philippine sanitation roadmap
TRANSCRIPT
PHILIPPINE SUSTAINABLE
SANITATION ROADMAP
APRIL 2010
Copyright @ 2010
by the Department of Health
All rights reserved. The use of this material is encouraged with
appropriate credit given to the copyright owner.
Published by:
Department of Health
San Lazaro Compound, Tayuman, Sta. Cruz, Manila,
Philippines
Tel no: 7438301 to 23
4� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
PREFACE
The preparation of the Philippine Sustainable Sanitation Roadmap comes at a time when the country is
preparing to put in place a new government in 2010. This document is one of the major milestones for
the sanitation sector which has long been neglected.The Roadmap is expected to serve as a guide for the
country to achieve universal sanitation coverage and shall be the basis for the formulation of sustainable
sanitation programs for at least three Medium Term Philippine Development Plans (2010-2028) and its
corresponding Medium Term Philippine Investment Plans.
The Department of Health (DOH), together with the National Economic and Development Authority
(NEDA) took leadership in the preparation of this roadmap through a multi-stakeholder and inter-agency
Technical Working Group that met and discussed the proposals and drafts prepared by the Project Study
Team. The Roadmap has recently been approved by the inter-agency Sub-Committee on Water Resources of the
National Economic Development Authority last February 6, 2010. The DOH is currently preparing its National
Sustainable Sanitation Plan based on this Roadmap. The Department of Interior and Local Government have
also adjusted their water and sanitation strategy to be aligned with the requirements of the Roadmap. It is strongly
recommended that all relevant agencies should follow suit by using the Roadmap as guide in preparing their respective
sanitation related programs.
The National Government is grateful to the World Health Organization (WHO) who provided fi nancial
and technical assistance by supporting the workshops and consultants behind this document. We would
also like to commend the active participants of the Technical Working Group that invested time and
resources to produce this document that will lead the country in achieving our collective vision of “A clean
and healthy Philippines through safe and adequate sustainable sanitation for All!”
ESPERANZA CABRAL RUBEN REINOSO JR.SECRETARY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
AND CHAIRPERSON OF THE NEDA INFRACOM
SUB-COMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ! � �5
FOREWORD
The formulation of the Philippine Sustainable Sanitation Roadmap (PSSR) has been facilitated by the re-
cent publication of the Philippine Water Supply Sector Roadmap (PWSSR).The national government had
deliberately agreed to separate the preparation of the sanitation roadmap to give sanitation the necessary
focus that it deserves.
The PWSSR consultation process started in 2007 and one of its milestone achievement is the formalization
of the NEDA Infracom Sub-committee on Water Resources (NEDA INFRACOM-SCWR) tasked with
oversight and coordination functions over the water supply and sanitation sector. This is an inter-agency
body that monitors the implementation of the PWSSR and whose members were actively engaged as the
Technical Working Group of the PSSR.
The rapid decline of the quality of our water resources due to poor sanitation and the alarming number of
Filipinos who still have to resort to open defecation at this day and age is cause for urgent attention. The
economic losses due to poor sanitation can be felt not only in terms of health but also in livelihoods (such
as from declining fi sh yields and declining tourist occupancy in areas with high levels of coliform).
The Department of Health (DOH) has agreed to be the lead sector driver to push the sanitation agenda
of the country to contribute to the over-all vision of a clean and healthy Philippines. The Roadmap is the
basis for an inter-agency collaboration towards a common goal of safe and adequate sustainable sanitation
for all Filipinos.
While the PSSR had very limited time for broad consultations among different stakeholders at different
levels, it is envisioned that this document will serve as a platform for engaging policy makers, decision-
makers, program implementers, knowledge managers and sanitation service providers at national and local
levels. Different national and local agencies can fi nd guidance from this document with regards to the
development, refi nement and implementation of policy and programs relating to sustainable sanitation.
The PSSR document follows the basic structure of the PWSSR. Chapter 1 begins with an introduction,
the purpose of the document, the development framework, the scope and limitation of sanitation and
guiding principles behind the preparation of this document. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the
sanitation sector including an assessment of current access to sanitary toilet facilities, sewerage systems,
existing policies and legal frameworks and an analysis of gaps in terms of the policy environment, funding
levels, programs, technology, human resources, communications for behavioral change, sector planning,
monitoring, evaluation, environment, health and economic impacts and gender issues.
Chapter 3 presents the vision, development goals and logical framework of the PSSR. It defi nes the outcomes
and outputs of the fi ve focus areas of the PSSR. These are signifi cantly aligned with the four focus areas
of the PWSSR, wtih the exemption of the fi fth concern on emergency sanitation. The PSSR outcomes are
consistent with the DOH’s FOURmula One for Health. FOURmula ONE for Health is the implementation
framework for health sector reforms in the Philippines designed to implement critical health interventions
as a single package, backed by effective management infrastructure and fi nancing arrangements.
6" # $ % $ & & $ ' ( ) * + , - $ ' - . % ( ) - ' $ , - , $ / ' 0 / - 1 2 - &
Philippine Water Supply Sector Roadmap
Outcomes
Philippine Sustainable Sanitation Roadmap
Outcomes
Strenghtened Institutions Responsive Governance and Regulatory Strengthening
Developed CapacitiesImproved Service Delivery through Communications
and Capacity Development
Strategic Alliances Strengthened Strategic Alliances
Adequate Infrastructure Provision Financing and Adequate Infrastructure Investments
Emergency Sanitation Response
Chapter 4 tackles the policy directions that need to be pursued and the recommended priority programs
to support the policy directive. It also provides a list of on-going and pipeline programs that directly
contribute to the priority programs. Some of these projects prioritize water supply over sanitation but it
nonetheless provides opportunities and entry points for sanitation projects. It also includes the investment
priorities for the 2010-2016 Medium Term Philippines Development Plan. Chapter 5 focuses on the
implementation arrangements including general oversight, management and supervision and the framework
for collaboration. Chapter 6 is about the results-based monitoring and evaluation system of the roadmap.
There will be a need to continually review progress of accomplishment vis-avis the PSSR. More detailed
annual plans and programs will be developed by the relevant agencies and stakeholders. It is sincerely hoped
that the PSSR development framework will permeate all sanitation related plans and programs and that there
will be more sanitation champions working together to achieve sustainable sanitation for all.
3 4 5 6 5 7 7 5 8 9 : ; < = > 5 8 > ? 6 9 : > 8 5 = > = 5 @ 8 A @ > B C > 77
National Economic and Development Authority
Department of Interior and Local Government
Department of Public Works and Highways
Local Water Utilites Administration
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System
National Anti-Poverty Commission
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources-Environment Management Bureau
National Water Resources Board
National Housing Authority
Department of Agrarian Reform
Department of Education
Department of Finance
Local Government Academy
Coffey International
Philippine Society of Sanitary Engineers
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Department of Health Environment and Occupational Health Offi ce (DOH-EOHO) spearheaded
the preparation of the Philippine Sustainable Sanitation Roadmap with the fi nancial and technical support
from the World Health Organization. A Project Study Team headed by the Streams of Knowledge and
the Center for Advanced Philippine Studies was commissioned by the DOH to prepare the document in
consultation with the Sanitation Roadmap Technical Working Group.
The members of the Sanitation Roadmap Technical Working Group that participated in the different
meetings and provided comments are the following:
Solid Waste Association of the Philippines
Philipine Sanitation Alliance
Philippine Ecosan Network
League of Municipalities
League of Cities
Philippine Water Partnership
Philippine Center for Water and Sanitation
National Water and Sanitation Association of the
Philippines
Philippine Association of Water Districts
PLAN Philippines
World Health Organization
German Technical Cooperation
Lacto Asia Pacifi c Life
Habitat for Humanity
8D E F G F H H F I J K L M N O F I O P G J K O I F N O N F Q I R Q O S T O H
ACRONYMS USED
ADB Asian Development Bank
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
BEC Basic Education Curriculum
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BOT Build-Operate-Transfer
BWSA Barangay Water and Sanitation Association
CBMS Community-Based Monitoring System
CBO Community Based Organization
CDA Cooperative Development Authority
CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
CHD Center for Health Development
CIIP Comprehensive and Integrated Infrastructure Program
CPSO Central Planning for Sewerage Offi ce
CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child
CSO Civil Society Organization
CWA Clean Water Act
DAR Department of Agrarian Reform
DBM Department of Budget and Management
DBP Development Bank of the Philippines
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DepED Department of Education
DILG Department of the Interior and Local Government
DPWH Department of Public Works and Highways
DO Department Order
DOF Department of Finance
DOH Department of Health
DOST Department of Science and Technology
DM Department Memo
DSWD Department of Social Welfare and Development
DTI Department of Trade and Industry
EASAN East Asia Ministerial Conference on Sanitation
EMB Environmental Management Bureau
EO Executive Order
FHSIs Field Health Service Information System
GAA General Appropriations Act
GFI Government Financing Institution
GTZ German Technical Cooperation Agency
HLURB Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
HUC Highly-Urbanized City
IACEH Inter-Agency Committee on Environmental Health
ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
U V W X W Y Y W Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` W Z ` a X [ \ ` Z W _ ` _ W b Z c b ` d e ` Y9
IEC Information, Education and Communication
IP Indigenous Peoples
IRA Internal Revenue Allocation
IWRM Integrated Water Resource Management
JBIC Japan Bank for International Cooperation
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
JMP WHO and UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and
Sanitation
KALAHI- CIDSS Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan – Comprehensive Integrated Delivery of Social
Services
LBP Land Bank of the Philippines
LCE Local Chief Executives
LGA Local Government Academy
LGU Local Government Unit
LLDA Laguna Lake Development Authority
LWUA Local Water Utilities Administration
MIPH Municipal Investment Plan for Health
MDFO Municipal Development Fund Offi ce
MDG Millennium Development Goal
MMDA Metropolitan Manila Development Authority
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MTPIP Medium-Term Philippine Investment Plan
MTPDP Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan
MWCI Manila Water Company, Inc.
MWSI Maynilad Water Services, Inc.
MWSS Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System
NAPC National Anti-Poverty Commission
NCIP National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
NEDA National Economic and Development Authority
NGA National Government Agency
NGO Non Government Organization
NSCB National Statistical Coordination Board
NSO National Statistics Offi ce
NSSMP National Sewerage and Septage Management Program
NWRB National Water Resources Board
NSWMP National Solid Waste Management Plan
ODA Offi cial Development Assistance
O&M Operations and Maintenance
P3W President’s Priority Program on Water
PCCI Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry
10f g h i h j j h k l m n o p q h k q r i l m q k h p q p h s k t s q u v q j
PD Presidential Decree
PD-TF WSS Philippine Development Forum-Task Force on Water Supply and Sanitation
PEM Philippine Environment Monitor
PEN Philippine Ecosan Network
PFSED Physical Facilities and Schools Engineering Division
PIPH Provincial Investment Plans for Health
PIME Project Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation
PMO Program Management Offi ce
PO People’s Organization
PPA Programs, Projects and Activities
PPP Public Private Partnership
PSR Philippine Sanitation Roadmap
PW4SP Provincial Water Supply, Sewerage and Sanitation Sector Plan
PWRF Philippine Water Revolving Fund
PWSSR Philippine Water Supply Sector Roadmap
R & D Research and Development
RA Republic Act
RBME Results-based Monitoring and Evaluation
R/BWSA Rural/Barangay Water and Sanitation Association
SCWR Sub Committee on Water Resources
SE Sanitary Engineering
SI Sanitary Inspectors
SME Small and Medium Enterprises
SSP Sanitation Service Provider
SuSEA Sustainable Sanitation in East Asia Program
SuSEP Sustainable Sanitation Education Program
TWG Technical Working Group
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
WATSAN Water supply and sanitation
WB World Bank
WD Water District
WHO World Health Organization
WPEP Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project
WSP Water and Sanitation Program of the World Bank
WSSPMO Water Supply and Sanitation Program Management Offi ce
w x y z y { { y | } ~ � � � � y | � � z } ~ � | y � � � y � | � � � � � � {11
CONTENTS
PREFACE ........................................................................................................................................3
FOREWORD ..................................................................................................................................4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................6
ACRONYMS USED ........................................................................................................................7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 13
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 18
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE SUSTAINABLE SANITATION ROADMAP .............................. 18
1.2 DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK AND PRINCIPLES ............................................... 19
1.2.1 DEFINITION OF SANITATION CONCEPTS .................................................... 19
1.2.2 SCOPE OF THE SANITATION ROADMAP ....................................................... 19
1.2.3 GUIDING PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................ 19
2.0 OVERVIEW OF THE SANITATION SECTOR ................................................................... 24
2.1 CURRENT SITUATION ................................................................................................ 24
2.1.1 SANITARY TOILET FACILITIES ......................................................................... 24
2.1.2 SEWERAGE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................... 27
2.1.3 SANITATION CRISIS IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS .................................... 27
2.2 GOVERNANCE AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS ........................................................... 28
2.2.1 LOCAL AND NATIONAL AGENCIES WITH SANITATION RELATED
MANDATES ............................................................................................................ 28
2.2.2 UPDATING AND MAINSTREAMING LOCAL AND NATIONALSANITATION
PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................. 29
2.2.3 RELEVANT LAWS AND POLICIES IN THE SECTOR ..................................... 29
2.3 ANALYSIS OF GAPS ....................................................................................................... 30
2.3.1 THE POLICY ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................... 30
2.3.2 FUNDING LEVELS AND FINANCING OF SANITATION ............................. 32
2.3.3 PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................ 33
12� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
2.3.4 TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 34
2.3.5 HUMAN RESOURCES ........................................................................................... 34
2.3.6 COMMUNICATION FOR BEHAVIORAL CHANGE ........................................ 35
2.3.7 SECTOR PLANNING ........................................................................................... 35
2.3.8 MONITORING AND EVALUATION (INCLUDING SECTOR BASELINE
INDICATORS) ...................................................................................................................... 36
2.3.9 ENVIRONMENT/HEALTH AND ECONOMIC IMPACT .............................. 36
2.3.10 GENDER ISSUES IN SANITATION ................................................................. 37
2.4 SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND CHALLENGES ............................................................. 37
3.0 VISION AND DEVELOPMENT GOALS ............................................................................. 42
3.1 VISION STATEMENT................................................................................................... 42
3.2 OUTCOMES AND OUTPUTS ....................................................................................... 44
3.2.1RESPONSIVE SANITATION GOVERNANCE AND REGULATORY
STRENGTHENING ............................................................................................................. 44
3.2.2 IMPROVED SERVICE DELIVERY THROUGH COMMUNICATIONS AND
CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 44
3.2.3 STRENGTHENED STRATEGIC ALLIANCES ................................................... 46
3.2.4 FINANCING AND ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS ........ 47
3.2.5 EMERGENCY SANITATION RESPONSE ......................................................... 48
3.2.6 SUMMARY OF EXPECTED OUTPUTS: ............................................................. 49
3.3 ROADMAP LOGICAL FRAMEWORK ......................................................................... 49
4.0 ROADMAP PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES ................................................... 59
4.1 POLICY DIRECTIONS ................................................................................................. 60
4.2 PROPOSED PRIORITY PROGRAMS IN THE SANITATION SECTOR .................. 66
4.3 ONGOING AND PIPELINE PROGRAMS ................................................................... 72
4.4 MEDIUM TERM OPERATIONAL PLAN (2010-2016) ............................................... 81
4.5 INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE SANITATION SECTOR .................... 89
4.6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MTPDP 2010-2016 ............................................... 90
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS ......................................................................... 92
� � � � � � � � � � ¡ ¢ £ ¤ � � ¤ ¥ � � ¤ � � £ ¤ £ � ¦ � § ¦ ¤ ¨ © ¤ �13
5.4 FRAMEWORK OF COLLABORATION ....................................................................... 95
5.5 MECHANISMS AND PROCESSES ............................................................................... 96
6.0 RESULTS-BASED MONITORING AND EVALUATION ................................................100
ENDNOTES ................................................................................................................................107
ANNEXES ...................................................................................................................................109
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................126
ANNEXES:
ANNEX 1. WATER QUALITY HOTSPOTS IN THE PHILIPPINES
ANNEX 2. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WITH SANITATION-RELATED RESPONSIBILITIES
ANNEX 3. GUIDE TO DEVELOPING LOCAL SUSTAINABLE SANITATION PLANS
ANNEX 4. RELEVANT SANITATION LAWS AND POLICIES
ANNEX 5. LIST OF EXISTING, UNDER-CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNED SEWERAGE FACILITIES
ANNEX 6. INVENTORY OF AVAILABLE SANITATION TECHNOLOGIES
ANNEX 7. SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA FOR SANITATION
LIST OF TABLES:
TABLE 1. SURVEYS USED FOR THE ANALYSIS OF SANITATION COVERAGE
TABLE 2. SANITATION COVERAGE 1990 AND 2008
TABLE 3. AN OVERVIEW OF THE ECONOMIC COSTS OF NOT DOING SANITATION
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF ISSUES IN THE PHILIPPINE SANITATION SECTOR
TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF EXPECTED OUTPUTS
TABLE 6. SANITATION ROADMAP LOGFRAME
TABLE 7. POLICY DIRECTIONS AND PROGRAMS 2010-2028
TABLE 8. SANITATION ROADMAP OPERATIONAL PLAN 2010-2016
TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR 2010-2016
TABLE 10. PROPOSED SANITATION SUB-SECTOR MEMBERS
TABLE 11. DETAILED EVALUATION PLAN MATRIX
TABLE 12. RESULTS-BASED MONITORING PLAN MATRIX
LIST OF FIGURES:
FIGURE 1. MEETING THE MDG SANITATION TARGETS
FIGURE 2. NATIONAL AGENCIES WITH CLEAR SANITATION RELATED MANDATES
FIGURE 3. PROPORTION OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH SANITARY TOILETS, 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH DATA
FIGURE 4. SANITATION ROADMAP DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
FIGURE 5. PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION STRUCTURE
FIGURE 6. FRAMEWORK OF COLLABORATION
14ª « ¬ ¬ ® ® ¬ ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¬ ¯ µ ¶ ° ± µ ¯ ¬ ´ µ ´ ¬ · ¯ ¸ · µ ¹ º µ ®
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Philippine Sustainable Sanitation Roadmap (PSSR) presents the vision, goals, outcomes, outputs,
activities and inputs required to make sustainable sanitation a reality in the country. It builds on the collective
analysis of the sector through a multi stakeholder process with active representation from government,
non-government and civil society using available information to come up with the agreed framework.
