial

com

mitm

ents

to th

e ur

ban

sani

tatio

n su

bsec

tor s

uffic

ient

to m

eet n

atio

nal

targ

ets

for t

he s

ubse

ctor

?

0.5

A sc

ore

of 1

is g

iven

whe

re p

ublic

co

mm

itmen

ts a

re o

ver 7

5% o

f tha

t req

uire

d to

re

ach

the

targ

ets.

A sc

ore

of 0

.5 is

give

n if

betw

een

50%

and

75

% o

f the

pub

lic fi

nanc

e re

quire

men

ts fo

r ne

w a

nd re

plac

emen

t inf

rast

ruct

ure

have

bee

n co

mm

itted

ove

r the

nex

t 3 y

ears

.

Publ

ic fi

nanc

ial c

omm

itmen

t to

urba

n sa

nita

tion

is a

bout

65%

of n

eeds

. Nee

d to

Incr

ease

/ rai

se

exis

ting

allo

catio

n.

USH

9St

ruct

ure

Does

the

budg

et s

truct

ure

perm

it in

vest

men

ts a

nd s

ubsi

dies

(o

pera

tiona

l cos

ts, a

dmin

istra

tion,

de

bt s

ervic

e, e

tc) f

or th

e ur

ban

sani

tatio

n se

ctor

to b

e cl

early

id

entifi

ed?

0.5

Achi

evin

g a

scor

e of

1 re

quire

s th

at th

ere

is

a bu

dget

line

for i

nves

tmen

t and

whe

re th

ey

exis

t an

addi

tiona

l bud

get l

ine

for s

ubsi

dies

. W

here

sub

sidi

es d

o no

t exis

t, a

scor

e of

1 c

an

be a

chie

ved

just

by

havin

g a

budg

et li

ne fo

r in

vest

men

t.

A sc

ore

of 0

.5 is

give

n w

here

ther

e is

a b

udge

t lin

e fo

r inv

estm

ent b

ut n

ot fo

r sub

sidi

es w

here

th

ey e

xist.

A bu

dget

line

has

bee

n in

clud

ed in

the

Gene

ral

Appr

opria

tions

Act

of 2

013.

Gene

ral A

ppro

pria

tions

Act

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in t

he P

hilip

pin

es62

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

USH

10Co

mpr

ehen

sive

Does

the

gove

rnm

ent b

udge

t co

mpr

ehen

sive

ly co

ver d

omes

tic

and

offic

ial d

onor

inve

stm

ent/

subs

idy

to u

rban

san

itatio

n?

0Ac

hiev

ing

a sc

ore

of 1

requ

ires

that

the

budg

et c

aptu

res

over

75%

of t

he fl

ows

in th

e su

bsec

tor.

A sc

ore

of 0

.5 is

give

n w

here

the

budg

et is

de

emed

to c

aptu

re b

etw

een

50%

and

75%

of

thes

e flo

ws.

Ther

e is

no

clea

r and

com

preh

ensi

ve re

port

on

urba

n sa

nita

tion

inve

stm

ent fl

ows.

Stak

ehol

der A

sses

smen

t Wor

ksho

p

DEVE

LOPI

NG S

ERVI

CES:

URB

AN S

ANIT

ATIO

N

USH

11Ut

ilizat

ion

of

dom

estic

fund

sW

hat p

erce

ntag

e of

dom

estic

fund

s bu

dget

ed fo

r urb

an s

anita

tion

are

spen

t (3

year

ave

rage

)?

0A

scor

e of

0.5

is g

iven

for u

tiliza

tion

betw

een

50%

and

75%

.

Achi

evin

g a

scor

e of

1 re

quire

s th

at u

tiliza

tion

is a

bove

75%

.

The

NSSM

P bu

dget

had

to b

e re

alig

ned

in

2013

due

to lo

w u

tiliza

tion.

Stak

ehol

der A

sses

smen

t Wor

ksho

p

USH

12Ut

ilizat

ion

of

exte

rnal

fund

sW

hat p

erce

ntag

e of

ext

erna

l fun

ds

budg

eted

for u

rban

san

itatio

n ar

e sp

ent (

3 ye

ar a

vera

ge)?

0.5

A sc

ore

of 0

.5 is

give

n fo

r util

izatio

n be

twee

n 50

% a

nd 7

5%.

Achi

evin

g a

scor

e of

1 re

quire

s th

at u

tiliza

tion

is a

bove

75%

.

Exte

rnal

fund

s fo

r urb

an s

anita

tion

com

es fr

om

limite

d so

urce

s. T

his

gene

rally

com

es fr

om

Wor

ld B

ank

Gran

ts, P

WRF

(Mos

tly T

A), R

otar

y Cl

ub In

tern

atio

nal D

onat

ions

(Sm

all w

ater

ut

ilitie

s tre

atm

ent p

lant

s), p

rivat

e fu

nds

Stak

ehol

der A

sses

smen

t Wor

ksho

p

USH

13Re

porti

ngIs

urb

an s

anita

tion

expe

nditu

re

vers

us b

udge

t aud

ited

and

repo

rted

on in

a c

onso

lidat

ed fo

rmat

for a

ll so

urce

s of

dom

estic

and

offi

cial

do

nor e

xpen

ditu

re?

0A

scor

e of

1 is

ach

ieve

d w

here

ther

e is

co

nsol

idat

ed e

xpen

ditu

re re

porti

ng fo

r bot

h do

mes

tic a

nd d

onor

sou

rces

.

A sc

ore

of 0

.5 g

iven

whe

re e

xpen

ditu

re o

n al

l do

mes

tic fl

ows

is re

porte

d on

. Thi

s in

clud

es

expe

nditu

re fr

om o

wn

reve

nue

sour

ces,

blo

ck

gran

ts, s

peci

al p

urpo

se g

rant

s et

c.

no c

onso

lidat

ed e

xpen

ditu

re re

porti

ng fo

r urb

an

sani

tatio

n.

