private players as well as government agencies, âLocal Government Unitsâ ... private players and stakeholders to ensure improved and sustainable water supply ...
WATER ISSUES IN THE CONTEXT OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Alma Bella P. MADRAZO Chemical Engineering Department De La Salle University Manila, Philippines ABSTRACT Water as an important natural resource should be managed in a holistic and sustainable way. The threat of inadequate safe water supply is real and as a key development ingredient, water or the lack of it affects our lives. Philippine legislators are currently working on the Clean Water Act to ensure that resource regulation covers the overall management of water resources with respect to its allocation and distribution, utilization, conservation and protection, and sustainable use. Water resource management in the Philippines is currently being performed by multiple agencies. Due to the range of functions of multiple agencies, planning is undertaken independently by the different groups. This makes the water sector inherently fragmented and sometimes conflicts exist among agencies due to some overlaps of responsibilities. New legislations are being crafted to correct the situation. This paper presents a brief overview of the current water issues in the Philippines both in the water supply and wastewater treatment area. Recognizing that sustainable development is the collective responsibility of both government and the private sector, the discussion will also try to include the perspectives of private players as well as government agencies, “Local Government Units” (LGU) and communities. INTRODUCTION In the Philippines, important water related issues have to be addressed by public and private players and stakeholders to ensure improved and sustainable water supply for existing customers and to provide the poor with equitable access to safe and reliable water supply. The critical issues include the following: inadequate supply of clean water, complex structure of water governance, sewerage and sanitation, water pollution, and the impending passage of the Clean Water Act. For most developing countries, service provision for urban water supply is dominated by the public sector. Existing water utilities provide unreliable service with intermittent water supply, high amounts of unaccounted for water and poor water quality. Poor people in the rural areas resort to collecting water from contaminated sources because they do not have access to piped water. Institutional deficiencies, weak regulatory
1
systems and the lack of government leadership and political will have resulted in uneven distribution of water resources, institutional fragmentation and lack of an integrated water resources management (IWRM). Initiatives of multilateral funding agencies are usually geared towards helping developing countries improve their water supply services where the poor will be given access to clean and healthy living conditions, where every person has safe and adequate water and sanitation and lives in a hygienic environment. Inadequate Supply of Clean Water According to the “Filipino Report Card on Pro-Poor Services” of the World Bank, two out of five Filipinos do not get water from formal sources. Only 64% of Filipinos get water from the Level I, Level II, or Level III systems. Level I system is a point source (without any piped distribution), a spring or protected well serving around 15 households within 25 meters. Level II is a piped system with community faucets serving four to six households within 25 meters, and Level III is a full waterworks system with individual house connections. The poor are usually excluded from Level III water service and only one fourth of the poor get water piped to their homes (Figure 1). Figure 1: Filipinos with Piped Water
39
Philippines
23
Mindanao
50
Visayas
27
Balance of Luzon
82
Metro Manila
14
Rural
56 53
Urban Rich
35
Middle
25
Poor
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent of respondents with access to home-piped (Level III) water connections
Base: All households Source: Filipino Report Card on Pro-Poor Services Summary, the World Bank, 2000
Adequate supply of water is essential in the Philippines but not assured throughout the country. The poor with no house connections access water from wells, springs, and communal faucets. Demand exceeds supply, especially among the urban poor who pays private vendors for water at rates that are sometimes ten times the price of piped water.