From the start of this activity, a process of multi-stakeholder dialogues was organized with the Technical
Working Group and other interested stakeholders to generate ideas, comments and buy-in from the agencies
concerned.
The result is an inter-agency sanitation roadmap framework and action plan. It is recommended that all
pertinent national agencies and local government units develop their own sanitation plans and programs
based on the proposals put forward in this roadmap and allocate the corresponding budgets required to
implement the same.
The development of the PSSR is spearheaded by the Department of Health (DOH) with the National
Economic Development Authority (NEDA) as co-chair. The World Health Organization (WHO) has
provided fi nancial and technical support for this activity. A team of experts from Streams of Knowledge
and the Center for Advanced Philippine Studies served as consultants to this project.
SECTOR OVERVIEW
While the WHO-UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) reports that the Philippines is on track
in meeting its MDG targets of halving the proportion of households with sanitary toilets, DOH Field
Health Information Survey report, however, indicated that coverage is actually declining. From the 1990
baseline of 67%, the MDG target is 84%. In 2008, the Environmental Health Report says we have reached
76.8%. DOH’s National Objectives for Health (NOH) targets 91% in 2010. It is clear that the country
will not meet its NOH targets. While the MDG goals are about access to sanitary toilets, the issue on the
quality of toilets such as bottomless septic tanks and lack of adequate septage management still needs
to be addressed. Achieving universal sanitation coverage may not happen unless there is a clear sanitation
intervention program that will be supported on a national level.
A World Bank report estimated that the country is losing Php 3.3 Billion per year in avoidable health costs;
Php 16.7 Billion due to degradation of fi sheries environment and Php 47 Billion in avoidable losses in
tourism due to lack of sanitation.
Clearly, sanitation governance is about institutional strengthening. There are many institutions with
sanitation related mandates but the leadership required to push effi cient, effective and sustainable sanitation
programs is lacking. Sanitation regulation is a major issue that needs to be addressed. There are many laws
and standards relating to sanitation and wastewater management but it needs to be integrated and updated.
Mandates on implementing and monitoring policy implementation remain vague. Furthermore, there is
low LGU awareness and political will to improve sanitation . To date, there are only about 15 LGUs who
have initiated sanitation plans and programs. Effective service delivery is hampered by lack of capacities,
inadequate communication strategies and low investments in sanitation. The recent calamities that affected
the country also highlighted the need to address the sanitation crisis in emergency situations.
» ¼ ½ ¾ ½ ¿ ¿ ½ À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ ½ À Æ Ç ¾ Á Â Æ À ½ Å Æ Å ½ È À É È Æ Ê Ë Æ ¿15
SECTOR ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
The Philippine sanitation sector remains a highly fragmented sector mainly due to a weak regulatory
arrangements for sanitation and wastewater management. Meeting the universal coverage for
sustainable sanitation is not likely to happen unless there is a clear national sanitation policy and
program effectively manage by a lead institution ably supported by an alliance of champions for
sanitation to facilitate demand creation and access to resources at national and local levels. It is apparent
that there is low awareness and political will to implement sanitation program at the local level. This is
further exacerbated by service delivery related issues such as the inadequacy of capacities to facilitate
sustainable sanitation including low multi stakeholder involvement. As there is no separate and distinct
sanitation program, there is very low investments for sanitation. It is always considered an adjunct to
water programs resulting in sanitation receiving merely 3% of total investment for water infrastructure.
The recent typhoons and the expected impact of climate change poses additional burden to sanitation,
in particular responding to emergency situations.
VISION AND STRATEGIES
The Sustainable Sanitation Sector vision is “A Clean and Healthy Philippines through safe, adequate
and sustainable sanitation for All!”
The sector vision looks at universal access to safe and adequate sanitation as a human right, sustainably
linked with health, agriculture and environment with households and whole community working
together for a common good.
The Roadmap envisions that:
• By 2015, a strong and vibrant sanitation sector shall have achieved the MDG target of halving
the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic
sanitation
• By 2016, the following have been achieved:
- At least 70% of LGUs have local sanitation plans and budgets in place under their PIPH/
AIPH/CIPH plans
- Improved basic sanitation coverage in 92 priority cities/provinces by ensuring that at least 85%
of population have sanitary toilets
- Sewerage and/or septage management in 57 highly urbanized cities (NSSMP targets)
- National agencies such as DOH, DILG, DAR, DSWD, NHA, LWUA, DENR, DA and DOT
have clear sanitation policies, plans and programs consistent with the sanitation roadmap.
By 2028, that universal access (100%) to safe and adequate sanitary facilities have been provided, that
behavior change and proper hygiene practices are accepted norms within families and communities,
and that mechanisms for sustainable sanitation (i.e. linkage with health, agriculture and environment)
are institutionalized.
The achievement of the sanitation sector vision is hinged on the following strategies: a) responsive
sanitation governance and regulatory strengthening; b) improved service delivery through
communications and capacity development; c) strengthened strategic alliances among multi stakeholder
groups; d) fi nancing and adequate infrastructure investments; and e) emergency sanitation response.
16Ì Í Î Ï Î Ð Ð Î Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö × Î Ñ × Ø Ï Ò Ó × Ñ Î Ö × Ö Î Ù Ñ Ú Ù × Û Ü × Ð
ROADMAP PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Each of the fi ve strategies developed to address the multi faceted challenges besetting the sanitation
sector is translated into a cluster of related priority programs and activities directly supporting a specifi c
policy directive. These programs will pursue the much needed policy reforms to enable the sector
institutions to perform their mandates effectively ensuring that sanitation sector goals are achieved.
The Sanitation Roadmap priority programs and activities are planned for long term, specifi cally, within
the context of three (3) MTPDP period, 2010 to 2028.
For the short term period covering 2010 to 2013, a total of 18 priority programs has been identifi ed.
These include, among others, the formulation of frameworks for sanitation at the different levels of
governance; capacity development of stakeholders including Research and Development; a national
campaign for zero open defecation and national advocacy program on sanitation; as well as a number
of studies that would facilitate and ensure a comprehensive infrastructure and investment program on
sanitation including sanitation for emergency situations.
INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS
A total estimate of Php 87 Billion is required to support the 6 years action plan proposed by the
roadmap. This includes both MDG requirements and the fi nancing requirements for the NSSMP. To
meet the MDGs in a sustainable way, national government should invest more in communications and
hygiene promotion targetting behavior change to motivate households to invest in constructing their
own sanitary latrines. Access to innovative incentive schemes and fi nancing strategies maybe utilized
to encourage each of the 46,000 barangays to eradicate open defecation and target to have 100%
coverage. At the minimum, at least 15 of the households without access to their own latrines must be
assisted annually for the next six years to achieve the MDG goals.
IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS
The Roadmap brings together institutions from government, civil society and the private sector engaged
in sanitation-related activities in order to establish coherence, pool resources and promote coordination
and collaboration within a constrained institutional environment. That being the case, the general
oversight, overall policy guidance and steering of the Roadmap shall be exercised by the NEDA Board
through the Sub-Committee on Water Resources (SCWR) of the NEDA Infrastructure Committee
(INFRACOM). The NEDA INFRACOM-SCWR shall be assisted by a Secretariat composed of
representatives from NEDA INFRACOM Staff, the NWRB and the DOH. A sanitation committee
under the NEDA INFRACOM-SCWR will be established to be led by the DOH. The agencies of the
Sectoral Task Force in Sanitation of the Inter-Agency committee on Environmental Health will be
members of the sanitation committee of the SCWR.
DOH will act as lead driver for the sanitation sector. This will be led by the Environmental and
Occupational Health Offi ce of National Center for Disease Prevention and Control of the DOH. The
LGUs are expected to be the lead implementers of sanitation programs at local level.
RESULTS-BASED MONITORING AND EVALUATION
The implementation of the Philippine Sanitation Roadmap will be monitored and evaluated using the
Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation (RBME) System which is integral to the sector institutions
and its related activities that are integrated into the agency annual plans and other work plans of
several institutions involved in the sector. The central RBME function will be lodged at the SCWR.
Monitoring activities and evaluation shall be decentralized to the national implementing agencies, local
government units and sanitation service providers based on the central monitoring and evaluation
INTRODUCTION
Ý Þ ß à ß á á ß â ã ä å æ ç è ß â è é à ã ä è â ß ç è ç ß ê â ë ê è ì í è á19
1.0 INTRODUCTION
A roadmap is a living document that can capture and synthesize experience, innovation and new insights
over time. Roadmap development should integrate existing experience with other approaches which include
general strategies for sector development. Implementation of roadmaps should be properly monitored
to maintain political commitment by national governments and the international community. This is not
a master plan but is a source for inputs to the master plan. The roadmap is also a process that includes
dialogues with different stakeholders towards levelling of awareness and mobilization towards a concerted
and collaborative action.
The Philippine Water Supply Sector Roadmap has recently been published after three years of multi-
stakeholder consultations. From the beginning, it was the intention of the water sector to formulate a
separate sanitation sector roadmap as the key sector stakeholders understood the magnitude, gravity and
urgency to address the sanitation challenges separately from water supply.
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE SUSTAINABLE SANITATION ROADMAP
This sanitation roadmap is expected to provide the framework to achieve the following:
a) Identify priorities and targets for the MTPDP 2010-2016 targets
b) Attainment of the 2015 MDG commitments
c) Provide basis for adequate institutional arrangements
d) Create demand and generate fi nancing on sanitation
e) Ensure sustainability of sanitation systems
The Philippine Sustainable Sanitation Roadmap (PSSR) intends to consider the full spectrum of
sanitation challenges relating to excreta management such as ending open defecation and managing
sewage from markets, agriculture, industry and other point sources and non-point sources of water
pollution. It will provide the umbrella framework that links all the other initiatives (such as solid
waste, for instance) relating to the broader sustainable sanitation framework. It will specifi cally
build on the following initiatives:
a) The National Sewerage and Septage Management Program (NSSMP)
The NSSMP’s primary focus is the larger infrastructure projects that local implementers (mainly
LGUs, Water Districts, and private service providers/utilities) will develop to collect and treat
wastewater from densely populated urban centers.
b) The National Urban Development and Housing Plan ( NUDHP)
The NUDHP housing plan is the development of low cost housing including the construction
of household level toilets and community sanitation facilities.
20î ï ð ñ ð ò ò ð ó ô õ ö ÷ ø ù ð ó ù ú ñ ô õ ù ó ð ø ù ø ð û ó ü û ù ý þ ù ò
1.2 DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK AND PRINCIPLES
1.2.1 Defi nition Of Sanitation Concepts
For purposes of this roadmap document, sanitation and sustainable sanitation are defi ned
as follows:
Sanitation 1
• Sanitation refers to a wide range of services and arrangements pertaining to the hygienic
and proper management of human excreta (feces and urine) and community liquid
wastes to safeguard the health of individuals and communities.
• It is concerned with preventing diseases by hindering pathogens or disease-causing
organisms found in excreta and sewage from entering in the environment and coming
into contact with people and communities.
• This usually involves the construction of adequate handling, collection, treatment and
disposal or reuse facilities and the promotion of proper hygiene behaviour so that
facilities are effectively used at all times.
Sustainable Sanitation 2
A sustainable sanitation refers to a system that protects and promotes human health, does
not contribute to environmental degradation or depletion of the resource base, is technically
and institutionally appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable. (Please refer to
Annex 1 for details of the sustainability critiera).
1.2.2 Scope of the Sanitation Roadmap
While sanitation would generally refer to all actions taken to protect humans from illness,
the transmission of disease, or loss of life due to unclean surroundings, the presence of
disease transmitting insects or rodents, unhealthful conditions or practices in the preapration
of food and beverage, or the care of personal belongings, it was agreed by the Technical
Working Group to limit the purview of the roadmap to human excreta management ( both
offsite and onsite) regardless of where it is generated.