Stak

ehol

der A

sses

smen

t Wor

ksho

p

USH

14Lo

cal p

artic

ipat

ion

Are

ther

e cl

early

defi

ned

proc

edur

es

for i

nfor

min

g, c

onsu

lting

with

an

d su

ppor

ting

loca

l par

ticip

atio

n in

pla

nnin

g, b

udge

ting

and

impl

emen

ting

for u

rban

san

itatio

n de

velo

pmen

ts?

0.5

Achi

evin

g a

scor

e of

1 re

quire

s th

at th

e pr

oced

ures

are

bot

h co

difie

d an

d co

nsis

tent

ly ap

plie

d ac

ross

the

maj

ority

(>50

%) o

f all

subs

ecto

r dev

elop

men

ts.

A sc

ore

of 0

.5 is

give

n w

here

thes

e pr

oced

ures

ar

e co

difie

d. T

he s

ourc

e sh

ould

be

give

n in

th

e re

port.

Proc

edur

es a

re s

peci

fied

in th

e NS

SMP

guid

elin

es.

NSSM

P op

erat

ions

man

ual u

nder

way

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t63

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

USH

15Bu

dget

allo

catio

n cr

iteria

Have

crit

eria

(or a

form

ula)

bee

n de

term

ined

to a

lloca

te u

rban

sa

nita

tion

fund

ing

equi

tabl

y to

urb

an

utilit

ies

or s

ervic

e pr

ovid

ers

and

amon

g m

unic

ipal

ities

and

is it

bei

ng

cons

iste

ntly

appl

ied?

0Ac

hiev

ing

a sc

ore

of 1

requ

ires

that

the

crite

ria

are

codi

fied

and

cons

iste

ntly

impl

emen

ted

year

-on-

year

.

A sc

ore

of 0

.5 is

give

n w

here

ther

e ar

e co

difie

d cr

iteria

, but

not

con

sist

ently

app

lied

in b

udge

t al

loca

tion.

no p

olic

y, cr

itiria

, ord

er o

r act

on

allo

catio

n of

ur

ban

sani

tatio

n fu

ndin

g.

Stak

ehol

der A

sses

smen

t Wor

ksho

p

USH

16Re

duci

ng in

equa

lity

Do lo

cal g

over

nmen

t or u

rban

se

rvic

e pr

ovid

ers

(nat

iona

l or i

n 3

larg

est c

ities

) hav

e sp

ecifi

c pl

ans

or m

easu

res

deve

lope

d an

d im

plem

ente

d fo

r ser

ving

the

urba

n po

or?

0Ac

hiev

ing

a sc

ore

of 1

requ

ires

that

ther

e is

doc

umen

tary

evid

ence

that

thes

e pl

ans

to s

erve

the

unse

rved

poo

r are

bei

ng

impl

emen

ted.

If th

e as

sess

men

t is

of th

e 3

larg

est c

ities

at l

east

2 c

ities

mus

t be

able

to

show

that

pla

ns to

ser

ve th

e po

or a

re b

eing

im

plem

ente

d.

A sc

ore

of 0

.5 is

give

n w

here

pro

-poo

r se

rvic

e de

liver

y de

velo

pmen

t pla

ns h

ave

been

de

velo

ped.

If th

e as

sess

men

t is

of th

e 3

larg

est

citie

s at

leas

t 2 c

ities

mus

t hav

e pl

ans

to s

erve

th

e po

or.

Prov

idin

g ur

ban

sani

tatio

n se

rvic

es to

the

poor

is

not

a p

riorit

y of

loca

l gov

ernm

ent a

nd o

r ur

ban

serv

ice

prov

ider

s. T

here

is n

o cl

ear p

lan

for p

ro-p

oor u

rban

san

itatio

n st

rate

gies

.

Stak

ehol

der A

sses

smen

t Wor

ksho

p

USH

17Qu

antit

y (a

cces

s)Is

the

annu

al e

xpan

sion

of u

rban

ho

useh

olds

gai

ning

acc

ess

to s

afe

sani

tatio

n su

ffici

ent t

o m

eet t

he

subs

ecto

r tar

gets

?

0Th

e qu

antit

y of

upt

ake

refe

rs to

whe

ther

su

ffici

ent n

umbe

rs o

f hou

seho

lds

are

taki

ng u

p sa

nita

tion

faci

litie

s ea

ch y

ear f

or th

e su

bsec

tor

targ

ets

to b

e m

et.

Achi

evin

g a

scor

e of

1 re

quire

s th

at th

ere

is

verifi

able

evid

ence

that

the

quan

tity

of u

ptak

e is

suf

ficie

nt to

mee

t at l

east

75%

of s

ubse

ctor

ta

rget

s.

A sc

ore

of 0

.5 is

give

n if

ther

e is

ver

ifiab

le

evid

ence

that

the

quan

tity

of u

ptak

e is

su

ffici

ent t

o m

eet a

t lea

st 5

0% o

f sub

sect

or

targ

ets.

No re

liabl

e ev

iden

ce th

at q

uant

ity o

f upt

ake

is

suffi

cien

t to

mee

t at l

east

50%

of s

ubse

ctor

ta

rget

s

Stak

ehol

der A

sses

smen

t Wor

ksho

p

USH

18Qu

antit

y (tr

eatm

ent)

Is th

e an

nual

incr

ease

in th

e pr

opor

tion

of fe

cal w

aste

that

is

safe

ly co

llect

ed a

nd tr

eate

d gr

owin

g at

the

pace

requ

ired

to m

eet t

he

subs

ecto

r tar

gets

(for

bot

h on

site

an

d se

wer

age)

?

