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
Service Delivery Assessment 3
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.
Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines4
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
Government estimates Government target
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
Service Delivery Assessment 5
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.
Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines6
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
Totalinvestmentrequirement
Anticipatedinvestment
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
Service Delivery Assessment 7
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.
Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines8
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.
Service Delivery Assessment 9
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.
Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines10
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.
Service Delivery Assessment 11
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.
Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines12
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.
Service Delivery Assessment 13
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)
Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines14
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.
Service Delivery Assessment 15
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.
Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines16
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.
Service Delivery Assessment 17
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.
Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines18
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
Government estimates Government target
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.
Service Delivery Assessment 19
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)
Totalinvestmentrequirement
Anticipatedinvestment
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.
Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines20
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
Service Delivery Assessment 21
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.
Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines22
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.
Service Delivery Assessment 23
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$302 million per year that is contributed by (other) domestic stakeholders are from the projected expenditures of Manila Water and Maynilad.36 This suggests that the surplus is confined only to Metro Manila and nearby regions. Urban areas farther away from Metro Manila are likely to have deficits which may not be too different in terms of scale form the rural regions.
Figure 8.3 illustrates the urban water supply scorecard (see detailed questions in Annex 1). Among the four subsectors, urban water supply has the most developed service delivery pathway, due largely to the focus of national government and private sector on Metro Manila and other larger cities. Since some scorecard questions relate only to the three largest cities and utilities, the scorecard tends to reflect the
Figure 8.1 Urban Water Supply Coverage
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1990 2000 2005 2010
Urb
an w
ater
sup
ply
cove
rage
2015 20201995 2025
Government estimates Government target
JMP, improved JMP, piped
Source: JMP (2013); SDA costing
Figure 8.2 Urban Water Investments Requirements
Totalinvestmentrequirement
Anticipatedinvestment
Recentinvestment
Annu
al in
vest
men
t in
milli
on U
S$
0
100
200
300
400
Other
Replacement
New
Household
External
Domestic
500
600
Household anticipated investmentDeficit
Domestic anticipated investmentExternal anticipated investment
Total : US$ 514,000,000Per capita (new) : US$ 106
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.
Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines24
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
Enabling Developing SustainingPlanning
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.
Service Delivery Assessment 25
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%.
Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines26
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
Government estimates Government target
JMP, improved JMP, improved + shared
2015 20201995 2025 2030
Source: JMP (2012); SDA costing
41 This includes households that have access to shared facilities.
Service Delivery Assessment 27
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
Totalinvestmentrequirement
Anticipatedinvestment
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.
Total : US$ 182,000,000Per capita (new) : US$ 28
Household anticipated investmentDeficit
Domestic anticipated investmentExternal anticipated investment
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.
Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines28
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
Enabling Developing SustainingPlanning
0.4
Policy
2.5
Budget
0
Output
0
Expenditure
1.5
Markets
1.1
Equity
0
Up-take
1
Outcomes
2
Service Delivery Assessment 29
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
Government estimates Government target
JMP, improved JMP, improved + shared
2015 20201995 2025 2030
Source: JMP (2012); SDA costing
44 This includes shared facilities.
Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines30
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)
Service Delivery Assessment 31
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.
Totalinvestmentrequirement
Anticipatedinvestment
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
Household anticipated investmentDeficit
Domestic anticipated investmentExternal anticipated investment
Total : US$ 437,000,000Per capita (new) : US$ 103
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).
Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines32
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
Enabling Developing SustainingPlanning
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)
Service Delivery Assessment 33
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).
Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines34
• 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.
Service Delivery Assessment 35
RURAL WATER SUPPLY
URBAN WATER SUPPLY
RURAL SANITATION
URBAN SANITATION
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
Enabling Developing SustainingPlanning
0
Policy
1.5
Budget
1
Output
1.5
Expenditure
1.5
Maintenance
1.9
Equity
2.5
Expansion
2.5 2.5
Outcomes
Enabling Developing SustainingPlanning
0.4
Policy
2.5
Budget
0
Output
0
Expenditure
1.5
Markets
1.1
Equity
0
Up-take
1
Outcomes
2
Enabling Developing SustainingPlanning
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
Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines36
Annex
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
Service Delivery Assessment 67
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).
Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines68
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.’
Service Delivery Assessment 69
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
Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines70
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.
Service Delivery Assessment 71
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$10 per person.53 Formerly called the Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan – Comprehensive Integrated Delivery of Social Service (KALAHI-CIDSS).
Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines72
National Community Driven Development Program53 project of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), and the Environmental Development Project of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).
Apart from the expected difficulties associated with collecting information from various sources, other challenges were confronted in the process. The costing tool only uses information on hardware costs (e.g. construction costs of facilities) and excludes software costs (e.g. training and awareness programs). Moreover, such information must be disaggregated between the four sectors (i.e., rural water supply, urban water supply, rural sanitation, and urban sanitation) and, in the case of multi-year projects, for each year. However, the disaggregation desired for the analysis is not always readily available, or even known, for projects. In such instances, the study team consulted
project implementers and other experts to seek further documents or make educated approximations.
There is no reliable dataset that could provide information on the anticipated capital expenditures of households on water supply and sanitation. This was therefore modeled in the costing tool by assuming that households contribute a fixed proportion of the expenditures for a particular technology. In other words, household CAPEX was calculated using the estimates of the contribution of the other stakeholders (e.g. government, utilities and development partners) and assumed household share for a particular technology. To illustrate, assume that 10% of the costs of a deep well is supposed to be provided by households. If the other stakeholders were found to have contributed US$ 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
Service Delivery Assessment 73
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.
Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippines74
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$/year at 2012 prices)
Water supply 209a 838
New 209 240
Replacement n.a. 597
Sanitation 40a 619
New 40 240b
Replacement n.a. 379b
Inputs for the calculation of investment requirements
Costs included
Hardware/infrastructure Yes Yes
Capacity building Yes No
Replacement costs Yes No
Facilities: water supply
Level 1 No Yes
Level 2 Yes Yes
Level 3 Yes Yes
Service Delivery Assessment 75
De Vera report SDA
Facilities: sanitation
On-site facilities (including latrines) No Yes
Off-site facilities Yes Yes
Target year
Water supply 2025 2025
Sanitation 2030c 2028
Coverage at target year: water supply (% of population)
80% 100%
Coverage at target year: sanitation Septage facilities for 480 LGUs and sewerage facilities for 35 HUCs
100%
Unit costs: Sanitation (US$ 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