While the collection and disposal of sewage is briefl y covered, details relating to this are
refl ected in the proposed National Sewerage and Septage Management Program (NSSMP)
whose targets and investments are made part of this document. This would not however,
include solid waste management as this is already fully developed and budgetted under the
Solid Waste Management Act. Moreover, this would not include industrial/hospital waste
other than the human excreta generated in these settings.
1.2.3 Guiding Principles
The Philippine Sustainable Sanitation Roadmap supports the integrated water resources
management framework 3 of the Philippine Water Supply Sector Roadmap. It is also
guided by the Philippine Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Framework 4.
The PSSR builds on ten guiding principles that respond to the direction of
sustainable sanitation:
1. Sanitation is a human right, a social and economic good.
2. Sanitation is essential for basic health and dignity of the person.
3. Sanitation policies, plans and programs must be localized and its management
decentralized at the lowest level possible.
ÿ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �21
4. Sanitation is everybody’s business and different stakeholders must be involved
in promoting good sanitation and hygiene practices.
5. Sanitation systems must be fi nancially sustainable, economically affordable,
socially and culturally acceptable.
6. Good sanitation contributes to environmental sustainability and penalizes
polluters.
7. Sanitation services must be demand responsive. This includes consideration
of appropriate technology and management options at various levels.
8. Proper resource conservation, re-use, recycle and recovery of sanitation by-
products will be considered.
9. Access to sanitation should be equitable and sensitive to gender differences.
10. Effi cient water governance includes sanitation.
1. Sanitation is a human right, a social and an economic good.
There are a number of international agreements that form the legal basis of recognizing
that sanitation is a human right. For instance, in March 2008, the UN Human Rights
Council adopted a resolution emphasizing that international human rights laws, including
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) ratifi ed
by 158 countries, The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women ( CEDAW) entail
obligations in relation to access to sanitation 5.
Addressing sanitation as a human right moves the focus from technical solutions to
ensuring that the political and legislative frameworks are in place to ensure access to
sanitation. Governments have an obligation to respect, protect and fulfi l the right using
the maximum of resources to progressively realize that right. They must help facilitate
access by ensuring appropriate standards regulations are in place to assist individuals
in constructing and maintaining toilets; government must promote the right through
hygiene education and promotion, and where individuals or groups are unable to
provide sanitation for themselves, governments must provide the necessary assistance.
These rights however, does NOT require governments to provide free construction of
household toilets, sewage or latrine desludging services and provide sewerage services
for everyone. Government should facilitate sewerage systems, wastewater facilities and
other communal sanitation facilities that are for the general welfare of the people as it
promotes the best interests of the community, rather than the private household.
2. Sanitation is essential for basic health and dignity of each citizen.
Health safety is the primordial objective of sanitation. The hygienic means of preventing
human contact from the hazards of wastes to promote health is linked to the dignity
of the person and the community as a whole. Cleanliness is a sign of a dignifi ed and
respectable person.
3. Sanitation policies, plans and programs must be localized and its management
decentralized at the lowest level possible.
The local governments are in the forefront of basic service delivery, including sanitation.
Local sanitation ordinances consistent with national policy guidelines must be the basis
of plans and programs that are developed and implemented at various levels- from
households to communities to barangays to municipalities and cities.
22� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
4. Sanitation is everybody’s business and different stakeholders must be involved
in promoting good sanitation and hygiene practices.
Sanitation is not the sole responsibility of the government. Each household, community,
local government, private sector and civil society have signifi cant roles to play at home,
in school, in workplaces, and in public places. Success is more likely if there is proper
and informed participatory decision making processes at various levels.
5. Sanitation systems must be fi nancially sustainable and economically affordable,
socially and culturally acceptable.
The cost of construction, operation and maintenance of sanitation facilities and
infrastructures must be reasonably priced taking into consideration affordability and
capacity to pay of the user/host/owner, be it the household, the community, subdivision,
institution, water district or local government unit.
Sanitation facilities and services must also be suitable and acceptable to the different social and
cultural groups with distinct beliefs and practices especially among the different indigenous
peoples.
6. Good sanitation contributes to environmental sustainability and penalizes
polluters.
Good sanitation refers to improved facilities and infrastructures that are designed, built,
used, operated and maintained in the way that they do not adversely affect the integrity
and ecology of the surrounding environment. It enables people to avoid polluting.
In keeping with the Polluter’s pay principle, polluters shall be responsible and held
accountable for either the reparation of damages done or actions required to mitigate
or prevent damages to the natural environment will be upheld.
7. Sanitation services must be demand responsive. This includes consideration of
appropriate technology and management options at various levels.
Sanitation facilities must adapt well to local geo-physical characteristics,e.g. availability
of water supply, groundwater table, soil structure and variability among others. It can
start from informed choices of households and the communities. It must be easy to
construct, operate and maintain by local manpower and expertise. As much as possible,
locally available materials are utilized.
However, technologies need not be static. Facilities should be upgraded according to
demand and local capacity to operate and maintain properly.
8. Proper resource conservation, recycling and recovery of sanitation by- products
will be considered.
Sanitation facilities must incorporate systems that use less energy, water, land and
human resources. Sanitation system designers must also consider the productive and
hygienic recovery of resource, for instance, biogas production; treated wastewater for
irrigation; source-separated urine and faeces, and treated sewage sludge as fertilizer or
soil conditioner.
9. Access to sanitation should be equitable and sensitive to gender differences.
Sanitation programs should consciously address the strategic and practical needs of
poor men and women. Sensitivity to the different needs of women and men must be
considered. Implementation of any sanitation related program should empower the
poor and marginalized women and men in decision making, in planning, implementing,
monitoring and evaluating the programs.
! " # $ # % % # & ' ( ) * + , # & , - $ ' ( , & # + , + # . & / . , 0 1 , %23
10. Effi cient water governance includes sanitation.
Water supply provision generates wastewater. It contributes to the volume of sewage
that have to be treated. As water supply services improve, so should sanitation facilities
be upgraded. Water service providers should work closely with the local governments
in developing and maintaining community sanitation facilities such as sewerage systems.
Tariffs and cost recovery for sanitation may be linked to water supply service delivery.
Regulation of water service delivery should consider appropriate tariffs for sanitation
interventions.
2.0 OVERVIEW OF THE SANITATION SECTOR
2 3 4 5 4 6 6 4 7 8 9 : ; < = 4 7 = > 5 8 9 = 7 4 < = < 4 ? 7 @ ? = A B = 625
2.0 OVERVIEW OF THE SANITATION SECTOR
This section provides a brief analysis of the sanitation sector based on the review of related literature.
It starts with the most current available data 6 on sanitation in terms of access and coverage and over-all
national situation, a presentation of existing institutional and legal frameworks and the key institutional
players and their mandates to better appreciate the main structure of sanitation governance in the
country. It then proceeds to present the gaps in terms of policy environment, funding levels, programs,
service coverage, technology, communication for behavioural change, institutional set-up, sector planning
monitoring/evaluation system including sector baseline indicators, human resource, environment/health/
economic impact.
2.1 CURRENT SITUATION
2.1.1 Sanitary Toilet Facilities
The Millennium Development Goal and the Joint Monitoring Program of the WHO and
UNICEF defi ne access to basic sanitation as the proportion of population that uses an
improved sanitation facility, urban and rural. An improved sanitation facility is “a facility
that hygienically separates human waste from human contact 7.”
There are two agencies in the Philippines conducting household surveys systematically,
which include questions and response categories addressing sanitation coverage: the NSO
and the DOH. The methodologies used by both differ fundamentally in that while the NSO
conducts different household surveys including the national census, each designed to attain
its own purposes (e.g. poverty, demography and health, national census, etc) the DOH
conducts its survey systematically to address health issues. While the surveys of NSO are
conducted through personnel trained on an ad hoc basis according to the requirements
of each specifi c survey, the DOH uses LGU health personnel, who complete the DOH
forms annually as one of their multiple health functions. Both systems have advantages and
disadvantages but this discussion is not within the scope of this document.
Considering that no single survey would be able to provide absolute true numbers, this
document adopted the following approach to estimate coverage in the Philippines:
Defi nition of sanitary facility
Consistently with NSO and DOH defi nitions, the following types of sanitation facilities are
considered as sanitary in this document:
• Water-sealed, sewer/septic tank, used exclusively by household;
• Water-sealed, other depository, used exclusively by household;
• Closed pit used exclusively by household.
26C D E F E G G E H I J K L M N E H N O F I J N H E M N M E P H Q P N R S N G
The following types of sanitation facilities/practises are considered as unsanitary:
• Water-sealed, sewer/septic tank, shared with other households;
• Water-sealed, other depository, shared with other households;
• Closed pit shared;
• Open pit;
• Hanging toilets;
• Other unsanitary types of practise;
• Open defecation.
Method of calculation
The surveys considered in this analysis are those that allow a disaggregation of urban and
rural areas. The results of the different surveys are converted into data points covering the
period of time from 1990 to 2008. A trend line obtained through linear regression provides
the coverage estimates for 1990 and 2008 for urban and rural areas. The surveys used for
this analysis were those conducted by the NSO as indicated in Table 1 below. The surveys
conducted by DOH (FHSIS) were not considered as they do not allow disaggregation of
urban and rural areas. However, the fi gures resulting from this analysis are mostly consistent
with those originated by the FHSIS.
Table 1. Surveys Used for the Analysis of Sanitation Coverage
National Census 1990
National Demographic and Health Survey 1993
Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 1996
National Demographic and Health Survey 1998
World Health Survey 2003
National Demographic and Health Survey 2003
National Demographic and Health Survey 2008
Table 2 below includes the coverage estimates for the Philippines based on the
consolidated analysis of the above surveys:
Table 2: Sanitation Coverage 1990 and 2008
IndicatorTotal Urban Rural
1990 2008 1990 2008 1990 2008
Population (thousands) 62,427 90,348 30,450 58,699 31,978 31,649
Proportion of population served with sanitary
types of facilities (not shared) (%)
58 76 70 80 46 69
Proportion of population served with sanitary
types of facilities (shared) (%)
11 15 14 16 9 14
Proportion of population not served with
sanitary types of facilities (%)
31 9 16 4 45 17
a) Served with unsanitary facilities (%) 15 1 8 0 22 3
b) Open defecation (%) 16 8 8 4 23 14
It is clear that there has been considerable progress in the Philippines over the last 18
years. However, it is also clear that a lot remains to be achieved. About one quarter of the
T U V W V X X V Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ V Y _ ` W Z [ _ Y V ^ _ ^ V a Y b a _ c d _ X27
population is still not served with individual sanitary types of sanitation facilities. Open
defecation is still practised by 14% of the rural population and 4% of the urban population
respectively. This means that every single day probably 10 million Philippine citizens defecate
in the open, with serious consequences to the health, dignity and human development of
this equally important part of the national population.
Although the projections towards 2015, the year for which the MDG sanitation target is set,
indicate that the 79% target might be achieved for the Philippines (see Figure 1 below), local
experts are not confi dent that “sanitary” toilets necessarily refer to satisfactory sanitation
under a health and social standpoint. Many of the existing toilets do not have proper septic
tanks and drain to unsafe places. They may not be properly maintained and the cleanliness
may be dubious.
Figure 1. Meeting the MDG Sanitation Targets
58
7683
79
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
80020991
Year
Co
ve
rag
e (
%) Change in total coverage 1990-
2008
Projected change in total coverage2008-2015
Change in total coverage requiredto achieve the MDG
2015
(projected)
28e f g h g i i g j k l m n o p g j p q h k l p j g o p o g r j s r p t u p i
Moreover, achieving the target means that in 2015, one of fi ve people in the Philippines will still be unserved.
Achieving universal coverage fi gures (100% of households with sanitary toilets) is highly uncertain. The analysis of the different surveys conducted in this country, indicated that in urban areas, universal coverage will only be achieved 33 years from now, whereas in rural areas it would be achieved 22 years from now if the current coverage trend continues. The uncertainty is aggravated by the recent disasters that hit the country and probably damaged
substantively existing sanitation facilities.
2.1.2 Sewerage Systems
The country’s sewage generally discharges into open water bodies contributing heavily to the pollution of our water sources. There are very few sewerage systems in the country with less than 10% of the population having access to sewerage 8 system, the rest are assumed to drain in open waters resulting to exposure of the general public to raw sewage. In Metro Manila alone, only 7% has access to piped sewerage . There are reportedly a number of villages and condominiums with small treatment plants, but no national agency have this kind of information.
Many drainage systems that exist in town centers are usually open earth canals with few concrete
lined canals. All drainage canals discharge into rivers and creeks that traverse the towns.
The Philippine Environment Monitor (PEM) of 20039 has reported that up to 58% of the country’s groundwater intended for drinking water is microbiologically contaminated with coliform. About 64% of the rivers present Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) exceed drinking water criteria. Nearly 2.2 million metric tons of organic pollution is produced annually by domestic (48%), agricultural (37%), and industrial (15%) sectors. Untreated wastewater affects health by spreading disease-causing bacteria, pathogens and viruses, and makes water unfi t for drinking and recreational use, threatens biodiversity, and deteriorates overall quality of life. Furthermore, approximately 31 percent of illnesses monitored for a fi ve year period were caused by water-borne sources. Known diseases caused by poor water quality, sanitation and hygiene practices include gastro-enteritis, diarrhea, typhoid, cholera, dysentery, hepatitis A. The PEM has also identifi ed the Water Quality hotspots of the country (see Annex 1).
The MWSS 2009 reports that through its private concessionaires, it now has a total of 42 wastewater facilities covering 13 cities and 24 municipalities in Metro Manila, Rizal and Cavite. The private concessionaires have expanded treatment capacity and sewerage coverage. Manila Water ( MWCI) has a treatment capacity of over 90 MLD with an equivalent of 326,000 population sewered. Maynilad (MWSI) on the other hand has a treatment capacity of over 470 MLD with about 552,000 population sewered. Due to the fact that most households (HHs) use septic tanks, the concessionaires boosted its desludging operations. Manila water reports that it has desludged almost 5 out of 10 HHs. They are now using a combined sewer-drainage system linked to their wastewater treatment plants.
An inventory of existing sewerage facilities may be found in Annex 2. According to a WB report 10 while these facilities and a couple of private facilities constructed by middle and high end subdivision developers have increased sewerage coverage, the actual impact of these facilities maybe negligible. Service coverage expansion in the past 30 years have been overtaken by rapid urbanization and population growth, with increased deterioration and degradation of receiving waters.
2.1.3 Sanitation Crisis in Emergency Situations
During the recent Typhoons Ondoy, Pepeng and Santi, one of the most problematic issue that
confronted the government was that of sanitation crisis in emergency situations. Sanitation
and hygiene promotion were identifi ed as critical both during relief and rehabilitation
v w x y x z z x { | } ~ � � � x { � � y | } � { x � � � x � { � � � � � � z29
phases due to increasing cases of water borne diseases, health risks due to open defecation,
ground water contamination and the generally unsanitary condition in evacuations centers
and resettlement areas. After almost 2 months of the typhoon, several towns continue to be
under water making it necessary for families to be moved to evacuation centers, relocation
areas as well as temporary or permanent resettlement areas. In some evacuation centers, the
toilet to population ratio is 1: 116 whereas the ideal is 1:20. In such cases, it is the women
and children that are most affected.