2
The poor and rural households are more vulnerable to diseases such as gastroenteritis and typhoid caused by contaminated water. Water supplied by all sources in the Philippines is considered unsafe for drinking without further treatment. Almost all households incur additional expenditures on water treatment and for bottled water. Such expenditures are substantially higher than what is paid to the water utility. Water quality in the rural areas appears to be worse than that of the urban areas. Urban households also spend a substantial amount on bottled water as manifested by the proliferation of “drinking water stations” all over the country. “Drinking water stations” is a source in need of improved regulation as the quality of water does not have to meet any standards at the present moment. Water providers in the Philippines are plagued by the lack of accurate water usage monitoring and the large amount of “unaccounted-for-water (UAW)” or water that is pumped into the system but lost along the way with no revenue gain. According to the Asian Development Bank, Asia averages about 35 percent water loss, which is two times the acceptable level in developed countries. The losses are generally due to leaks in the distribution pipes, inefficient metering and poor administration. These severely impact the quality and quantity of safe water delivered to end users, especially those living in the poorest areas. As indicated in the Table 1 below, the Asian Development Bank estimates UAW in the Philippines at about 38 percent, though this number is probably low, due to improper functioning meters, or lack of metering especially of public taps and household connections. Table 1: Urban Water Coverage & Unaccounted-for-Water (UAW) Country Urban Water Access UAW Indonesia 68% 53% Malaysia 96% 36% Philippines 85% 38% Singapore 100% 6% Thailand 87% 38% Vietnam 68% 50% Source: ADB Second Water Utilities Data book, 1997. In Metro Manila, the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) service area has increased its non-revenue water (NRW), the term used for UAW, from about 47 percent in 1980 to 61 percent in 1997 and remained constant since then. The service concessionaire, Manila Water Corporation Inc. (MWCI), responsible for the east zone, has developed a strategy since 1997 to reduce UAW and in 2001 had succeeded in reducing it to about 53 percent. Despite considerable efforts such as zoning of the service area, pressure management, reduction of illegal connections, water connections for the urban poor, leak repair program, metering and pipe replacement programs, it appears to be very difficult to achieve the target of 32 percent UAW by 2010. Maynilad Water Services, Inc. (MWSI), the other service concessionaire responsible for the west zone in Metro Manila have also taken measures to reduce UAW but was not as successful as it still has about 66 percent UAW in 2001. MWSI plans to reduce it to 37 percent in 2010.
3
Another problem of the source of water supply is the dramatic lowering of the water table and saline intrusion in coastal urban areas and this is a stark reality in Southeast Asia including the Philippines. The uncontrolled and unreported installation of private deep wells and booster pumps in more affluent residential areas in the Philippines contribute to this problem. This leads us to a review of water-related agencies of the Philippine national government and to look for areas of improvement.
STRUCTURE OF WATER GOVERNANCE Governance from a water sector perspective refers to the range of political, social, and economic and administrative systems used to regulate the development and management of existing water resources and provision of water services. Water governance in the Philippines is being performed by multiple agencies. The existing regulatory set-up in the Philippines is quite complicated and poses problems on conflicts of interests and possible overlapping of responsibilities that hinders effective water resources management. At the national level, existing institutions on water resources management include the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) and the Presidential Task Force on Water Resource Development and Management (PTFWRDM). The NWRB is responsible for policy formulation, administration and enforcement of the Water Code of the Philippines. Other agencies perform policy formulation as it relates to their mandates. There are 8 agencies that have water related mandates. These are: (1) Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) for flood control and drainage (this responsibility has recently been transferred to the Metro Manila Development Authority) (2) Department of Health (DOH) for sanitation (3) Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) for watershed protection and water quality (4) Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) for LGU-managed water supply, and sewerage and sanitation systems and capability building (5) National Power Corporation (NPC) for hydropower development (6) National Irrigation Administration (NIA) and Bureau of Soils and Water Management (BSWM) for irrigation development (7) Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) for water supply, sewerage and sanitation in Metro Manila and partially in its neighboring provinces (8) Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) for the Water Districts which managed water supply and sewerage systems. In addition to these existing agencies, several proposals have been put before the Philippine Congress for consideration such as the Water Regulatory Commission (WRC), the National Water Resources Commission (NWRC), and the Water Resources Authority of the Philippines (WRAP) which aims to streamline the operation of existing agencies and combine the different agencies involved in the water sector.
4
In the different regions in the country, the Regional Development Council (RDC) acts as the single planning body that directs and coordinates the socio-economic development of a region. This serves as a forum where local efforts can be integrated with national development activities. At the local level, the 1991 Local Government Code empowered the Local Government Units (LGUs) to implement devolved activities which include water supply systems, communal irrigation systems, and local flood control projects. Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) are also working with government agencies and communities to address issues pertaining to water supply and sanitation. Community participation is an important element in the sector that needs to be built into the initial stage of any project. The bottom up approach has been very effective. Communities identify their problems and their needs and work with the local government with assistance from funding agencies to put a waterworks system in place.