0Sc

ore

1 if

the

annu

al in

crea

se in

urb

an fe

cal

was

te c

olle

ctio

n an

d tre

atm

ent c

apac

ity is

su

ffici

ent t

o m

eet s

ubse

ctor

targ

ets.

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

the

annu

al in

crea

se in

urb

an

feca

l was

te c

olle

ctio

n ca

paci

ty is

suf

ficie

nt to

m

eet s

ubse

ctor

targ

ets.

Urba

n fe

cal w

aste

col

lect

ion

is n

ot c

onsi

sten

tly

asse

ssed

and

mon

itore

d co

untry

wid

e. O

nly

thos

e fo

r Met

ro M

anila

are

mon

itore

d an

d ar

e no

t rep

rese

ntat

ive o

f sec

tor t

arge

ts. T

he

NSSM

P pr

ojec

ts a

nd ta

rget

s ha

ve n

ot y

et

take

n of

f.

Stak

ehol

der A

sses

smen

t Wor

ksho

p

Urba

n Sa

nita

tion

Flag

ship

Stu

dy P

hilip

pine

s co

untry

Rep

ort 2

012

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in t

he P

hilip

pin

es64

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

USH

19Re

porti

ng

Are

ther

e pr

oced

ures

and

pro

cess

es

appl

ied

on a

regu

lar b

asis

to

mon

itor u

rban

san

itatio

n ac

cess

and

th

e qu

ality

of s

ervic

es a

nd is

the

info

rmat

ion

diss

emin

ated

?

0Sc

ore

1 if

ther

e ar

e co

mpr

ehen

sive

pro

cedu

res

and

proc

esse

s, s

uch

as th

roug

h a

regu

larly

ve

rified

mon

itorin

g sy

stem

whi

ch d

isse

min

ates

th

e re

sults

.

Scor

e 0.

5 if

only

qual

ity o

r qua

ntity

is re

porte

d on

.

Gov'

t has

lim

ited

capa

city

to re

gula

rly m

onito

r an

d re

port

on re

sults

for u

rban

san

itatio

n in

clud

ing

acce

ss, a

nd q

ualit

y of

ser

vices

.

Stak

ehol

der W

orks

hop

Asse

ssm

ent

USH

20Co

llect

ion

and

treat

men

t W

hat i

s th

e pr

opor

tion

of to

tal f

aeca

l w

aste

gen

erat

ed th

at g

ets

safe

ly co

llect

ed a

nd tr

eate

d?

0Co

llect

ion

mea

ns c

olle

ctio

n fro

m th

e HH

leve

l to

the

treat

men

t pla

nt.

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

mor

e th

an 5

0% o

f urb

an fe

cal

was

te g

ener

ated

is c

olle

cted

.

Scor

e 1

if m

ore

than

75%

of u

rban

feca

l was

te

gene

rate

d is

col

lect

ed A

ND tr

eate

d.

This

indi

cato

r mea

sure

s co

llect

ion

and

treat

men

t cap

acity

in re

latio

n to

the

tota

l fec

al

was

te p

rodu

ced.

Col

lect

ion

mea

ns c

olle

ctio

n fro

m th

e HH

leve

l to

the

treat

men

t pla

nt.

Less

than

50%

of u

rban

feca

l was

te g

ener

ated

is

col

lect

ed

Urba

n Sa

nita

tion

Flag

ship

Stu

dy P

hilip

pine

s co

untry

Rep

ort 2

012

Stak

ehol

der A

sses

smen

t Wor

ksho

p

USH

21Co

st re

cove

ryAr

e O&

M c

osts

of t

reat

men

t sy

stem

s (b

eyon

d ho

useh

old

leve

l fa

cilit

ies)

ass

esse

d/kn

own

and

fully

m

et b

y ei

ther

cos

t rec

over

y th

roug

h us

er fe

es a

nd/o

r loc

al re

venu

e or

tra

nsfe

rs?

0Sc

ore

0.5

whe

re th

ere

is a

n O&

M p

olic

y, co

sts

are

estim

ated

and

ove

r 50%

are

cov

ered

. An

est

imat

ion

wou

ld b

e ba

sed

on e

.g. a

% o

f ca

pita

l val

ue.

Scor

e 1

whe

re th

ere

is a

n O&

M p

olic

y, co

sts

are

know

n an

d ov

er 7

5% a

re c

over

ed. A

n as

sess

men

t wou

ld b

e ba

sed

on a

ctua

l cos

t da

ta.

O a

nd M

pol

icy

is n

ot n

atio

nal i

n sc

ope.

Fo

r som

e se

rvic

e ar

eas,

the

O&M

cos

t are

re

cove

red

thro

ugh

wat

er ta

riffs

(for

hou

seho

lds)

su

ch a

s in

Met

ro M

anila

and

a fe

w c

ities

.

Urba

n Sa

nita

tion

Flag

ship

Stu

dy P

hilip

pine

s co

untry

Rep

ort 2

012

Stak

ehol

der A

sses

smen

t Wor

ksho

p

USH

22Di

scha

rge

Are

ther

e no

rms

and

stan

dard

s fo

r w

aste

wat

er d

isch

arge

for s

epta

ge

and

sew

erag

e tre

atm

ent p

lant

s th

at

are

syst

emat

ical

ly m

onito

red

unde

r a

regi

me

of s

anct

ions

(pen

altie

s)?