Clearly, there is a an urgent need to develop clear sanitation policies and programs for
emergency situations. As impacts of climate change in terms of frequent fl ooding, inundation
and other water induced calamities are expected to increase, it is of utmost importance that
sanitation for emergency situations be given high priority.
2.2 GOVERNANCE AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS
2.2.1 Local and National Agencies with Sanitation Related Mandates
Under the Local Government Code (1991), LGUs at various levels have their sanitation related mandates. For the provincial and city/municipal level, the LGU responsibilities include water supply and sanitation planning, fi nancing and implementation including 1) preparation of water supply, sewerage and sanitation sector plans; 2) monitoring of local water and sanitation coverage and updating of sector profi le; and 3) provision of support to WSPs such as R/BWSAs, cooperatives and water users’ group including funding from their IRA. Barangay level-LGUs can initiate local ordinances and coordinates closely with the municipal government in addressing the needs of their constituents.
The national government, despite the devolution of the health services in 1991 with the passage of the Local Government Code, continues to play a major role in the sector in terms of policy formulation, facilitating investments in the sector and building capacities of LGUs in order to perform devolved functions effi ciently. Similar to the water governance of the country, there are several government agencies with diverse range of responsibilities mandated by different laws that are involved generally in sanitation, including the delivery of sewerage and sanitation infrastructure.
Below is a matrix of national agencies with clear sanitation related mandates and other
support agencies:
Figure 2. National Agencies with Clear Sanitation Related Mandates
For a detailed list of agencies with mandates/functions related to sanitation, please see Annex 2.
� � � �} � � �� � � � | � � � w | v � | � x � | { �� v � �� � } }� } } � v � � � � � | z � � � � � � } � � � �� � � � � � � � � �Other support agencies with possible roles
� � �� � � �� � � � � � � �� � �� � � � �� } � � � � �� � � �� � � � � � � � �� � � � �� � � � � � �� � � �� v � }
30� � � � � � ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § � ¡ § ¨ � ¢ £ § ¡ � ¦ § ¦ � © ¡ ª © § « ¬ §
2.2.2 Updating and Mainstreaming Local and National Sanitation Programs
A number of Provincial Water Supply, Sewerage and Sanitation Sector Plans (PW4SPs)
have been developed in 79 provinces with technical assistance from DILG and various
donor agencies from 1989 to 2005. PW4SPs were expected to guide LGUs in prioritizing
their plans and accessing funds from ODA and local sources. However, these sector plans
have not been mainstreamed into the LGU development plans and continues to be absent
in the LGU Annual Investment and Development Plans. All of these plans needs to be
updated and the sanitation angle needs to be strengthened.
Several municipalities and cities have been assisted in developing their local sanitation plans
(Dagupan, Alabel, Guian, Bauko, San Fernando, Marikina City among others). The local
sanitation plans were developed through a participatory process of understanding the
current sanitation problems and issues, potential impact of the sanitation problems, an
assessment of current programs and actions addressing their sanitation problems. A typical
table of content of a local sanitation plan can be found in Annex 3.
The national strategy for the implementation of the National Policy on Urban Sewerage
and Sanitation as outlined in the NEDA Board Resolution No. 5 series of 1994 was not
fully implemented. LWUA, mandated as the lead agency to implement this strategic plan
as well as coordinate the subsector activities had exerted efforts to provide technical and
fi nancing assistance in the development of urban sewerage plans and implementation of
sewerage facilities. Despite these efforts, the strategic plan was not fully realized.
In addition, only very recently, a National Sewerage and Septage Management Program
(NSSMP) that serves as a framework plan that will address large scale waste water and
sanitation issues has been formulated to promote viable, affordable, sustainable sewerage
systems and/or septage management programs to be implemented by LGUs, WDs or
WSPs. However, this program has yet to take off pending fi nalization of its institutional
arrangement and funding.
The Department of Interior and Local Government has recently prepared its Sanitation
Strategy. After careful assessment of the sanitation issues vis a vis the DILG mandate, it has
identifi ed three focus areas: a) Increasing LGU awareness on sector policies and guidelines;
b) assistance in the preparation of proposals and investment packages and c) provision of
technical assistance/consultancy services to LGUs.
The Department of Health is also in the process of developing its National Sustainable
Sanitation Program which is now anchored in this roadmap process.
While initiatives have been launched by various institutions, there is still a need to push
further for the implementation and mainstreaming of all these efforts to achieve targets
effectively.
2.2.3 Relevant Laws and Policies in the Sector
The laws and policies governing sanitation and sewerage in the Philippines are based on
separate provisions contained in several legislations and policy pronouncements. The
National Plumbing Code provides guidelines, criteria and standards for the design and
construction of sanitation and sewerage facilities. The Sanitation Code of 1975 provides
guidelines on excreta disposal and drainage, sewerage collection and disposal. PD 1121 that
created the National Environmental Protection Council stated that Polluters are responsible
to contain, remove and clean up certain pollution incidents. The recent promulgation of
the Clean Water Act provided for the preparation of the National Sewerage and Septage
Management Plan, targeting highly urbanized cities.
Despite the numerous legislations and policies that focus on addressing sanitation issues,
sector goals are not fully met, policies not implemented, rules not fully enforced. For
® ¯ ° ¯ ± ± ¯ ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¯ ² ¸ ¹ ° ³ ´ ¸ ² ¯ · ¸ · ¯ º ² » º ¸ ¼ ½ ¸ ±31
instance, implementation of the National Sector Plan for Water Supply, Sewerage and
Sanitation failed to gain local support. Specifi cally, LGUs are unable to provide regularly
updated sanitation situation and data. Moreover, LGU awareness on the sanitation issues
remains low as evidenced by the small budget allocated for their local sanitation programs
and projects.
The passage of the Local Government Code in 1991 has devolved the implementation of
health services to the LGUs. For instance, responsibility for data generation specifi cally
on water supply and sanitation service coverage as well as investment and fi nancing has
been lodged to LGUs. On the other hand, the Department of Health (DOH) has focused
its mandate on policy formulation and monitoring of laws and policies. This arrangement
made LGUs reluctant to perform these functions due to their unpreparedness to assume
these emerging responsibilities.
Annex 4 provides the list of specifi c laws and policies adopted by the various sector
agencies.
2.3 ANALYSIS OF GAPS
2.3.1 The Policy Environment
Lack of Effective Sanitation Leadership
While NEDA is the over-all coordinating body for the preparation and monitoring of
investment plans, they do not have the manpower and budget or resources to address the
growing sanitation concerns. The newly created NEDA Sub Committee on Water Resources 1 1 which is jointly chaired by NEDA and the NWRB has been mandated to ensure the sector
direction is carried out in accordance with the sector plans defi ned in the Philippine Water
Supply Sector Roadmap, among others. However, it is not expected to carry a strong drive
to push sanitation targets and plans vis-a-vis the water supply agenda, among others. It is
not a regular implementing government agency with budgets and personnel to oversee
implementation and fast tracking of priorities. The Department of Health is playing a
key role due to the health impacts of poor sanitation. However, the only unit of DOH
dealing with sanitation is the Environment and Occupational Health Offi ce (EOHO) of
the National Disease Control and Prevention Center whose mandate in sanitation is limited
to policy formulation
This situation causes signifi cant gaps in policy implementation and enforcement, particularly
the inability to deliver the commitments set under existing laws and implement targets
within set timeframes.
Fragmented institutional arrangements with no strong administrative mechanisms to guide
policy implementation and coordinate local level program implementation, monitoring
(among others) shows inadequate attention accorded to sanitation.
At the minimum, a full time national sector driver must be in place. In the absence of a
national sanitation agency, the DOH can create a sanitation focused technical support unit
in the interim that will oversee the regular implementation, coordination, monitoring and
regular updating of the national plans and help facilitate the development and implementation
of local sanitation policies and sustainable sanitation improvement plans.
At a late stage it would be highly desirable if DOH can help facilitate the creation of a well
staffed and effective national sanitation agency responsible for overseeing the sector. It
should be basically normative but could also be extremely helpful in the different aspects of
sanitation development.
32¾ ¿ À Á À Â Â À Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È É À Ã É Ê Á Ä Å É Ã À È É È À Ë Ã Ì Ë É Í Î É Â
Lack of Effective National Sanitation Policy
An effective national sanitation policy should specify institutional responsibilities taking
into account different levels of governance; be comprehensive and be transparent to
stakeholders. For a policy to be considered effective, it must ensure that a) the policy is in
place; b) it is being effectively implemented and c) the policy is achieving its objectives. It
should provide the framework for achieving its SMART 12 sanitation objectives.
While there is a sanitation code of 1975, it has to be revisited in light of the growing
concerns of the country including population stresses, water pollution and climate change.
The vulnerabilities caused by fl ooding and strong typhoons and sea level rise compound
the problem. This necessitates research, development and advocacy for different models
of approaches for more sustainable sanitation services. For example, the provision on
septic tank design allows an unsealed bottom in the second chamber, causing ground water
pollution. Moreover, the septic tanks are not attached to leaching fi elds and are not regularly
serviced, allowing effl uent to directly pollute rivers, lakes and coastal waters. On the other
hand, the Clean Water Act, which is a relatively new law, is heavily biased toward conventional
centralized sewerage and septage treatment plants that are beyond the fi nancing capacity
of most local governments. Clearly, this is a capacity issue involving policy makers that are
unaware of more sustainable systems for sanitation.
There is also insuffi cient budgetary and manpower resources both at the national and local
levels to address basic, priority concerns of the sector. Correspondingly, streamlined and
harmonized systems and procedures for monitoring and evaluation is lacking even at LGU
level resulting to poor generation of accurate and useful data for better regulation and
rational allocation of resources.
Regulation For Sanitation And Wastewater
There are many existing regulatory standards for sanitation and wastewater. However, it is
not integrated and updated. LGUs who are in the forefront of implementing, monitoring
and to some extent, regulating sanitation programs and projects are generally not informed
adequately about these standards.
For sanitation to progress, it is important to revisit the regulatory arrangements relating
to standards and tariffs. A standards-based regulatory framework will provide guidance to
interested groups (such as homeowners, businessmen, planners) on how to develop their
wastewater systems. On the other hand, it will also serve as a guide for the regulators on
how to review and approve applications for new sewage systems,
The regulatory framework defi nes the standard procedures, methods, processes for every
aspect of wastewater project development for every type of sanitation project- from a
single family house to a public facility such as hospitals, markets, etc.
The regulatory arrangement of the MWSS based on the concession agreement has effectively
defi ned standards, targets and tariffs for the sanitation and sewerage program of the two
private companies. These are closely monitored by the MWSS Regulatory Offi ce. There is
no similar arrangement elsewhere. The water districts are not obligated by LWUA to plan
and implement sanitation and sewerage projects, inspite of the mandate they have under
PD 198. Some water districts who initiate sewerage projects increase their water tariffs by
a certain percentage ( running from 8% to 50% of the water bill) and this is not regulated
by LWUA nor the National Water Resources Board. There is no clear policy on sanitation
economic regulation.
At the minimum, the national policy on sanitation should include the following:
• National targets and strategy to eliminate open defecation
Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ñ Ó Ó Ñ Ô Õ Ö × Ø Ù Ú Ñ Ô Ú Û Ò Õ Ö Ú Ô Ñ Ù Ú Ù Ñ Ü Ô Ý Ü Ú Þ ß Ú Ó33
• National targets and Strategy to facilitate localized sanitation improvement plans and
budgets
• National Investment Priorities and Plans for Sanitation
• National Sustainable Sanitation Communications Strategy
• References and integration to other sanitation related plans and programs of other
agencies (i.e. DILG, DAR, HLURB, National Solid Waste Commission, DWSD, LWUA,
NHA among others).
• Policies regarding improved governance, fi nancing, regulation and service delivery
standards.
2.3.2 Funding Levels and Financing of Sanitation
There is very low priority given to sanitation at the national and local level, like in many
developing countries. In the WB study 13, since 1970, public investment in water supply
and sanitation infrastructure went mostly to the water sector (97%) and only a miniscule
3 percent went to sanitation. Investments in sanitation are mostly in the form of private
investments in household toilets, housing estate wastewater treatment and on-site treatments
among commercial, industrial and institutional establishments. The PEM estimates that that
over a 10-year period, the country will need to invest PhP 250 billion (nearly US$ 5 billion)
in physical infrastructure. While local government units recognize emerging water quality
problems, they are constrained by high investment and operating costs, limited willingness-
to-pay, and restricted space available in the low-income urban areas where sewage is disposed
of indiscriminately. More government budgets ( both from local and national) should be
invested in sewerage and sanitation.
A quick scan and review of the current Medium Term Philippine Development Plan
(MTPDP) for 2004-2010 indicated that sanitation per se was only mentioned in Chapter 3,
the chapter dealing with Environment and Natural Resources (Chapter 3.page 53) where
targets were being included. Considering that the Philippines is a signatory to the MDG and
has set targets for sanitation, it is quite surprising to note that sanitation is not prominently
addressed in the medium term development plan.
Consequently, as the MTPIP is the investment translation of the MTPDP, this meant that
sanitation is hardly allocated the necessary investments that it should be given. A review of
the current MTPIP showed only the following sanitation-related PAPs: Water Supply and
Sanitation Performance Project; Provincial Water Supply, Sewerage and Sanitation Sector
Project; and LGU Urban Water and Sanitation Project. It should be mentioned that for
sanitation programs and projects to qualify as part of foreign funded initiative, it should
fi rst be part of the current MTPIP.
In terms of current General Appropriations Act (GAA), sanitation-related Program/
Projects/Activities of agencies deemed in-charge of sanitation, sewerage and septage such
as DPWH, DENR, DOH ,LWUA and DILG revealed that there is no clear and defi nite PAP
that addresses sanitation; in fact there is no mention of sanitation in any of the programs,
projects and activities of said agencies. Current ODA and fi nancing available for water
supply and sanitation is not optimized by service providers. LGUs and Water Districts have
access to some resources but the priority remains to be expansion of water systems and not
for sewerage.
In the last 30 years, investments in urban sanitation allegedly totaled to only 1.5% of
capital expenditures on urban water supply. ODA capital investments for the sewerage and
sanitation sector are fi nanced mostly by the World Bank, administered by the MWSS and
DENR and are channeled to Metro Manila. The concessionaires of MWSS spent Php 2
34à á â ã â ä ä â å æ ç è é ê ë â å ë ì ã æ ç ë å â ê ë ê â í å î í ë ï ð ë ä
Billion on sanitation and sewerage and is committed to spend a total of 13 Billion by 2011.
This investments are indicated in the rate rebasing and contract agreements of the two
private concessionaires with the MWSS.
2.3.3 Programs
There is no effi cient national monitoring of sanitation programs going on in the country.
Data on initiatives done by local governments are not regularly collected. The regular toilet
bowl distribution approach ( started in the early 80s) is no longer effective, based on the
fi ndings of the WSP- Sustainable Sanitation for East Asia project.