ROLES OF MAJOR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES IN REGULATION AND PRIVATIZATION The Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) regulates the more than 600 water districts outside Metro Manila. LWUA is a specialized lending institution for the promotion, development, and financing of water districts. It is mandated to establish standards for local water utilities including 1) water quality; 2) design and construction; 3) equipment, materials and supplies; 4) operation and maintenance; 5) personnel; 6) organization; and 7) accounting, and to formulate rules and regulations for their enforcement. In Metro Manila, the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS), embarked on a privatization scheme which resulted to two private water concessions, Ayala (with Northwest Water and Bechtel) and Benpres Holdings (with Lyonnaise des Eaux), providing water to the east and west zones since 1997. The concessionaires are under the MWSS Regulatory Office where the chief regulator reports to the MWSS Board of Directors. The Regulatory Office (RO) monitors compliance of MWSS concessionaires to their Concession Agreements (CAs). It has considerable authority over determining tariff rate adjustments, service target adjustments, compliance with water and environmental standards, consumer targets, audit and compliance with obligations and termination of CAs. The concessionaires are required to provide 95 percent water coverage by 2002, and are beginning the necessary upgrades and rehabilitation of the distribution network. The concessions have had financial difficulties due to reduced water supply and the devaluation of the peso. The concessionaires do not assume the financial risk for bulk water provision from the government until the tenth year of the concession. After 2008, they can freely set rates that allow for cost recovery of operations, maintenance and investment expenditures incurred over the 25-year term. NWRB regulates and control the operations of utilities outside the jurisdiction of MWSS and LWUA. It also undertakes economic regulation of private systems and performance monitoring of private and LGU-operated systems.
5
Under the Local Government Code of 1991, water supply, sewerage and sanitation services are effectively devolved functions of the LGUs. These services may be provided through LGU-owned and operated water supply facilities. In these cases, LGUs have the economic and regulatory functions as they set their own tariffs. SEWERAGE AND SANITATION SYSTEMS Aside from the limited access to safe and adequate water, the Philippines is also facing sanitation problems. The prevailing method of sewage management in the country is the use of conventional septic tank system. Despite a high population growth and uncontrolled population migration into urban areas, particularly Manila, the system had remained the same for the last twenty years. The septic tanks are rarely if ever pumped out. Cities have populations of informal settlers with no sanitation facilities. Urban water access has increased from about 65% to 85% but most people still use open drains, septic tanks and pit latrines to dispose of liquid and human waste. As a result, public health is severely affected resulting in gastro-intestinal illnesses and typhoid which are common among the urban poor, particularly children. Sewerage is virtually non-existent outside the Metropolitan Manila area. Urban centers have retained the use of septic tanks for sewage management and never made the transition to a networked sewerage system with central treatment facilities. Most residents rely on private solutions to dispose of human and liquid waste, and many use open drains and poorly constructed septic tanks. These pollute the urban areas and the surrounding water bodies. The establishment of water districts has resulted in significant expansion of investments in water supply services for secondary cities in the Philippines but no comparable investments have been made in wastewater infrastructure. Only two secondary cities, Baguio and Vigan have sewerage systems. Most households use septic tanks which contribute to environmental pollution. Many industries discharge untreated waste waters into the environment. This trend poses a threat not only to public health and environmental quality, but also to the serious environmental pollution problems of the emerging economic development of these areas. The World Bank is funding a sewerage, sanitation, and drainage component of the Water Districts Development Project with the objective of increasing access of communities to sustainable sewerage and sanitation facilities. This is a demand-based approach project that aims to reduce public health risks and environmental pollution from wastewater sources. This will not only expand access to improved sanitation facilities but it will also pioneer a learning experience in the expansion of sustainable sanitation services to the different interested “local government units”. WATER POLLUTION The relationship between polluted water and disease has now been firmly established and accepted. Pollution of our water resources can occur directly from sewer outfalls or industrial discharges (point sources) or indirectly from air pollution or agricultural and urban runoff (non-point sources). Water pollution is most severe in Metro Manila where
6