0Th

is in

dica

tor o

nly

refe

rs to

the

disc

harg

e of

w

aste

wat

er a

t ins

titut

iona

l tre

atm

ent p

lant

s fo

r sew

erag

e or

sep

tage

; Evid

ence

from

th

e ag

ency

resp

onsi

ble

for e

nfor

cem

ent o

f st

anda

rds

is re

quire

d to

illu

stra

te w

heth

er o

r no

t san

ctio

ns h

ave

been

issu

ed

Regu

lato

rs a

re la

ckin

g lo

gist

ics

and

pers

onne

l (D

ENR-

EMB,

LLD

A)St

akeh

olde

r Ass

essm

ent W

orks

hop

USH

23M

anag

emen

t of

Disa

ster

Ris

k an

d Cl

imat

e Ch

ange

Do lo

cal g

over

nmen

t or s

ervic

e pr

ovid

ers

(nat

iona

l or i

n 3

larg

est

citie

s) h

ave

plan

s fo

r cop

ing

with

na

tura

l dis

aste

rs a

nd c

limat

e ch

ange

?

0Sc

ore

0.5

whe

re s

ome

serv

ice

prov

ider

s ha

ve

deve

lope

d a

clim

ate

actio

n pl

an o

r mos

t hav

e un

derta

ken

vuln

erab

ility

asse

ssm

ents

.

Scor

e 1

whe

re th

e m

ajor

ity o

f urb

an s

ervic

e pr

ovid

ers

have

a p

lan

to re

duce

or p

repa

re fo

r cl

imat

e an

d di

sast

er im

pact

s.

The

desi

gn o

f fac

ilitie

s of

the

conc

essi

onai

res

are

clim

ate

chan

ge re

silie

nt. T

here

is n

o sp

ecifi

c re

porti

ng s

yste

m fo

r mea

sure

s be

ing

unde

rtake

n to

add

ress

clim

ate

and

disa

ster

risk

re

duct

ion.

Asp

ect r

elat

ed to

clim

ate

and

natu

ral

disa

ster

s sh

ould

be

filed

to c

ence

rned

age

ncie

s (N

DRRM

C an

d CC

C)

Stak

ehol

der A

sses

smen

t Wor

ksho

p

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t65

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

USH

24Up

take

Ha

s go

vern

men

t (na

tiona

l or l

ocal

) de

velo

ped

any

polic

ies,

pro

cedu

res

or p

rogr

ams

to s

timul

ate

upta

ke

of u

rban

san

itatio

n se

rvic

es a

nd

beha

viors

by

hous

ehol

ds?

0.5

Scor

e 1

if th

ere

is a

var

iety

of i

nstru

men

ts

whi

ch h

as b

een

deve

lope

d an

d be

ing

impl

emen

ted

to s

timul

ate

upta

ke.

Scor

e 0.

5 if

som

e in

stru

men

ts h

ave

been

de

velo

ped

but n

ot im

plem

ente

d or

ther

e is

onl

y on

e in

stru

men

t to

stim

ulat

e ur

ban

sani

tatio

n up

take

whi

ch h

as b

een

deve

lope

d an

d im

plem

ente

d.

Thre

are

LGU

s w

ith S

anita

tion

Ordi

nanc

es

(Mar

ikin

a, M

untin

lupa

, Mak

ati,

Alab

el, S

ta.

Rosa

, Zam

baon

ga C

ity, S

an F

erna

ndo,

etc

.)

Stak

ehol

der A

sses

smen

t Wor

ksho

p

USH

25Pl

ans

Do g

over

nmen

t/ser

vice

prov

ider

s ha

ve b

usin

ess

plan

s fo

r exp

andi

ng

the

prop

ortio

n of

city

wid

e fe

cal

was

te th

at is

saf

ely

colle

cted

and

tre

ated

?

0.5

Scor

e 0.

5 w

here

the

utilit

y or

ser

vice

prov

ider

ca

n pr

esen

t a b

usin

ess

plan

or o

ne u

nder

pr

epar

atio

n

Scor

e 1

whe

re th

ere

is c

lear

evid

ence

that

th

e bu

sine

ss p

lan

not o

nly

exis

ts b

ut th

at b

oth

aspe

cts

of e

xpan

sion

- s

afe

colle

ctio

n an

d tre

atm

ent -

are

bei

ng im

plem

ente

d.

In th

e M

WSS

ser

vice

area

s, c

once

ssio

naire

s ha

ve b

usin

ess

plan

s w

hich

are

revie

wed

by

the

regu

lato

rs e

very

5 y

ears

. Wat

er d

istri

cts

are

man

date

d to

add

ress

san

itatio

n.

Sub

mitt

ed B

usin

ess

plan

s

USH

26Pr

ivate

sec

tor

deve

lopm

ent

Does

the

gove

rnm

ent h

ave

ongo

ing

prog

ram

s an

d m

easu

res

to s

treng

then

the

dom

estic

priv

ate

sect

or fo

r the

pro

visio

n of

san

itatio

n se

rvic

es in

urb

an o

r per

i-urb

an

area

s?

0Sc

ore

0 in

the

case

whe

re th

e go

vern

men

t has

no

t dev

elop

ed a

ny c

oncr

ete

inte

rven

tions

to

stre

ngth

en p

rivat

e se

ctor

role

;

Scor

e 0.

5 if

gove

rnm

ent i

s cu

rrent

ly de

velo

ping

an

d re

sear

chin

g po

ssib

ilitie

s to

stre

ngth

en th

e pr

ivate

sec

tor;

Scor

e 1

poin

t in

case

sev

eral

pro

gram

s an

d ex

ampl

es c

an b

e fo

und

whe

re g

over

nmen

t ha

s ac

tivel

y pr

omot

ed th

e pr

ivate

sec

tor t

o ge

t in

volve

d in

urb

an s

anita

tion

deliv

ery.

Gove

rnm

ent h

as n

ot d

evel

oped

any

con

cret

e in

terv

entio

ns to

stre

ngth

en p

rivat

e se

ctor

role

in

urb

an s

anita

tion.

Sta

keho

lder

Ass

essm

ent W

orks

hop

USH

27Su

b-se

ctor

pr

ogre

ssIs

the

sub-

sect

or o

n tra

ck to

mee

t th

e st

ated

targ

et?