There are projects that address sanitation and sewerage at either municipality/city or
barangay levels, mostly implemented on a pilot or project basis at the LGU level. The only
large scale project going on are those of the MWSS which is planned and implemented by
the two private concessionaires under the concession agreement. The two concessionaires
are responsible for the 878,000 (equivalent population) of sewerage connections and
6,200,000 (equivalent population) of desludged septic tanks.
There are a few LGU initiated small wastewater treatment projects usually for slaughterhouses,
public markets, hospitals and a few Water District STP projects. There are also a few
private companies and developers who are operating, planning or constructing wastewater
facilities. (Pls. refer to Annex 5 List of Existing, under construction and planned sewerage
facilities.)
The DOH is currently working with the Water and Sanitation Program of the World Bank
under its Sustainable Sanitation for East Asia (SuSEA) project. The SuSEA program in
the Philippines is aimed at the following: a) testing and developing tools for scaling-up of
sanitation interventions; b) building the capacity of local government partners and other
stakeholders to implement practical sanitation solutions and c) guiding and refi ning the
formulation of national sanitation policy and programs, based on evidence from the fi eld.
The SuSEA program has promoted a comprehensive approach to sanitation improvement,
involving diverse activities such as stopping open defecation, strengthening barriers to water-
washed diseases, improving septage management and reducing riverine pollution through
inter-LGU cooperation. The SuSEA project is working with the LGUs of the following
areas: Dagupan, Bauko, Alabel, General Santos City, Polomolok and Guiuan.
DWSD and DAR have supported some sanitation activities in relation with their water
supply projects. The DWSD through the Kalahi- CIDDS project have supported sanitation
projects (usually toilet construction). The Bureau of Agrarian Reform Benefi ciaries
Development (BARBD) is currently working in pilot projects offering ecosan approaches
and have demonstrated the construction and use of bio-gas digester where methane fuel
is now harvested for cooking. This is a one year project in 10 project sites within ARC
communities.
Some civil society organizations are actively working in sanitation. Some are promoting the
use of urine diverting dry toilets ( popularly known as ecosan toilets), some are helping LGUs
develop their local sanitation plans. Some, like PLAN Philippines are promoting Community
Led Total Sanitation Campaigns. This is a program that addresses open defecation through
triggering approaches. They offer zero subsidies for household level toilets. However, many
of these projects are pilot in nature and have been initiated to respond to local needs.
However, there is a need to develop clear sanitation programs at local level to respond to
the existing problems and challenges such as open defecation, groundwater pollution and
others. Basic sanitation and hygiene education should still be a priority to develop demand
for improved sanitation services.
ñ ò ó ô ó õ õ ó ö ÷ ø ù ú û ü ó ö ü ý ô ÷ ø ü ö ó û ü û ó þ ö ÿ þ ü � � ü õ35
2.3.4 Technology
There is a menu of options that local decision makers and planners can select from based on
what they see as appropriate in their conditions. However, not all LGUs are well-informed
about available options so they do not know about these technologies. Other well meaning
LGUs also prescribe only one type of acceptable toilets for instance (water sealed) because
of lack of understanding of other possible alternative technologies.
Information about these technologies must be made available to planners, decision makers
and to the communities so that informed choices can be made. USAID has recently
prepared a Sanitation Technology Information Kit with materials on different sanitation and
sewerage technology options. The Water and Sanitation Program of the World Bank has
likewise prepared a Philippine Sanitation Sourcebook and Decision Aid aimed to stimulate
demand for sanitation services by presenting tools for strategic decision making around
a wider range of more affordable sanitation options. Decentralized wastewater treatment
technologies have also been piloted successfully in several slaughterhouses, public markets
and hospitals.
An inventory of sanitation technologies being utilized in the Philippines maybe found in Annex 6.
Technology standards are available but not comprehensive and readily available to the LGUs
implementers. This should include standards for the following:
• Wastewater collection and sewer systems
• Septic tanks and other anaerobic systems
• Soils based effl uent disposal systems
• Composting and urine diversion toilet systems
• Media fi ltration systems
• Constructed wetlands systems
• Aerobic treatment systems
• Nutrient reduction systems
• Disinfection systems
• Wastewater reuse systems
• New and emerging technologies
2.3.5 Human Resources
Since there is no single sanitation agency, personnel from different agencies usually handle
both water and sanitation. However, there is realistically only a handful who are working
effectively on the issues of sanitation. The people working in sanitation come from different
backgrounds which has its advantages (being multi-disciplinary) and disadvantages (lack of
required skills and expertise).
Sanitation problems in the Philippines can be related to many causes, including insuffi ciency
in capacity within the fi eld of sanitation. There are less than a handful of universities offering
Sanitary Engineering (SE) courses. Key educators in the sector are saying that the enrollment
in SE courses have continually declined through the years. Many reasons are cited. For
example, local government units at the city and municipal levels do not require a degree in
SE to be appointed as Sanitary Inspector. The Sanitary Inspectors are the frontline personnel
at the local level in charge of various tasks on sanitation. But hardly forty percent (40%) of
the Sanitary Inspectors have an SE degree; many of them come from various, often times
36� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
unrelated, fi elds and about thirty percent (30%) are undergraduates. Only those occupying
positions at the provincial level have SE degrees. The offi cers of the Philippine Society of
Sanitary Engineers have clamored for years in many forums and public consultations to
professionalize the position of Sanitary Inspector so that those appointed to the position
have the proper training and education. Public Health courses also deal with sanitation but
the curriculum is limited to health issues.
2.3.6 Communication for Behavioral Change
The poor sanitation situation in the Philippines is to a great extent a product of the uncaring
and unaware social-political environment among the decision makers and ordinary citizens.
The basic health problem of high incidence of water borne related diseases, i.e., intestinal
parasite infection and diarrhea is caused invariably by poor sanitation and hygiene practices
coupled with poor implementation of existing sanitation laws and policies or lack of
political will. In many cases, sanitation is not a recognized community problem. It has a low
priority that is why there is negligible or no budget allocation for sanitation programs and
infrastructure. The ordinary citizens themselves do not demand better services. Protests
against high prices of basic commodities are common but protest over poor sanitation is
unheard of except during calamities like fl ooding, earthquakes and landslides when rescue
and rehabilitation organizations are on heightened alert.
The national celebration of the International Year of Sanitation in 2008 was an attempt to
call attention to sanitation and behavior change. Specifi cally, it aimed:
• To raise the profi le of sanitation issues among Philippine politicians, decision makers
and media to catalyze investments in improved sanitation conditions and promote
improved hygiene practices nationwide.
• To change the existing paradigm of viewing sanitation as a luxury that the Philippines
cannot afford to a necessity that the Philippines cannot afford to delay any longer.
• To justify substantial investment in provision of toilets, treatment facilities and hand-
washing campaigns by determining economic losses covered by poor sanitation.
Outcomes of the national celebration have still to be assessed.
Strategic partnership arrangements with different stakeholders such as private companies
and civil society, local governments and water service providers must be organized to
promote sanitation and hygiene behavior change. Clear messages must be well developed
for targeted audiences.
2.3.7 Sector Planning
There is no separate and distinct sanitation sector. Sanitation has never been a separate
concern for planning and budgeting. Many of the sanitation systems are water based, hence
the practice of integrating water supply planning with sanitation. However, the reality is that
oftentimes, sanitation lags behind. There are no clear targets and plans relating to sanitation
as the priority is always water supply. The handful of LGUs that have developed local
sanitation plans have done so, but not as part of mainstream activity but because a support
group (mostly thru NGOs and special projects such as SuSEA) have assisted them to do
so. Pilot projects on Barangay Environmental Sanitation Planning have also been initiated
but did not take off at a large scale. The PW4SPs prepared from 1988 to 2005 have to be
revisited and updated within a new sustainable sanitation framework.
The NSSMP has recently been prepared for approval of the NEDA Sub-committee on
Water Resources. This plan is for large scale sewerage projects for the identifi ed highly
urbanized cities as provided for by the Clean Water Act.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ! � " # � �37
Given the urgency of mitigating impact of the negative effects caused by poor sanitation on
health, the environment and general welfare, it is recommended that sanitation be treated
as a separate but closely related sector with clear targets, budget lines and responsible body
that will coordinate planning, implementation and fi nancing.
The possibility of using a sector-wide approach for sanitation was raised and should merit
further study given the current planing processes of the country.
2.3.8 Monitoring and Evaluation (including sector Baseline Indicators)
There is no reliable monitoring of sanitation indicators and targets in the country. DOH
is monitoring sanitary toilet coverage but it has not managed to get reliable data from all
municipalities and cities.. DENR is monitoring small wastewater treatment plants. But since
there is no national plans, programs and budgets, monitoring and evaluation of national
targets and plans are not happening at national and local levels.
Figure 3 below is from the 2008 Field Health Service Information System Annual Report
2008 of the Department of Health.
FIGURE 3. Proportion of Households with Sanitary Toilet, 2008 Environmental Health
As can be seen from Figure 3, ARMM and Region VII lag behind in terms of proportion of households with sanitary toilet facilities. In the 2008 FHSIS, Sulu, Lanao del Sur and Bohol are at the bottom of the list of places with sanitary toilet facilities.
The DILG is recently spearheading a national sector assessment and monitoring process that will harmonize all the monitoring initiatives of the different national agencies in an effort to institutionalize a reasonable national monitoring system for water and sanitation.
2.3.9 Environment/Health and Economic Impact
A 2008 joint USAID and WSP-World Bank study 14 showed that the economic costs of poor sanitation are equivalent to as high as 1.5% of Gross Domestic Product in 2005 or with an estimated overall economic loss amounting to about US $1.4 billion or PhP 77.8 billion per year and about two-thirds (72%) of the total economic costs was accounted for the health impact. Sadly, these costs of poor sanitation are not evenly shared. A much greater burden falls on poor people - in terms of their health, lost time for productive work, and lost income. Poor people are those suffer the most and pay the highest economic costs.
Outbreaks of water-borne diseases across the country for the last two years have increased. Most cases were due to water contamination arising from poor sanitation.
38$ % & ' & ( ( & ) * + , - . / & ) / 0 ' * + / ) & . / . & 1 ) 2 1 / 3 4 / (
Table 3. An Overview of the Economic Costs of Not Doing Sanitation15
Health In 1996-2000 approximately 31% of
illnesses monitored were attributed to
waterborne sources
PhP3.3 billion per year in avoidable health
cost
Aquatic ecosystem Fish yields reported to have declined by
30%- 5% due to sedimentation and silt
pollution;
PhP16.7 billion lost due to degradation of
fi sheries environment
Tourism Decline in occupancy (e.g. Boracay island
in 1997 due to high levels of coliform);
P47 billion for avoidable losses in tourism
Others Damage claims due to environmental
degradation (e.g. income and livelihood)
Source: Economic Impacts of Sanitation in the Philippines Summary, 2008, USAID and the Water and Sanitation Program ( WSP)
2.3.10 Gender Issues in Sanitation
Women and children are also adversely affected by poor sanitation. Many women’s privacy are compromised when there is no sanitary toilet facilities around their houses. Poorly constructed facilities expose women and children to harassment and danger. The special circumstances of women ( like the monthly menstrual periods and reproductive responsibilities) make them more vulnerable when there is lack of appropriate sanitation facilities. Exposure to infant fecal wastes which are considered high risk can cause illness. Further studies must be made to see how gender concerns can be mainstreamed in sanitation interventions. For instance, gender considerations must be ensured in the choice of technology, the design and siting of sanitation facilities ( including water supply). Some of the questions one must ask include the following: How the sanitation programs (if any) have empowered the marginalized women (and men) in the decision making processes? Are the sanitation facilities responsive to the demand of women (and men) to have private, convenient and secure facilities? Are the marginalized groups substantially involved and committed to ensure optimal health benefi ts?
2.4 SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
While the offi cial data shows that the MDG target for sanitation will be met by the country, the sanitation gaps remain enormous. Having access to improved sanitation does not mean that the basic conditions for good sanitation are met. There are many considerations that have to be considered ( quality of services, environmental concerns, sustainability concerns, health aspects, etc.).
Meeting universal coverage will not happen unless there is a clear national sanitation policy and program managed by a lead institution ably supported by an alliance of champions for sanitation to facilitate stimulation of demand and access to resources at the national and local levels.
The weak and fragmented regulatory arrangements for sanitation and wastewater management have to be addressed. Sanitation service providers have to be regulated and professionalized to improve service delivery.
Priority issues at the local level that need to be urgently recognized and addressed include the low LGU awareness and political will, inadequate information dissemination and development of human resources, low multi-stakeholder involvement, and inadequate fi nancing schemes are exacerbated by the lack of local policies and programs on sanitation.
These issues result in the low prioritization of sanitation-related programs and projects, an upsurge in the incidence of diarrhea and other waterborne diseases at the community level, misallocation and/or misuse of human resources especially in sanitary inspection, non-utilization of available sanitation technologies and lack of information on the benefi ts vis-à-vis the costs of sanitation.
Priority issues at the national level include weak and fragmented institutional framework and policies,
5 6 7 8 7 9 9 7 : ; < = > ? @ 7 : @ A 8 ; < @ : 7 ? @ ? 7 B : C B @ D E @ 939
Table 4. Summary of Issues in the Philippine Sanitation Sector
Summary of Issues Defi ning the Issue
GOVERNANCE AND REGULATORY ISSUES
Low LGU awareness and political will to
improve sanitation
At the LGU level, local development plans do not prioritize sanitation. This is
gleaned particularly in the investment plan of the LGU where allocations for
sanitation are minimal or none at all. To date, there are only a few LGUs who
have demonstrated political will to improve their sanitation situation through the
development of local sanitation policies, plans and programs.
Weak, fragmented institutional framework
and policies on sanitation
The sector is beset with institutional fragmentation, a lack of an enabling policy
environment, and gaps in the regulatory framework. While policies and enabling
laws and national legislations have been formulated to set the directions for the
sanitation sector, policy implementation has not been ideal, thus, policy goals
have yet to be fully met. For instance, the National Sector Plan for Water
Supply, Sewerage and Sanitation failed to gain national and local support for
the implementation and updating despite the clear mandates of the institutions
involved.
Weak, fragmented regulatory framework on
sanitation.
Regulation in sanitation is not clearly defi ned. While there are enabling laws,
this have to be revisited and updated. Standards have to be clearly defi ned and
its implementation monitored by proper authorities. Economic Regulation in
sanitation and wastewater is non-existent at the moment.
SERVICE DELIVERY RELATED ISSUES
Inadequate capacity to facilitate sustainable
sanitation.
A signifi cant number of LGUs do not prioritize sanitation programs in their
investment plans
A great number of people cannot associate unhygienic (open) defecation
practices with transmission of excreta-borne diseases leading to high morbidity
rates of these diseases.
Lack of sanitation focused human resources who specialize in planning,
implementing and evaluating sanitation programs, developing and improving
designs on sanitation technology, and coordinating sanitation projects/programs.
These include professionals and practitioners such as sanitary engineers,
sanitarians/sanitation inspectors, public health specialists, and teachers among
others.