almost all surface waters can be considered biologically dead during the dry months. This is due to the heavy concentration of population and industrial activities and the lack of sewage treatment system. Efforts to rehabilitate the Pasig River resulted in a 30 percent reduction in its biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in the river water. The Asian Development Bank is funding the “Pasig River Rehabilitation and Environmental Management Project” being implemented by the Department of Budget and Management. The current environmental status of the Pasig river is still bad with high coliform content. The entire stretch of the river within Metro Manila has a dark murky color with islands of floating garbage on the water surface. Sunken boats and abandoned barges in the river not only make navigation difficult but also hazardous. Factories, commercial establishments, houses, and colonies of makeshift shanties of informal settlers lined stretches of the river bank and contribute to the poor water quality. Water quality in four other rivers in Metro Manila has also deteriorated over time, with increasing BOD and decreasing Dissolved Oxygen (DO) levels. Indiscriminate dumping of raw sewage has been identified as the main cause of degradation. Laguna de Bay is the biggest freshwater body in the country with 90,000 hectares lake surface. It is being seriously considered as the future source of water supply for Metro Manila. The water quality is poor and currently falls into Class C, with water still suitable for growth and propagation of aquatic life. In some portions of the lake where industries and settlements are concentrated, fish kills have occurred periodically as a result of poor water quality. The quantity and quality of groundwater in Metro Manila have been adversely affected in recent years. The groundwater table in Metro Manila has been receding at an accelerating rate with a rate of decline estimated at 5 – 12 meters per year and this has led to salt water intrusion. It is therefore imperative that we protect these surface waters from further degradation. A coherent national policy could help protect the remaining water resources in the Philippines. Thus, the enactment of the Clean Water Act becomes the key issue. THE PHILIPPINE CLEAN WATER ACT The Clean Water Act is a consolidation and a substitute of House Bill Nos. 199, 215, 443, 522 and 1025. For the first time, national legislation will focus closely on landbased point sources of pollution, including industry. The objectives of the Clean Water Act (CWA) are: 1) to make retrofits and use of clean technology more feasible than paying fines; 2) to encourage industry to use less water be rewarding re-use / recycling; and 3) to require the discharge of fewer pollutants into the nations waterways. Salient features of the Clean Water Act include the following: • To promote a system of policy coordination and cooperation among LGUs, water quality management areas or “river basins” shall be formed, each with a governing board.
7
• •
•
• •
•
Establishment of a national baseline of groundwater vulnerability. Vulnerability zoning will act as a guide in the protection of groundwater from contamination from pollutants. Requirement for sewage generators in highly urbanized cities (HUCs) and Metro Manila to put up appropriate sewage collection and treatment facilities or connect to sewage lines. In areas not considered as HUCs, a septic or combined sewerageseptic management system shall be employed. Establishment of effluent standards based on categories of point sources. Existing industries which fail to comply with such standards shall be allowed a grace period of 1 to 2 years for the establishment of an environmental management system, including compliance schedule. Implementation of water pollution charge system based on “polluters pay principle”. The fee shall be based on the total waste load and other factors. For new projects which are subjected to EIA System, a financial guarantee instrument shall be required to finance emergency response, clean-up or rehabilitation of affected areas, should pollution incident clearly attributable to the project occurs. Establishment of Water Quality Management Fund to finance containment and clean-up operations of government, research, capability-building, enforcement and monitoring other expenses.
There are two primary aspects of the Clean Water Act. First, it will nationalize a system of discharge permits, in effect, granting permissions to industry for the use of surface waters (lakes, rivers, etc.). Second, it will create water quality management areas that will be responsible for all the water and all water users within their jurisdictions. The “Institutional Mechanism” and institutional linkages are shown in the figure below. Figure 2: Institutional linkages for the Clean Water Act
INSTITUTIONAL LINKAGES Others PCG LLDA DOH DPWH
Congressional Oversight Committee
Civil Society
LLDA
WQMA Board Tech.Sec
DENR
WQMA Board WQMA Board Tech.Sec
Tech.Sec
Source: Environmental Management Bureau, Department of Environment & Natural Resources
8
OBSERVATIONS The issues and problems related to water are complex and there are several factors to be considered in attempting to deal with each concern. The inadequate supply of clean water and lack of sewerage and sanitation is a consequence of political interference and lack of accountability of the utility. There is often political interference in tariffs, investments, staffing, new connections, disconnections, and appointment of consultants and contractors. When politicians decline to approve revisions in tariffs, various reasons are cited such as the low efficiency of the utility, the poor people cannot afford the tariff increase, or there is an upcoming general, local, or presidential elections. This means that good governance and transparency is lacking for utilities to maintain financial viability. Political will to ensure good governance and transparency is important. The Philippine water sector is governed by multiple agencies. This makes the water sector inherently fragmented and oftentimes conflicts exist among agencies due to some overlaps of responsibilities. Hence there is a need for a single regulatory body at the national level. This body should be independent and autonomous, and its roles are to protect consumers, ensure accountability and transparency, and implement tariff