0Sc

ore

0.5

whe

re th

e na

tion

is a

t lea

st k

eepi

ng

pace

with

pop

ulat

ion

grow

th.

Scor

e 1

if th

e tra

ject

ory

in o

utco

me

repo

rting

is

with

in 9

0% o

f the

sub

sect

or ta

rget

.

Ther

e is

no

natio

nal t

arge

t. Th

ere

is o

nly

NSSM

P pr

ojec

t bas

ed ta

rget

s.

NSSM

P ta

rget

s

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in t

he P

hilip

pin

es66

Sub-

sect

orAr

eas

of e

vide

nce

for a

sses

smen

tQu

estio

nSc

ore

Crite

ria fo

r sco

ring

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

USH

28Eq

uity

of u

seW

hat i

s th

e ra

tio o

f im

prov

ed to

ilet

acce

ss b

etw

een

the

low

est a

nd

high

est q

uint

ile in

urb

an a

reas

?

0.5

Scor

e 0.

5 if

the

% o

f acc

ess

in th

e w

ealth

iest

qu

intil

e di

vided

by

the

% o

f acc

ess

in th

e po

ores

t qui

ntile

is b

etw

een

2 an

d 5

for t

he

subs

ecto

r.

Scor

e 1

if th

e %

of a

cces

s in

the

wea

lthie

st

quin

tile

divid

ed b

y th

e %

of a

cces

s in

the

poor

est q

uint

ile is

less

than

2 fo

r the

sub

sect

or.

the

% o

f acc

ess

in th

e w

ealth

iest

qui

ntile

di

vided

by

the

% o

f acc

ess

in th

e po

ores

t qu

intil

e is

bet

wee

n 2.

26.

NDHS

200

8, E

APRO

Equ

ity T

ree

USH

29Us

e of

faci

litie

sW

hat p

erce

ntag

e of

peo

ple

livin

g in

urb

an a

reas

use

impr

oved

to

ilet f

acilit

ies

(exc

ludi

ng s

hare

d fa

cilit

ies)

?

0.5

This

indi

cato

r foc

uses

on

abso

lute

leve

ls o

f ac

cess

at h

ouse

hold

leve

l. Th

e le

vel o

f am

bitio

n ha

s be

en s

et q

uite

hig

h, to

refle

ct th

e si

tuat

ion

in E

AP. S

ourc

e of

dat

a is

JM

P an

d/or

nat

iona

l da

ta.

Leve

l of a

cces

s is

cur

rent

ly 79

% o

f peo

ple

livin

g in

urb

an a

reas

use

impr

oved

toile

t fa

cilit

ies.

JMP

2013

Dat

a


Annex 2: Key Assumptions and Inputs for Costing Analysis

Table A2.1 shows the key demographic variables used in the analysis. Population data for 1993 was taken from the JMP (2012). On the other hand, population for 2008 used information from the UN (2010) for the total and JMP (2012) data to apportion the total between rural and urban areas. The rural and urban populations for 2025 and 2028 were then calculated by the application of projected population growth rates from the United Nations (2012).

Table A2.1 Demographic variables

Region

Population (million persons) Population growth rate assumed from 2009-2028

(% p.a.)1993 2008 2025 2028

Rural 34 47 57 59 1.2

Urban 32 44 63 68 1.2

National 66 90 120 127 Not calculated

Table A2.2 Current and target coverage rates

Sector 2008 targeta

Rural water supply 86% 100% (2025)

Urban water supply 94% 100% (2025)

Rural sanitation 79% 100% (2028)

Urban sanitation 94% 100% (2028)

a Target years are in parenthesis.

This annex describes the key inputs that were used to generate estimates of the required, anticipated and recent expenditures. It discusses the sources, adjustments and assumptions of the following information: exchange rates, demographic variables, sector-specific technologies and spending plans.

Exchange Rates

For the years 2009-2012, values expressed in Philippine pesos (PhP) were converted into US Dollars using exchange rates extracted from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. Projections for 2013 employed the mid-point of the exchange rate used in the national budget (DBM, 2013). The exchange rate for 2014 was assumed to be the same as in 2013.

Demographic Variables

The costing tool requires two sets of demographic variables. The first represents rural and urban population estimates for 1993, 2008 and the target year (2025 for water supply and 2028 for sanitation). Combined with existing and target coverage rates for water supply and sanitation, this information is used to calculate the number of people that will require access to improved facilities from 2009 to the target year. The second set of information refers to the average size of households. This is used to convert costs of facilities, which are generally in expressed on a per household basis, into per capita terms. The value used in the analysis for this variable (4.6 members/household) was drawn from the NSO (undated).


Coverage rates

Table A2.2 shows the baseline (2008) and target coverage rates for water supply and sanitation. The 2008 coverage rates were sourced from the NDHS (NSO, 2008) while the targets were taken from the water supply (NEDA, 2010) and sanitation (DOH, 2009) roadmaps that were prepared by the national government.

Sector-Specific Technologies: Water

Information on sector-specific technologies is essential in the calculation of investment requirements and its components. Table A2.3 presents information on household distribution, costs and lifespans of key water supply technologies. The options included and their distribution for 2008 were based on the 2008 NDHS (NSO, 2009; JMP, 2012a).

Recognizing that the distributions of technologies in 2008 and 2025 are most likely to be different and that there is no document that provides solid information for the target year, the strategy adopted in the analysis was ask the stakeholders who were present in a consultation workshop at Tagaytay City on March 2013. The agreed approach was to follow the pattern used by Villaluna (2013), which assumed that 90% of population in 2025 will have access to Level 2 and 3 facilities and the remainder will only have access to Level 1 facilities.48 In consultation with stakeholders in the Tagaytay workshop on March 2013, people with access to piped dwelling into yard were treated as having a Level 3 system. People with access to a public tap were assumed to have a Level 2 system. People with access to tubewell/borehole were considered as having a mix of Level 1 and 2 systems. All other options were treated as Level 1 systems.