There are no guidelines to develop or strengthen LGU initiatives on policy
formulation, planning and managing sanitation programs
There is lack of defi nition of a national policy on the management of sanitation
at the local government and household level translated in the forms of:
Guidelines or management models on technology options, social marketing/
advocacy strategies, coordination and linkages techniques which could guide local
governments and other interest groups in planning, implementing, monitoring
and evaluation of sanitation services/programs.
Front-liner Sanitary Inspectors, majority of them, lack adequate sanitation
education, training, knowledge and skills
Institutional guidelines on cooperation and coordination on approaches,
methodologies, and technology options to support local government units in
implementing sanitation programs.
inadequate information dissemination and development of human resources in sanitation, low multi-stakeholder involvement, and low investment and infrastructure provision for the sanitation sector.
Table 4 summarizes and defi nes these issues based on the overall analysis of the sector by the multi-stakeholder groups during the consultations conducted in preparing the Roadmap.
40F G H I H J J H K L M N O P Q H K Q R I L M Q K H P Q P H S K T S Q U V Q J
LACK OF COORDINATION AND SUPPORT FOR MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PLATFORMS
Low multi-stakeholder involvement in
sanitation
Low priority from key stakeholders, i.e., community, local and national levels.
Behavioural, “I don’t care” attitude from many stakeholders, from households,
community to local and national levels
Low private sector involvement on sanitation
Lack of champions to advocate sanitation for public awareness
Poor data availability. Poor knowledge sharing and dissemination
FINANCING RELATED ISSUES
Sanitation is considered a mere adjunct to
water programs, resulting in low investment
in sanitation
Sanitation is not a priority of the government, and as a result, there is very
limited to no investments at all. Identifi ed government agencies with sanitation
mandates such as DOH, DILG, NEDA have no program, activities nor project
distinctly included in the General Appropriations Act (GAA); nor there is any
clear sanitation program included in the MTPDP and the MTPIP
The current focus of sanitation program and projects, if any at all, is on large
scale infrastructure such as centralized treatment and sewerage facilities which
tend to be very costly making cost of recovery very diffi cult. This can be seen
from the few sanitation infrastructure being constructed and funded.
With very low recovery, sanitation projects tend to be not self sustaining making
it necessary to introduce sustainability in sanitation projects
While there might be a demand for the construction of toilets at the household
level, there are no clear fi nancing schemes which families can access
There is a clear absence of national and local policies on investment for
sanitation, promotion of pro poor sanitation fi nancing including promotion of
sanitation entrepreneurship.
There is no current law/program that mandates pro poor sanitation fi nancing.
Private Sector hesitates to invest in sanitation due to insuffi cient incentives and
effi ciency issues.
SANITATION CRISIS DURING CALAMITIES AND EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
Sanitation and hygiene promotion is not a
priority in disaster preparedness and relief
response.
Policy, practice and strong coordination for sanitation and hygiene promotion
in different types of emergency situations ( i.e. fl oods, landslides, etc) are not
yet in place.
3.0 VISION AND DEVELOPMENT GOALS
W X Y Z Y [ [ Y \ ] ^ _ ` a b Y \ b c Z ] ^ b \ Y a b a Y d \ e d b f g b [43
3.0 VISION AND DEVELOPMENT GOALS
3.1 VISION STATEMENT
A CLEAN AND HEALTHY PHILIPPINES: SAFE AND ADEQUATE
SUSTAINABLE SANITATION FOR ALL
This sector vision looks at universal access to safe and adequate sanitation as a human right,
sustainably linked with health, agriculture and environment with families, communities and
institutions working together for the common good.
The Roadmap envisions that:
• By 2015, a strong and vibrant sanitation sector shall have achieved the MDG target of
halving the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water
and basic sanitation
- Achieving 83.8% of total households provided with sanitary toilets (from a baseline of
67.6% NSO 1990 data)
• By 2016, the following have been achieved:
- At least 70% of LGUs have local sanitation plans and budgets in place under their
PIPH/AIPH/CIPH plans
- Improved basic sanitation coverage in 92 priority cities/province by achieiving at least
85% of population with sanitary toilets.
- Sewerage and or septage management in 57 highly urbanized cities (NSSMP targets)
- National agencies such as the DOH, DILG, DAR, DSWD, NHA, LWUA, would have
clear sanitation policies, plans and programs consistent with the PSR roadmap
• By 2028, that universal access (100%) to safe and adequate sanitary facilities have been
provided, that behavioural change and proper hygiene practices are accepted norms within
the families and communities, and that mechanisms for sustainable sanitation (i.e., linkage
with health, agriculture and environment) are institutionalized.
The achievement of the sector vision will use the following strategies of 1) governance and
regulatory strengthening; 2)strengthening service delivery through communication and capacity
development; 3) building strategic, broad-based, multi-stakeholder and multilevel alliances;
4)fi nancing and infrastructure provision for priority areas for sustainable sanitation; and 5)
mainstremaing of adequate sanitation and hygiene promotion in emergency situations.
44h i j k j l l j m n o p q r s j m s t k n o s m j r s r j u m v u s w x s l
FIGURE 4
SANITATION ROADMAP DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
SAFE AND ADEQUATE SUSTAINABLE SANITATION
FOR ALL
A CLEAN AND HEALTHY
PHILIPPINES
y z { | } ~ � � �� � � � } � � � � �� � � � { � { � } �� } � � � � � � | �� � �� � � z � � { } � �� { � � � � { � � � � � � �y z { | } ~ � � �� ~ � � } � � �� � � � � | �� � � � � � � �{ � � } z � �| } ~ ~ z �� � | � { � } � �� � �| � � � | � { �� � � � � } � ~ � � { �
y z { | } ~ � � �� � } � � � � � � � �� � � � � � | �} � ~ z � { � �� � | { } � � � � � �~ z � { � � � � � � �� { � � � � } � � � � �� { � � � � { � � � � � �{ � � � � � � { � { � } �� � | { } � �y z { | } ~ � � �� � � � � | � � � � � �� � � � � � { � z | z � �� � � � � { ~ � � { �� � � � � } � � { �� { � � { � � � |� � � � � �
y z { | } ~ � � �� � � � z � { �� � � � { � { � } �� � � � � � � � � �� � } ~ } { � } � � �~ � � � � { � � � ~ � �� � � ~ � � � � � | �� � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � { � { � } � �
� � � � ¡ ¡ � ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ � ¢ ¨ © £ ¤ ¨ ¢ � § ¨ § � ª ¢ « ª ¨ ¬ ¨ ¡45
3.2 OUTCOMES AND OUTPUTS
The Philippine Sustainable Sanitation Roadmap focuses on fi ve major strategic outcomes: (i)
Responsive sanitation governance and regulatory strengthening. (ii) Improved service delivery
through communications and capacity development, (iii) Broad-based alliance of multi-sectoral
and multi-level stakeholders strengthening the sanitation sector, (iv) Financing and Infrastructure
Investment in priority strategic areas, and (v) Adequate sanitation and hygiene promotion
mainstreamed in emergency relief and rehabilitation.
This section will discuss the development goals, outcomes, outputs for each of the focus areas.
3.2.1: Responsive sanitation governance and regulatory strengthening
Under this component, it is recognized that the LGUs are in the forefront of sanitation
at the local level. However, there is a need to formulate effective national policies that
will provide the framework for coherent strategies and mechanisms supported by adequate
resources leading to synergistic implementation of sanitation programs. National Agencies
with sanitation related programs should be able to develop their plans and programs within
the framework of the national policies on sanitation.
Specifi c outputs identifi ed under this area are as follows:
1. A clear articulation and sustainable implementation of the national and local sanitation
policies;
2. Strengthening DOH as the lead sector driver providing technical assistance at local and
national levels;
3. 100% of the LGUs develop their policies, plans and programs and budgets within the
PIPH/AIPH/CIPH;
4. National government agencies with sanitation related mandates develop their own
sanitation strategy, plans and programs and mainstream these in their regular/existing
budgets;
5. Sanitation regulatory framework developed, approved and implemented by the relevant
agency including a possible creation of an independent regulatory body for the sanitation
sector.
3.2.2 Improved Service Delivery through Communications and Capacity Development
The sanitation roadmap aims to engage and capacitate national sector agencies and institutions
and other stakeholders to improve sanitation service delivery by enabling (1) barangay
or local communities to manage their own sanitation programs towards eliminating open
defecation practices and (2) sanitation service providers to manage wastes in a sustainable
fashion. To achieve this, it is fundamental that the people themselves must realize that the
consequences of their (un)hygienic behavior and practices result to demeaning quality of
life, and for them to actively demand for reforms on sanitation at the grass-roots level. The
choice of methods of intervention in fi nding meaningful solutions to sanitation problems
should be initiated by these same people who clamor for assistance and guidance so that
they are made responsible for setting up their own sanitation facilities and services.
The success of this agenda depends on how the target population would change their
behavior and practices by motivating them through effective education and information
programs (predisposing factors), by enabling them to have access to technology and other
resources with reinforcing factors such as collectively enhancing behavior and practices of
all community members.
Capacity development activities should aim at developing competencies at various levels:
46 ® ¯ ° ± ° ² ² ° ³ ´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ ° ³ ¹ º ± ´ µ ¹ ³ ° ¸ ¹ ¸ ° » ³ ¼ » ¹ ½ ¾ ¹ ²
Grassroot/Community:
1. Skills to design and plan household-level sanitation facilities
2. Technical skills to operate and maintain sanitation facilities
3. Administrative skills to plan sanitation interventions on excreta/sewage management and disposal.
4. Awareness to (ill) health implications of defecating in the open
5. Awareness of the benefi ts of sanitation solutions to socio-economic well-being
6. Awareness of accountability and responsibility to the rest of the communities on hygiene and sanitation
7. Skills to mobilize resources in implementing household or community-based sanitation facilities
8. Skill in social mobilization to develop team-effort in attaining sanitation solutions
9. Awareness on the importance of sustained activities on sanitation
10. Skill in demonstrating capacity to disseminate gained capacities to other members of the community
Local Government Units
1. Planning and management of municipal or city-wide sanitation or sewerage facilities
2. Developing capacities of rural communities to construct and maintain decentralized, communal or individual sanitation facilities
3. To have access to available national resources and mobilize local resources to implement sanitation plans and programs.
4. Generate demands for sanitation services or facilities from communities through health education and information dissemination activities.
5. Translate national guidelines on planning, implementing and evaluating sanitation programs into local policies or ordinances on through:
a. Selection of appropriate technologies suitable to local conditions
b. Generation and utilization of information from local studies
c. Allocating resources to support the policy decisions
6. Develop and carry-out monitoring and evaluation schemes to determine the extent of
meeting sanitation sector standards and goals.
There are a number of entities that could be involved in framing a workable program
on capacity development: National agencies, water supply providers, sanitation contractors
(waste management), local government units, communities, civil society (development
non-governmental organizations, community groups, women’s organizations, bilateral and
multilateral fi nancing institutions, faith-based organizations, professional associations, trades
unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy
group, and the academe.
The local government‘s roles are (1) to cause the realization of the predisposing factors,
(2) to coordinate and facilitate the access to available resources, facilities, equipment and
information from various key players in enabling communities to achieve their own targets,
(3) to fi nance small scale community projects on sanitation, (4) to level information so as to
avoid mixed-signals on sanitation.
¿ À Á Â Á Ã Ã Á Ä Å Æ Ç È É Ê Á Ä Ê Ë Â Å Æ Ê Ä Á É Ê É Á Ì Ä Í Ì Ê Î Ï Ê Ã47
Other organizations and institutions should identify their own specifi c niches
within the sanitation labyrinth concentric to the goal of strengthening community’s
power to solve their own problems. The academe may introduce long term,
institutionalized capacity development program for professionals and practitioners.
They should cause the transfer of knowledge of technology, effective planning and
service delivery, and other competencies.
Element of Sustainability
Capacity development efforts should clearly fulfi ll the element of sustainability and
constancy of sanitation solutions. Experiences in the past taught implementing agencies
that cause of failure in attaining universal access to proper sanitation was due to the fact
that sanitation facilities which were intended to uplift the hygiene conditions of families and
to contribute to attaining national objectives of sanitation coverage were inappropriately
procured. Many of them were found to be too sophisticated to local circumstances or
too frail to withstand usual environmental stresses. Options to be offered by capacity
development providers should be limited to facilities that would conform to standards that
yield enduring solutions.
Element of Acceptability
The essence of sanitation solutions lies on how facilities and systems impede infectious
health hazards through direct access and utilization of these facilities by the community
members especially those have been at risk because of factors inherent to their socio-
economic status, cultural traits, or other constraints to practicing hygiene and sanitation.
Whether these are information disseminated to individuals, or a technology to recycle
human waste, or the design of the squatting plate each should conform to the environment
suitable to the intricate or simple preference of the users. Capacity development should,
therefore, be custom tailored.
Specifi c Outputs relating to this area are as follows:
1. An integrated and decentralized capacity development system for different types of
implementers and situations.
2. Benchmark standards on LGU performance and practice established.
3. Different stakeholders mobilized in promoting sustainable sanitation concepts, practice
and behaviour change.
4. Research and development agenda towards sustainable sanitation solutions and policy
reforms.
5. Institutionalized monitoring and evaluation of the sector.
6. A national and local communications plan for sustainable sanitation and hygiene in
place.
3.2.3 Strengthened Strategic Alliances
Broad-based alliance of multi-sectoral and multi-level stakeholders strengthening the sanitation sector.
Building strategic alliances for sanitation means inclusivisity, i.e., encouraging the participation
of multi-sectoral and multi-level stakeholders who would like to cooperate, collaborate and
bind themselves together as broad-based networks, partnerships, consortia, federation,
others to support sustainable sanitation and to strengthen the sanitation sector. Agreements
to form these alliances are social contracts that can be formal or non-formal, over long term
or short term, and for a particular or a variety of reasons and interests.
48 Ð Ñ Ò Ó Ò Ô Ô Ò Õ Ö × Ø Ù Ú Û Ò Õ Û Ü Ó Ö × Û Õ Ò Ú Û Ú Ò Ý Õ Þ Ý Û ß à Û Ô
Organizations or institutions that may form alliances would include government agencies,
national and local, executive and legislative, CBOs, NGOs, civic organizations, the academe,
service providers, business enterprises, corporations, professional associations, consulting
fi rms, bilateral or multilateral development aid agencies or programs, and all other groups
that would be interested to join forces with others to push or support sustainable sanitation
and the sanitation sector as a whole. It is also intended to facilitate the organization of
sanitation service providers as a platform to strengthen their role in sustainable sanitation
service delivery. Participating organizations may enter into Memoranda of Agreements or
Memoranda of Understanding or other forms of social contract to forge their alliances.
They may agree to contribute to the alliance in cash or in kind, such as, their expertise,
professional and executive time, offi ce space, and other physical resources.
The vision of strategic alliances is a sanitation sector that is recognized as a social, economic
and environmental force advocating and working for a sustainable form of sanitation
as a human right and a public good. Its strength lies in the commitment of individual
participating organizations/ institutions to support the principles of sustainable sanitation
and, particularly, in pursuit of the Millennium Development Goal of ensuring sanitation for
the poor.