policy. In informal interviews with industries located in economic zones throughout the Philippines, researchers found differing views related to the Clean Water Act. Those already operating under the supervision of the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) are understandably more comfortable with the additional fee structure as they already are accustomed to the formulae used in the calculation of payments. Some industries predict that payments will increase, as the Clean Water Act requirements will cover a broader range of parameters. Discharge Permits This system has been pilot-tested by the LLDA since 1996. Called a “two-tier user fee” by LLDA, this approach charges the industrial user both for the volume of water discharged and the concentration of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) found in the discharge. These fees are in addition to the usual fines for polluted effluent, so that an industrial user will pay a discharge fee based on the volume of water discharged even if its wastewater meets government (DENR) standards (in this case, 50 mg./l of BOD). It will pay a much higher rate if it cannot meet the water quality standards. Under the Clean Water Act, there is a plan to modify this discharge permit system in the following manner: • the system would apply nationwide • it would cover more than just BOD parameters • it would apply to more than just industrial users of water • it would not calculate fees based on the concentration of pollutants, but on the overall mass of pollutants (thereby combating the tendency to merely dilute the wastewater)
9
The Clean Water Act in effect will have more stringent requirements. Industries outside the LLDA jurisdiction are more apprehensive about a new system of discharge permits. However, some of the foreign companies are already able to meet new and higher standards as they have their own in-house environmental requirements. Water Quality Management Areas This would require communities – industries, barangays, churches, schools, and other institutions within sub-watersheds to coordinate their use and discharge of water according to national standards. Allocation of effluent quotas are within the jurisdiction of each Water Quality Management Area & regional industrial centers established under the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) Law (or RA 7916). This means that there is a limit to the total amount of pollution that will be permitted within each watershed. This has the potential to lead to a system of trading permits, not unlike the international markets currently developing around air quality standards. Some water users, particularly those within the jurisdiction of the LLDA are already participating watershed communities. Most of these are “river councils”, designed not to formally govern behavior but to informally communicate and educate. Working within new water quality management areas may pose problems for those that draw water from independent wells. Close coordination with water districts could pose territorial problems. DENR, with its new NWRD component, is expected to play a greater role under the Clean Water Act. The NWRB is currently embroiled in disputes over “royalty fee” issues between the water districts and the local government units. Finally, many observers remain skeptical about CWA’s potential for success. It has been pointed out that the CWA has no real component to ensure strict enforcement of industrial pollution standards. While it may establish new rules and additional layers of bureaucracy, many feel that the fundamentals of monitoring and enforcement are not yet in place. Congress must address these valid concerns to ensure that this Clean Water Act will facilitate a more productive and sustainable use of water.
REFERENCES Arriens, W.L., Bird, J., Berkoff, J., Mosley, P.
1996. Proceedings of the Regional
Consultation Workshop on “Towards Effective Water Policy in the Asian and Pacific Region”, Asian Development Bank, May 10-14, 1996. Asian Development Bank Water Policy, 2001. Asian Development Bank (ADB) Second Water Utilities Databook, 1997. Bonnaffons, S. 2000. “Southeast Asia Regional Water Supply Market: Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam”, International Market Insight, U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service.
10
Corporate Environmental Report, Development Bank of the Philippines, 2000. Filipino Report Card on Pro-Poor Services Summary, the World Bank, 2000. Jagannathan, N. V. et al. 1997. “Republic of the Philippines Water Districts Development Project”, Staff Appraisal Report, pp 1-17. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Nippon Jogesuido Sekkei Co. Ltd. Tohmatsu & Co. 1996. “Study on Water Supply and Sewerage Master Plan of Metro Manila”, pp. 1-60. Mcintosh, A. C. 2001. “Regulatory Bodies, Public Awareness and Transparency”, Proceedings of the Regional Forum on Regulatory Systems and Networking of Water Utilities and Regulatory Bodies, Asian Development Bank, March 26-28, 2001. Philippine Clean Water Act Draft, House of Representatives, 2002.
Philippines Environment Monitor 2000, The World Bank, 2000. Primer on the Laguna De Bay Master Plan, 1998. Primer “An Environmental User Fee to Protect Laguna de Bay”, 1997. Proceedings of the Regional Symposium on Regulatory Systems and Networking of Water Utilities and Regulatory Bodies, Asian Development Bank, March 26-28, 2001. Tungpalan, R. G. 2002. “Governance and Regulatory Issues In the Water Sector Work”, 11th International Water Conference and Exhibition, Barcelo Sarabia Manor Hotel & Convention Center, Iloilo City, Philippines, September 3-6, 2002. Wirasinha, R. 2001. “Water Supply and Sanitation – Today’s Situation”, Proceedings of the Regional Forum on Regulatory Systems and Networking of Water Utilities and Regulatory Bodies, Asian Development Bank, March 26-28, 2001.
11