Table A2.3 Selected information on water supply sourcesa

Option

Distribution of facilities (2008, % of population with access to improved

facilities)

Projected distribution of facilities (2025, % of population with access

to improved facilities)

Unit capital cost ($/capita, 2012 prices) Lifespan (years)

Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban

Piped into dwelling/yard

27% 63% 45% 71% 89 128 25.0

Publictap 9% 6% 13% 8% 28 28 8.0

Tubewell/borehole 37% 24% 33% 20% 27 27 5.5

Improved dug well 12% 4% 4% 1% 19 19 10.0

Protected spring 14% 3% 4% 1% 19 19 10.0

Rainwater 1% 1% 0% 0% 19 19 10.0

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% nc nc nc

a na = not available, nc = not calculated.

48 The Philippine Water Supply Roadmap (NEDA, 2010) provides definitions of Levels 1 to 3 water services that are based on NEDA Board Resoluiation No. 12. These are as follows. Level 1 (point sources) is ‘a protected well or a developed spring with an outlet but without a distribution system as it is generally adaptable for rural areas where the houses are thinly scattered serving average of 15 households with people having to fetch water from up to 250 meters distance.’ Level 2 (communal water faucet system or stand post) is ‘a piped system with communal or public faucets usually serving 4-6 households within 25 meters distance.’ Level 3 is ‘a fully reticulated system with individual house connections based on a daily water demand of more than 100 liters per person.’


A difficulty with the approach above is that Villaluna (2013) does not provide guidance for a rural-urban analysis. Hence the strategy adopted in the analysis was to first apportion the shares across the technologies at the national level. This was then allocated across regions by assuming that the ratio of the urban to rural users for a particular technology in 2025 is the same as in 2008. In other words, if there are five times as many people in urban areas compared to rural areas had access to piped facilities in 2008, then there will still be five times as many people in urban regions compared to rural regions that will have access to piped facilities in 2025.

Unit capital costs represent expenditures for materials and labor employed in the construction of the different facilities. The values used in the analysis were calculated using the raw data on the costs of Levels 1 to 3 systems provided in Villaluna (2013). The dataset contained information on 216 projects which were financed by the following: (a) SALINTUBIG project of the DILG, (b) KALAHI-CIDDS project of the DWSD, (c) Mindanao Basic Urban Services Sector Project of the DILG, (d) A Single Drop NGO, (e) Land Bank of the Philippines, (f) selected water districts, and (g) various private institutions.

Table A2.4 Selected information on sanitation technologies

Option

Distribution of facilities (2008, % of population with access to improved

facilities)

Projected distribution of facilities (2025, % of population with access

to improved facilities

Unit capital cost ($/capita, 2012 prices) Lifespan

(years)

Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban

Piped into dwelling/yard 3% 3% 4% 20% 57 250 25

Publictap 54% 73% 61% 80% 27 27 13

Tubewell/borehole 18% 5% 10% 0% 25 25 6

Improved dug well 6% 1% 3% 0% 10 10 2

Protected spring 1% 0% 0% 0% 21 21 10

Rainwater 19% 18% 22% 0% 25 27 11

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% nc nc nc

Lifespan represents the projected number of years before a facility is fully replaced. The values used in the analysis represent averages of the information provided a consultation workshop at Tagaytay City on March 2013.

Sector-Specific Technologies: Sanitation

Table A2.4 presents information on the expected household distribution, costs and lifespans of key sanitation technologies. The options included were based on the technologies reported in the 2008 NDHS (NSO, 2009; JMP, 2012b).

Similar to water supply technologies, the distribution of sanitation options for 2008 was based on the shares indicated in the 2008 NDHS (NSO, 2009; JMP, 2012b). The difficult part of the analysis was generating a distribution of options for the target year because there is no document which provides the information. The approach used in the analysis was therefore based on the opinions of the participants in separate consultation workshops. In the case of rural sanitation, the agreed approach (Tagaytay consultation workshop, March 2013) was to base the 2028


technology mix on the trends implied by the shares of the technologies in the 1993 and 2008 NDHS.

For urban sanitation, the 2028 technology mix was determined in consultation with stakeholders at a workshop on June 2013 in Pasig city. It is important to note that the projected sewer coverage in urban areas (20%) falls within the possible range of targets for urban areas. The World Bank and AusAID (2012) estimated that the targets of NSSMP and concessionaires in Metro Manila suggests an urban sewerage target of 10%-15% by 2020. Applying the implied incremental increases from 2008 to 2020 implies a sewerage target of 14%-27% for urban areas in 2028.

The unit costs of facilities were drawn from various sources. The cost of flush toilets to piped sewer in urban areas (US$ 250/person) was obtained from the World Bank and AusAID (2013).49 This value is at the lower end of the per capita costs presented in the ESI study and World Bank and AusAID East Asia Flagship study.50 In the absence of estimates for rural areas, it was assumed that the costs of sewers for the rural population are half of the costs of sewers used in the ESI study. The guiding principle behind the assumption is that sewers in rural areas are likely to be less sophisticated than in urban areas, perhaps consisting only of drains and without treatment.

Costs of flush toilets to septic tanks and composting toilets were taken from the Water, Agroforestry, Nutrition and Development (WAND) Foundation. The costs are conservative and assume that the facilities are made inexpensive and locally available materials for the superstructure. In the case of toilets to septic tanks for example, per capita costs used in the ESI (Rodriguez et al., 2010) were more than 8 times higher at US$ 226/person. A separate study by the REEECS et al. (2013) suggests costs of US$ 40-100 per person in rural areas.51 In the case of composting toilets, the per capita costs used in the analysis (US$ 21/person) are a sixth of the average value used in the ESI study (Rodriguez et. al., 2010).