The following outputs are expected to result to strengthened strategic alliances:
1. Strong and active national and local multi-sector support group that will advocate, lead
and advance sustainable sanitation polices, plans, programs, activities.
2. Clear mechanisms for collaboration in knowledge sharing, education and human
resource pooling for awareness raising and knowledge building.
3. A strong alliance of sanitation service providers.
3.2.4 Financing and Adequate Infrastructure Investments
The provision of adequate and sustainable sanitation systems in priority strategic areas will
require political will and adequate fi nancing. National and local governments should work
together to ensure that resources will be made available, specially to strategic approaches
and areas that have been identifi ed as priority due to the magnitude of sanitation problems
affecting the community. In an environment of scarce resources, it is of utmost importance
to identify general principles for best possible allocation of these resources.
Financing for sustainable sanitation would include the following:
a) Supporting and developing an enabling environment
b) Hygiene behavior change activities
c) Sanitation marketing costs ( including training, market assessments, etc.)
d) Cost of public infrastructure and services (capital and operational costs)
e) Cost of private infrastructure and services (capital and operational costs)
Funds for the provision of sanitation may come from different sources:
a) National Government ( or public) funds
b) Local government funds
c) Private funds
d) Semi-public/charitable funds fl owing in from NGOs, donors etc.
The negative economic impacts of poor sanitation have triggered agencies such as the
Philippine Tourism Authority( PTA) to invest in wastewater treatment facility in some
tourist areas. Gaps in sector fi nancing are also fi lled by market-based instruments and
á â ã ä ã å å ã æ ç è é ê ë ì ã æ ì í ä ç è ì æ ã ë ì ë ã î æ ï î ì ð ñ ì å49
fi nancing through micro fi nance institutions, banks and commercial service providers.
However, this is not enough. Innovative fi nancing schemes must be developed for sanitation
improvements.
Cognizant of the current situation where sanitation has been a much neglected aspect of
the development priorities, the proposed Philippine Sanitation Roadmap will address this
inadequacy by ensuring that a strong sanitation sector is recognized and given the appropriate
support in terms of priorities and corresponding investment.
Outputs:
1. Prioritized intervention in highly vulnerable areas that are seriously affected by the lack
of sanitation.
2. Financing strategies and incentive schemes for sustainable infrastructure development
developed.
3. Established and enhanced public-private partnerships and sanitation entrepreneurship.
4. A well established national account for sanitation.
5. Sanitation investment requirements identifi ed and secured to meet the MTPDP and
MDG targets.
3.2.5: Emergency Sanitation Response
Adequate Sanitation and Hygiene promotion is mainstreamed in emergency relief and
rehabilitation efforts.
The Philippines is visited by at least 20 typhoons annually. This particular situations renders
the country highly vulnerable to water-induced natural calamity, foremost of this is fl ooding
and inundation of low lying areas which serves as home to millions of Filipinos. With the
spectre of climate change becoming more and more a reality, and with the anticipated
increase in fl ooding and inundations incidents, not to mention landslides and mudfl ows,
it is high time for a joint effort among national and local government, private sector and
NGOs to work together towards formulating an effective sanitation program for emergency
situations.
Outputs:
1. Sourcebook and toolkits on appropriate approaches for different situations.
2. Integration of emergency sanitation in disaster response and risk reduction plans at all
levels.
3. Building partnerships and strong coordination mechanisms at local municipal, provincial
and national levels for identifying priority areas of intervention, quick mobilization of
resources and immediate response in emergency situations.
50 ò ó ô õ ô ö ö ô ÷ ø ù ú û ü ý ô ÷ ý þ õ ø ù ý ÷ ô ü ý ü ô ÿ ÷ � ÿ ý � � ý ö
3.2.6 Summary of Expected Outputs:
Table 5. Summary of Expected Outputs
Outcome Outputs
Responsive sanitation governance
and regulatory strengthening
1. A clear articulation and sustainable implementation of the national and
local sanitation policies
2. DOH strengthened as the lead sector driver providing technical
assistance at local and national levels.
3. 100% of the LGUs develop their policies, plans and programs and
budgets within the PIPH/AIPH/CIPH.
4. National government agencies with sanitation related mandates
develop their own sanitation strategy, plans and programs and
mainstream this in their instituion’s regular budgets.
5. Sanitation Regulatory Framework developed, approved and
implemented by the relevant agency.
Improved Service Delivery through
Communications and Capacity
Development
1. An integrated and decentralized capacity development system for
different types of implementers and situations developed.
2. Benchmark standards on LGU performance and practice established.
3. Different stakeholders mobilized in promoting sustainable sanitation
concepts, practice and behaviour change.
4. Research and development agenda towards sustainable sanitation
solutions and policy reforms.
5. Institutionalized monitoring and evaluation of the sector.
6. A national and local communications plan for sustainable sanitation
and hygiene in place.
Strengthened Strategic Alliances 1. Strong and active national and local multi-sector support group that
will advocate, lead and advance sustainable sanitation polices, plans,
programs, activities.
2. Clear mechanisms for collaboration in knowledge sharing, education
and human resource pooling for awareness raising and knowledge
building.
3. A strong alliance of sanitation service providers organized.
Financing and Adequate
Infrastructure Investments
1. Prioritized intervention in highly vulnerable areas that are seriously
affected by the lack of sanitation.
2. Financing strategies and incentive schemes for sustainable
infrastructure developed.
3. Established and enhanced public-private partnerships and sanitation
enterpreneurship.
4. A well-established national account for sanitation.
5. Sanitation investment requirements identifi ed and secured to meet the
MTPDP and MDG targets.
Emergency Sanitation Response 1. Sourcebook and toolkits on appropriate approaches for different
situations developed.
2. Integration of emergency sanitation in disaster response and risk
reduction plans at all levels.
3. Building partnerships and strong coordination mechanisms at local
municipal, provincial and national levels for identifying priority areas
of intervention, quick mobilization of resources and immediate
response in emergency situations.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �51
.3 ROADMAP LOGICAL FRAMEWORK
The following table provides a more detailed presentation of the linkages among the development
goals, outcomes with the corresponding activities, objectively verifi able indicators, means/sources of
verifi cation, risks and assumptions and required inputs as determined by the multi-stakeholder technical
working group tasked with preparing the roadmap. This becomes the basis and guide for developing
detailed plans and programs and monitoring them during the implementation of the Roadmap.
TABLE 6.
SANITATION ROADMAP LOG FRAME
INTERVENTION LOGIC
OBJECTIVELY
VERIFIABLE INDICATOR
MEANS/SOURCES OF
VERIFICATION
RISK AND
ASSUMPTIONS
Vision: A clean and healthy Philippines
Development Goal by 2015: MDG TARGETS
Halve the proportion of the
population without sustainable
access to safe drinking water and
basic sanitation
Achieving 83.8% of the number
of total households provided
with sanitary toilets
Offi cial government reports Sanitary toilets may not be
good and sustainable due to
improper design and poor
hygiene practices.
Outcome 1: Responsive Sanitation Governance and Strengthened Regulatory Mechanisms
Output 1.1
A clear articulation and
sustainable implementation of
the national sanitation policy
Compendium of existing and
new laws, policies and support
programs
Gap analysis matrix - Available resources
- Accessibility to relevant
information
Activities:
1) Review and evaluate the relevance of existing sanitation policies,
mandates, guidelines and other regulatory frameworks as to their
effectiveness.
2) Review systems for enforcement of existing policies and laws
3) Identify applicable changes in the existing policies and frameworks
4) Identify pending new and amended laws, policies and regulations
related to sanitation including monitoring and enforcement.
5) Develop sanitation programs at all levels to implement the new policy.
Inputs:
- Relevant reports, literatures and publications
- Meetings and interviews with focal persons
- new approved policy, program packages,budget
- guidelines for program/project development,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation
Output 1.2
Strengthening DOH as the lead
sector driver providing policy
support and technical assistance
at local and national levels.
National Sustainable Sanitation
Program of DOH developed.
Document and
Reports
Plans, Programs and Bud-
gets allocated for sanitation
Activities:
1) Map out and review mandates and assess plans and programs of
the DOH that relate to sanitation.
2) Defi ne the DOH strategy as the lead sanitation sector driver
Inputs:
- Relevant reports, literatures and publications
- Meetings and interviews with focal persons
Output 1.3
100% of LGUs develop their
policies, plans, programs and
budgets within the PIPH/AIPH/
CIPH.
No. of provincial/city sanita-
tion plans developed
within the PIPH/CIPH/AIPH
Reports and documents Available resources
Accessibility to relevant
information
Activities:
1) Capacitate LGUs in developing their local policies, plans and
programs within the PIPH/AIPH and CIPH (including baseline
assessments, indentifi cation of priority interventions, necessary
ordinances, etc)
2) Establish monitoring and evaluation parameters for LGU level
plans and programs.
Inputs:
- Guidelines and tools for LGU policy and planning
52� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ! � " ! � # $ � �
INTERVENTION LOGIC
OBJECTIVELY
VERIFIABLE INDICATOR
MEANS/SOURCES OF
VERIFICATION
RISK AND
ASSUMPTIONS
Output 1.4
National gov’t agencies with
sanitation related mandates
develop their own sanitation
strategy, plans, programs strongly
coordinated.
At least 7 national government
agencies have their own
sanitation strategy and programs.
Document and
Reports
Available information on
Plans, Programs and Budgets
allocated for sanitation
is accessible.
Activities:
1) Facilitate the development of agency santiation strategy and
programs within the national roadmap framework.
2) Identify appropriate inter-agency platforms to oversee streamlined
sector coordination mechanisms.
Inputs:
- Prepared templates to serve as a guide
- Relevant reports, literatures and publications
- Meetings and interviews with focal persons
- New approved policy, program and budgets
- Guidelines for program/project developemnt,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation.
Output 1.5
Sanitation regulatory framework
developed, approved and
implemented by relevant
agencies.
Policy document on sanitation
regulation is approved by the NG
with clear responsibilities among
NGA with sanitation related
mandates.
Enabling law for sanitation
regulation.
Organizing sanitation
regulation is a priority of the
national government.
Activities
1) Collate all existing regulations and standards on sanitation.
2) Organize a study on the appropriate sanitation regulatory
arrangements and performance indicators.
3) Undertake policy studies on the proposed draft bill on Water
Economic Regulation to incorporate wastewater regulation.
4) Review and update the NEDA Board Resolution No. 4 sereis of
1994 and No. 6, series of 1996 to calrify roles and responsibilities
of sanitation related agencies.
Inputs:
- Existing laws and standards on sanitation.
SERVICE DELIVERY THROUGH COMMUNICATIONS AND CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT
Output 2.1
Develop an integrated
and decentralized capacity
development system for different
types of implementors and
situations
- Manual on the guidelines and
management models;
- Medium term plans at various
levels
- Functional training/resource
centers at all regions
- Web-based training programs on
sustainable sanitation
- Electronic access to training
plans
- Training materials available for
use
- Department Memorandum
Order endorsing the manual
for the use of sector
- Printed documents of the
plans
- Documents or reports
of capacity development
activities conducted at the
centers
- Websites containing the
training programs
- Resources for publication,
dissemination and
orientation of the contents
of the national policy
- The plans represent the
actual requirements of the
sector and are executable
- The centers are available for
use by other stakeholders for
the same purpose
- Stakeholders, target audience
have effective access to
internet
Available qualifi ed trainers
Activities:
1) Establish national policies to develop guidelines and management
models and technology options which could guide the local
government units in planning, implementing, monitoring and
evaluation of sanitation services/program.
2) Formulation of Medium-Term Plans on Capacity Development at
all levels, i.e. National, Institutional/ Agency, Regional/Local, and
Community
3) Strengthening the capacities of Training Centers ( formal/non-formal,
government/academe/etc) to integrate sanitation disciplines into their
programs.
4) Develop the training Plans, materials and e-learning applications
5) Training delivery
Inputs:
- Relevant reports, literatures and publications
- Meetings and interviews with focal persons
% & ' ( ' ) ) ' * + , - . / 0 ' * 0 1 ( + , 0 * ' / 0 / ' 2 * 3 2 0 4 5 0 )53
Output 2.2
Establish benchmark standards
on LGU performance and
practice.
Performance indicators for
LGUs developed
Monitoring and evaluation
checklist utilizing the
benchmark standards
Capability to adhere or comply
to standards depend on
available resources
Activities
1) Establish the performance indicators
2) Comparison with Targets of Capacity Building
3) Finalize monitoring and evaluation parameters
Output 2.3
Empower different stakeholders
towards active involvement
for capacity development in
sustainable sanitation
Inventory of core-group:
trained and to-be-trained
Coordination Plans developed
Printed list of target
participants
MOU/MOA among
participating agencies/
institutions/ organizations
Turn-over of offi cials who are
knowledgeable about the terms
of coordination
Activities
1) Identify core-group representing various capacity development
providers and targets: Professional groups, Academe, national
agencies, civic societies and aligning sub-groups of similar
functions
2) Spatial inventory at various levels: national, local, grass-root
based
3) Mechanisms of coordination and communication in place
Output 2.4
Initiate research and
development towards
sustainable sanitation solutions
and policy reforms
Inventory of available database
on research studies
National Research Agenda on
Sanitation Sector indicating
gaps and challenges
Documents and reports of
consultations, surveys and
forums;
Report on the analysis of in-
formation gaps and challenges
in the sector
Inventory is complete and
exhaustive
While conforming to effective
and reliable academic design,
the challenges and gaps
should refl ect practical needs
and solutions to sanitation
concerns
Activities:
1) Diagnostics/ Initial Capacity Assessment
a. Resources: Existing functions of stakeholders, clarifi cation
of functions, identifi cation of gaps: need for institutions
to provide for capacity building or development compe-
tencies
b. Internal:Goals: redirection of goals of different institu-
tions, clarifying their particular function to reach their
goals Policies: directed towards the goals of zero open
defecation Strategies, Technology: each agency, institution
2) Evaluation: Identifi cation of Challenges
a. Participative evaluation process of existing capacities
b. Assessment of the target community’s need for capacity
development
c. Equate: Limits of capacities and extent of need
3) Formulate the National Research Agenda on Sanitation Sector
indicating gaps and challenges
4) Document best practices on sustainable sanitation.
Inputs:
- Relevant reports, literatures and publications
- Meetings and interviews with focal persons
- new approved policy, program and budgets
- guidelines for program/project developemnt, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation.
546 7 8 9 8 : : 8 ; < = > ? @ A 8 ; A B 9 < = A ; 8 @ A @ 8 C ; D C A E F A :
INTERVENTION LOGIC
OBJECTIVELY
VERIFIABLE INDICATOR
MEANS/SOURCES OF
VERIFICATION
RISK AND
ASSUMPTIONS
Output 2.5
Institutionalize regular
monitoring and evaluation of
the sector
Monitoring and Assessment
integral part of national and local
medium term Sanitation Sector
Plans
Monitoring and assessment
reports
Website of the Sanitation Sector
Programs
Printed documents of the sector
plans
Printed reports
E-copies of reports in the
internet
Inventory is complete
and exhaustive.