The costs of dry and wet pits used in the analysis were obtained from the ESI study (Rodriguez et al., 2010). Costs for shared toilets/latrines were weighted averages of the other facilities included in the analysis.

Most Information on the lifespan of facilities was initially drawn from Rodriguez et al. (2011). However, some values were revised following the comments provided in the consultation workshop in Tagaytay City on March 2013. The key revision arising out of the workshop was in the costs and lifespan of shared facilities. The current analysis assumes that the shares of the technologies among households that which shared facilities are the same as those households that have access to private facilities. It also assumes that a shared facility is used by three households. The lifespan of toilets to septic tanks was based on estimates provided by the WAND foundation.

A note on septage management

Table A2.4 does not contain information on septage management for those households that have access to toilets and septic tanks. However, such facilities are incorporated in the plans under the NSSMP and the targets of the concessionaires in Metro Manila and should therefore be included in the analysis.

Investment requirements for septage treatment were calculated separately and incorporated in urban CAPEX requirements for sanitation under the heading of ‘Others’ (see Figure 15). The assumptions for calculating annual CAPEX requirements for septage treatment are as follows. The baseline for the analysis was World Bank and AusAID (2012) estimate that about 10% of septage was treated in urban areas as of 2010. The same source also estimated that the NSSMP (for outside Metro Manila) and concessionaire plans in Metro Manila suggests that 70% of the urban population will have access to septage treatment by 2020. The current analysis assumes that the magnitude

49 The same source indicates that the US$ 250 per person is based on master plans of Metro Manila.50 The ESI study (Rodriguez et. al., 2010) reports a CAPEX cost of US$ 144 per person for the sewage treatment. The World Bank and AusAID (2012) indicates CAPEX costs for decentralized sewage treatment systems of US$ 100-300 per person. It also estimates costs of US$ 450-1,300 per person for centralized systems. All values are at 2012 prices.51 The study indicates costs of PhP 8,000 – 20,000 per facility. It does not indicate whether the facility includes a septic tank.


of changes from 2010 to 2020 will continue. This in turn suggests that all of the urban population that have access to toilets and septic tanks (80% as indicated in Table A2.4) will have access to septage treatment by 2028. In short, the target for the analysis is that 80% of the urban population will have access to septage treatment by 2028.

CAPEX costs for septage treatment were assumed to be about US$ 9 per person. This is the mid-point of the estimates of the USAID Water and Sanitation Sector Assessment and the projects of concessionaires in Metro Manila that were reported in the World Bank and AusAID (2012).52 The costs are higher than the US$ 5 per person used in the NSSMP (DPWH et. al., 2009) and the lower than the US$ 53 per person used the in the ESI study (Rodriguez et. al., 2010).

Spending Plans

In order to get a sense of how allocations for the short to medium term measure against investment requirements, capital expenditures of the government, donor agencies, NGOs and private institutions from 2009 to 2014 were obtained from published documents and interviews. An attempt was also made project the contribution of households or users in water and sanitation investments.

Table A2.5 shows the estimated average annual spending of key stakeholders from 2009 to 2014. As mentioned in the text, the starting point for compiling this dataset is to examine various releases of the General Appropriations Act (GAA) and Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing, and the websites of the stakeholders. The process was followed by visits the various government agencies and other stakeholders in order to validate the information collected from documents. The government agencies and Government Owned and Controlled Corporations (GOCCs) visited were: (a) Department of Social Welfare and Development, (b) Department of Public Works and Highways,

(c) Department of Health, (d) Department of Interior and Local Government, (e) Department of Agrarian Reform, (f) Local Water Utilities Administration, (g) Metropolitan Water Works and Sewerage System, and (h) Development Bank of the Philippines. Other firms and institutions consulted were: (a) World Bank, (b) Asian Development Bank, (c) Japan International Cooperation Agency, and (d) United States Agency for International Development, (e) Manila Water, (f) Maynilad, (g) Philippine Water Revolving Fund.

Government funds reflected in Table A2.5 include the allocations to DOH, DILG and LWUA (2012-2014 only). It also includes estimated counterpart funds provided by local government units to projects of the DOH (SALINTUBIG), DILG (SALINTUBIG), DSWD (Kalahi-CIDDS) and DAR. Donor funds include those coming from the JICA, ADB, IFAD and the World Bank. It also includes donor funds coursed through projects of the DSWD (Kalahi-CIDSS) and DAR. The budgets/expenditures of the two concessionaires in Metro Manila make up all of the funds under the heading of NGOs & private sector.

The process of the collecting and compiling the information for capital expenditures was difficult and the subject to the following issues/limitations. Expenditures of local government units (LGUs) and water districts (WDs) were limited to counterpart funds provided by these institutions to the projects of the national government and development partners. Expenditures financed by the LGUs, WDs, NGOs and small water private service providers sourced from internal funds or borrowed from commercial banks because consolidated data was not available.

Future allocations of multi-purpose demand driven funds were also excluded due to the uncertainty over how and where these funds are likely to be used. Examples include future allocations of the Support for Strategic Local Development and Investment Project of the World Bank,

52 The costs indicated range from US$ 8.5 to US$10 per person.53 Formerly called the Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan – Comprehensive Integrated Delivery of Social Service (KALAHI-CIDSS).


National Community Driven Development Program53 project of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), and the Environmental Development Project of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).

Apart from the expected difficulties associated with collecting information from various sources, other challenges were confronted in the process. The costing tool only uses information on hardware costs (e.g. construction costs of facilities) and excludes software costs (e.g. training and awareness programs). Moreover, such information must be disaggregated between the four sectors (i.e., rural water supply, urban water supply, rural sanitation, and urban sanitation) and, in the case of multi-year projects, for each year. However, the disaggregation desired for the analysis is not always readily available, or even known, for projects. In such instances, the study team consulted

project implementers and other experts to seek further documents or make educated approximations.

There is no reliable dataset that could provide information on the anticipated capital expenditures of households on water supply and sanitation. This was therefore modeled in the costing tool by assuming that households contribute a fixed proportion of the expenditures for a particular technology. In other words, household CAPEX was calculated using the estimates of the contribution of the other stakeholders (e.g. government, utilities and development partners) and assumed household share for a particular technology. To illustrate, assume that 10% of the costs of a deep well is supposed to be provided by households. If the other stakeholders were found to have contributed US$ 90 million for deep wells in a particular year, then the household contribution is estimated to be US$ 10 million.

Table A2.5 Anticipated (2012-2014) and recent (2009-2011) public investments (million US$, annual averages)

Sector Government Donors/ Development partners NGOs & private sector Total

Anticipated (2012-2014)

Rural water supply 28 3 1 32

Urban water supply 12 4 290 306

Rural sanitation 1 0 0 1

Urban sanitation 20 11 264 295

Recent (2009-2014)

Rural water supply 6 2 - 8

Urban water supply - 4 224 228

Rural sanitation 0 0 - 0

Urban sanitation - 8 46 55


Data on user shares could be based on an expressed policy that is supported by documentation. Since such information is not available for the Philippines, user shares were generated from a consultation with experts in Tagaytay City on March 2013. The values generated from the process are presented in Table A2.6. In the case of piped dwelling into yard, the share of the household represents the connection fee. All other costs of the facilities are assumed to be initially shouldered by the service provider/donor/

Table A2.6 Share of users in capital/development costs, %

Technology

Water Supply

Rural Urban

Piped into dwelling/yard 20% 39%

Publictap 0% 0%

Tubewell/Borehole 90% 90%

Improved dug well 90% 90%

Protected spring 0% 0%

Rainwater 0% 0%

Sanitation

Flush to piped sewer 0% 0%

Flush to septic tank 99% 99%

Flush to pit latrine 99% 99%

Dry pit 99% 99%

Composting toilet 99% 99%

Shared 95% 95%

government. For flush toilets to septic tanks, pit latrines and composting toilets, the agreement in the workshop at Tagaytay was that all of the investment costs are expected to be shouldered by households. However, this was later reduced to 99% to account for the possibility that there might be institutions providing subsidies for such facilities in rural and urban areas. In the case of shared toilets, the values used weighted averages of the user shares for the other facilities.


Annex 3: Comparative Explanation of SDA Costing

This annex describes the key differences in the assumptions and estimates of the SDA costing tool used in the current analysis and the Study on Developing the Institutional Framework for the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector and Identifying Investment Plans and Programs (De Vera et al., 2013) which was conducted for the Department of Public Works and Highways.

Annex Table A3.1 indicates that investment requirements in the current analysis are substantially higher than those obtained in the De Vera study. In the case of water supply

for example, investment requirements reported for the SDA (US$ 838 million) were about four times higher than the estimates of the De Vera study. The divergence between the two sets of results can be explained by differences in assumptions. The most obvious difference lies in the decision to estimate replacement costs in the SDA. SDA estimates however remain larger, even if replacement costs are removed, because of (a) higher coverage rates in the target year, (b) the inclusion of Level 1 facilities for the water supply estimates, and (c) the inclusion of the toilets and on-site facilities for sanitation.

Table A3.1 Differences between the estimates of the De Vera report and SDA

De Vera report SDA

Investment requirements (million US$/year at 2012 prices)

Water supply 209a 838

New 209 240

Replacement n.a. 597

Sanitation 40a 619

New 40 240b

Replacement n.a. 379b

Inputs for the calculation of investment requirements

Costs included

Hardware/infrastructure Yes Yes

Capacity building Yes No

Replacement costs Yes No

Facilities: water supply

Level 1 No Yes

Level 2 Yes Yes

Level 3 Yes Yes


De Vera report SDA

Facilities: sanitation

On-site facilities (including latrines) No Yes

Off-site facilities Yes Yes

Target year

Water supply 2025 2025

Sanitation 2030c 2028

Coverage at target year: water supply (% of population)

80% 100%

Coverage at target year: sanitation Septage facilities for 480 LGUs and sewerage facilities for 35 HUCs

100%

Unit costs: Sanitation (US$ at 2012 prices)

Septage facility per LGU

per LGU 835,649e n.a.

per person n.a. 153d

Sewerage facility per HUC

per HUC 16,052,661e n.a.

per person n.a. 36d

Other facilities n.a. see Annex 2

Unit costs: Water supply (US$/person at 2012 prices)

Level 1 n.a. 19d

Level 2 26 28d

Level 3 59 108d

a The estimates presented in the report were for the entire period of analysis, and expressed in pesos and at 2013 prices. These were annualized and converted to the current units using the 2012 peso dollar exchange rate and the assumption in the De Vera report that prices are rising at a rate of 4% per year. b Includes costs of the STF. c While the target year is 2030, the estimates of investment requirement were for 2025. d Simple averages of costs for rural and urban areas. See Annex 2 for the details. e The estimates presented in the report were expressed in pesos and at 2013 prices. These were converted to the current units using the 2012 peso dollar exchange rate and the assumption in the De Vera report that prices are rising at a rate of 4% per year.

Table A3.1 Differences between the estimates of the De Vera report and SDA (continued)

Water Supply and Sanitation in the PhilippinesTurning Finance into Services for the Future

February 2015Service Delivery Assessment

Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines - WSP · PDF fileWater Supply and Sanitation in...

Documents

Transcript of Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines - WSP · PDF fileWater Supply and Sanitation in...