While conforming to
effective and reliable
academic design, the
challenges and gaps
should refl ect practical
needs and
solutions.
Activities
1) Develop a unifi ed system to determine access to sanitation services
2) Prepare the recurrent water and sanitation sector assessment report
at regular period including the update of economic losses due to
lack of sanitation.
3) Establish a web-based database that includes the indicators
collected for the sector assessment
Inputs:
- Existing monitoring and assessment reports on sanitation.
Output 2.6
National and local
communications plan for
sanitation and hygiene is in place
Plan is approved and is being
implemented at national and local
levels.
reports, communciation materials DOH is leading the
communications strategy.
Activities:
1) Develop the national communications strategy plan.
2) Coordinate and facilitate the development of local communica-
tions strategy based on the local sanitation plans and programs
3) Monitor and adjust plans based on need.
Inputs:
Core messages and resources
Local core messages and resources
Regular monitoring and evaluation.
G H I J I K K I L M N O P Q R I L R S J M N R L I Q R Q I T L U T R V W R K55
INTERVENTION LOGIC
OBJECTIVELY
VERIFIABLE INDICATOR
MEANS/SOURCES OF
VERIFICATION
RISK AND
ASSUMPTIONS
Outcome 3: Strengthened Strategic Alliances
Output 3.1
Strong and active national multi-sector support group that will advocate, lead and advance sustainable sanitation policies, plans, programs and activities
Joint activities and programs
conducted
- Directory of sanitation cham-
pions and key stakeholders.
- Event proceedings.
- Minutes of meetings.
- Other printed documents
- A strong sector driver
- Availability of funds for
coordination and joint
activities, e.g., secretariat
and conferences.
Activities:
3.1.1 Support and strengthen existing networks such as the Philip-
pine Ecosan Network (PEN) and the Philippine Development
Forum-Sub-working Group on Water Supply and Sanitation
(PDF-SWG -WSS) and other networks so it can continue to
act as platform for policy and program advocacy, coordination,
harmonization and greater synergy among the Champions and
partners.
3.1.2 Identify and gather information on experts, champions, organi-
zations, institutions and stakeholder groups in sanitation at the
national and local levels
3.1.3 Conduct regular dialogues, fora and conventions among
sustainable sanitation, champions, decision maker, legislators,
practitioners, advocates at different levels and sectors to pro-
mote sustainable sanitation
Inputs:
• Strong support from the lead sanitation institutional driver.
• Funding support for Secretariats for PEN and PDF-TF WSS
• Network strengthening activities, like strategic visioning and
planning
• Meeting and workshop venues
Note:
The PEN will be the venue to, among others, discuss new
trends, concepts approaches and technologies, and voice out
regulatory and legislative initiatives towards sustainable sanita-
tion in all localities.
Output 3.2
Clear mechanisms for collaboration in knowledge sharing, education, and human resource pooling for awareness and knowledge building
Establishment of training and educa-tion consortia
- MOU/MOA
- Curricula
- Printed Materials
- A strong sector driver
- Availability of funds for
training, study tours, re-
search and publication.
Risks: The Sanitary
Engineering is a dying
profession
Activities:
3.2.1 Develop, support and strengthen consortia in the academic,
research and training sectors to institutionalize dissemination of
new knowledge on sustainable sanitation.
3.2.2 Develop/enhance sustainable sanitation curricula and informa-
tion materials for publication and dissemination
3.2.3 Establish strong links with international knowledge centers,
knowledge exchange and training.
Inputs:
• Directory of relevant organizations, e.g., universities, col-
leges, training and research institutes
• Information from relevant websites
• Funding support for knowledge building, i.e., research and
publication
• Funding support for curriculum development, and informa-
tion, education and communication programs.
• Funding support for trainings, seminars, workshops, study
tours and other knowledge sharing programs
• Researches, vulnerability assessments and risk assessments
• Sustainable Sanitation technology sourcebooks and toolkits
Output 3.3
A strong alliance of sanitation service providers at national and local levels.
Sanitation projects proposed, funded, implemented and completed
Project contracts
Project reports
MOU/MOA for emergency
sanitation
A strong sector driver
- Formulation and promulga-
tion of enabling investment
policies and sustainable
fi nancing mechanisms
Activities:
3.3.1. Develop a database on all sanitation service providers
3.3.2 Organize regular fora, dialogues, seminars and workshops
among sanitation service providers for sustainable sanitation.
3.3.3 Facilitate professionalizing and development of sanitation
service providers.
Inputs:
• Directory of service providers
• Directory of fi nancing institutions
• Strong policy support from the Executive and Legislative
branches of government to make sanitation as an attractive
investment sector.
56X Y Z [ Z \ \ Z ] ^ _ ` a b c Z ] c d [ ^ _ c ] Z b c b Z e ] f e c g h c \
OUTCOME: FINANCING, INVESTMENTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROVISION FOR SANITATION DEVELOPED IN STRATEGIC PRIORITY AREAS.
Output 4.1
Prioritized intervention in highly vulnerable areas that are seriously affected by the lack of sanitation
List of highly vulnerable areas and corresponding maps
Database system developed
Policy prioritizing sanitation investment in highly vulnerable areas
Investment priority criteria and guidelines
Vulnerability maps
Operational database
Copy of the policy
Copy of the criteria and guideline
Risks:
Concerned agencies do not have the information and maps
No funding is available to undertake proposed project on the inventory, identifi cation and mapping of highly vulnerable areas
Assumptions:
Concerned agencies willing to share information and resources are made available to produce lacking info and maps
Activities
1) Inventory, Identifi cation and mapping of highly vulnerable areas
2) Creation of a database based on the results of the inventory and mapping for use of planners and decisions makers
3) Formulate policy ensuring that highly vulnerable areas be given high priority for investment for sanitation
4) Preparation of prioritization criteria and guidelines for invest-ment allocation to highly vulnerable areas
Inputs:
List of available information and maps from concerned agencies
Relevant statistics on highly vulnerable areas
Relevant statistics on school sanitation facilities
Relevant information on sanitation situation of priority tourist areas Relevant information on sanitation situation of IP areas
Output 4.2
Financing strategies and incen-tive schemes for sustainable infrastructure developed.
Sustainable sanitation fi nancing models
Framework for the grant of sanitation incentives
Sanitation incentive schem
Viable sanitation fi nancing models
Package of sanitation incentives
Risks:
Not a priority and no funding available
Assumptions:
Government priority with funding available
Activities:
1) Develop clear national and local policy on investment for sanitation and its regular inclusion in the GAA, MTPDP and MTPIP
2) Undertake a study on sanitation tariff methodologies, cost recovery schemes, subsidies and incentives
3) Conduct study for the tracking of sanitation fees and funds, penalties being collected and disbursed by the LGUs
4) Undertake study on costs of sustainable sanitation technol-ogy approaches
5) Develop guidelines for pro poor sanitation.
6) Develop and implement a sustainable sanitation fi nancing framework
• Undertake a study on sustainable sanitation fi nancing
• Develop guidelines for the development of local fi nancing policy on sanitation
• Explore the adoption of a sector-wide approach in sanitation for ODA funds
7) Provide investment for the implementation of the National Sewerage and Septage Program
8) Develop the policy for the participation of GFIs and PDAF for large scale sanitation infrastructure development and fi nancing
Inputs:
List of government existing funded programs involving sanitation education, infrastructure and other capital investments
Inventory and assessment of current models on sanitation fi nancing
Inventory of available incentive packages (if any)
i j k l k m m k n o p q r s t k n t u l o p t n k s t s k v n w v t x y t m57
Output 4.3
Established/Enhanced PPPs and sanitation entrepreneurship
Sustainable sanitation program under PPP scheme
SMEs dealing with sustainable sanitation service provision
Approve SS program within the framework of PPP
Operational SMEs on sanitation provision
Risks:
No interest in PPP for sanitation service provision
No interest in sanitation business
Assumption:
Feasibility and acceptability of PPP for SS program
High interest from interested parties for sanitation business ventures
Activities:
1) Develop the policy for the promotion of sanitation
entrepreneurship and PPP
2) Undertake aggressive IEC and social marketing to private sector
3) Conduct a study to document PPP in sanitation service provision
4) Develop standards for PPPs for sanitation service delivery
5) Conduct R and D, Capacity Development and Institution Building
for sustainable sanitation
Inputs:
Relevant information on sanitation-related enterprises both
local and foreign
Round table discussion and meeting with relevant stakeholders
Review laws, rules and regulations on PPP
Review and compilation of similar undertaking of countries
in the region
Networking with the private sector
Formation of a loose network of sanitation service providers
Output 4.4
A well-established national account for sanitation
Sanitation accounting system as part of the national account system in place
All sanitation expenditures and budgets effectively captured by the system
Accounting system reports refl ecting sanitation expenditure and budget
Risks:
No interest in PPP for sanitation service provision
No interest in sanitation business
Assumption:
Feasibility and acceptability of PPP for SS program
High interest from interested parties for sanitation business ventures
Activities:
1) Conduct of the study on developing the sanitation accounting
system to capture how much is being spent for sanitation.
2) Development and operationalization of the sanitation accounting
system
3) Policies and guidelines for the adoption of the system developed
and implemented
Inputs:
Relevant information on sanitation-related enterprises both
local and foreign
Round table discussion and meeting with relevant stakeholders
Review laws, rules and regulations on PPP
Review and compilation of similar undertaking of countries
in the region
Networking with the private sector
Formation of a loose network of sanitation service providers
Output 4.5
Investment requirements to meet the MDG and MTPDP targets identifi ed and secured.
Concrete sanitation targets and budgets included in the MTPDP and MTPIP
MTPDP and MTPIP documents and reports
Risks:
Sanitation program still not included in the MTPDP and MTPIP but still considered part of the water sector target and budget
Assumption:
Recognition of the importance of sanitation making it part of the priority agenda for the next medium term planning
Activities:
1) Strong advocacy and lobby for making sanitation part of the
priority program of the government
2) A distinct sanitation program, project, activities (PPA) for
all agencies with sanitation mandate including LGUs with
corresponding targets and budgets
Inputs:
Coordination with concerned agencies
Networking with interest groups to help in the advocacy work
Issuance of national directives making sanitation a priority of
the local and national governments
58z { | } | ~ ~ | � � � � � � � | � � � } � � � � | � � � | � � � � � � � � ~
OUTCOME 5: Emergency Sanitation Response in Place
Output 5.1
Sourcebook and tool kit
appropriate approaches for
different situations
Complete sourcebooks and
toolkits for sanitation in
emergency situations
Translation of sourcebooks and
toolkits in major Filipino dialects
Copy of the sourcebook and
toolkits
Copy of translated
sourcebook and toolkit
Risks:
Lack of support from the
government
Lack of recognition of
the importance of the
sourcebook and toolkit
Assumption:
Availability of budget to
develop the sourcebook and
toolkit
High interest from concerned
stakeholders
Activities:
1) Review of related materials to develop the sourcebook and toolkit
2) Survey of needs for the toolkit and sourcebooks on sanitation for
emergency situations
3) Develop the sourcebook and toolkits and pretest the use of the
same
Inputs:
List of possible sources of materials for the development of
sourcebook and toolkits
List of websites where materials can be sourced
Lead organization to develop the sourcebook and toolkits
Output 5.2
Integration of emergency
sanitation in disaster and risk
reduction plans at all levels
Guidelines for the integration
of sanitation in disaster risk
reduction plan
Emergency sanitation plan
Copy of the guidelines
Copy of the plan
Risks:
LGUs and national govt
not interested in integrating
emergency sanitation in DRR
Assumption:
Highly appreciated and
guidelines adopted by LGUs
and the national government
Activities:
1) Review of current disaster risk reduction plans
2) Advocacy to include emergency sanitation in DRR planning at all
levels
3) Pilot the preparation of emergency sanitation plan as an integral
part of DRR planning
Inputs:
Copy of current DRR planning guidelines
Sample copy of current DRR plan of an LGU
Suffi cient technical assistance from concerned agencies or
organizations to help LGUs
Wiling LGUs to pilot the preparation of the emergency
sanitation plan
Output 5.3
Building a partnership for quick
mobilization of logistics for
sanitation in emergency situations
MOA or MOU among
concerned agencies and LGUs
Directory of contact persons or
organizations at the local and
national levels who can provide
technical and other needed
assistance during emergency
situations
Copy of the MOA/MOU
Copy of the directory
Risks:
No interested party or
organization
No budget and resources
available
Assumptions:
Budget is allocated and
made available to encourage
partnership building and
networking
Expertise and other
resources are available to
provide assistance in time of
emergencies
Activities:
1) Identify potential partners and create a database for easy contacting
2) Conduct exploratory meetings with interested parties
3) Find a champion to help and actively advocate for building networks
and partnerships
4) Identify possible sources of resources to be pooled
5) Set up funds for the activity
Inputs:
Relevant list of organizations and agencies that may be
interested in networking and partnership building and their
profi les
Funding support for the proposed initiative
4.0 ROADMAP PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �61
4.0 ROADMAP PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND
ACTIVITIES
Each of the fi ve strategies developed to meet the challenges faced by the sanitation sector is translated into
a cluster of priority programs and activities supporting a specifi c policy directive. These programs will also
pursue policy reforms to enable the sector institutions to perform their mandates effectively and for the
sanitation sector to attain its goals. Note that while the timeframe of 2025 is consistent to the Water Supply
Roadmap, the Sanitation Roadmap has proposed to defi ne its long term plans in the context of three (3)
MTPDPs.- 2010 to 2028.
4.1 POLICY DIRECTIONS
Responsive sanitation governance and regulatory strengthening programs are designed to
achieve desired policy, institutional transformations and regulatory arrangements by 2028 and will
focus on the following:
• Good sanitation governance through national and localized sanitation policy and programs
prioritizing the sanitation sector and creating clear, transparent and accountable coordination
mechanisms at all levels,
• Strengthening of the DOH as the institutional driver to lead sanitation-related plans and
programs;
• Amending and/or updating the Sanitation Code to comply with more recent laws with
provisions relating to Sanitation;
• Clear policies aimed at integrating and decentralizing implementation of sustainable sanitation
programs, including programs targeting behavioral change, support to multi-level stakeholder platforms, and infrastructure and investment;
• Clear standards- based sanitation regulatory policies and arrangements at various levels.
• Policy on integrated water supply and sanitation oversight, regulation and tariffs.
Service delivery and capacity development programs are designed to generate results translated
into stronger capacities of NGAs, LGUs and SSPs in program planning, implementation, monitoring
and evaluation in sanitation. It will also focus communication planning aimed to change behavior
in proper hygiene. The policy directions will focus on the following:
• Establishing capacity development systems for different levels of implementors and
situations;
• Benchmarking standards and monitoring for LGU performance;
• Communication and behavior change campaigns for zero open defecation;
• Strengthening sector monitoring and evaluation system at different levels which will be
62� � � � � � ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § � ¡ § ¨ � ¢ £ § ¡ � ¦ § ¦ � © ¡ ª © § « ¬ §
necessary to support fundamental planning and evaluation of sanitation programs and activities
Formulation of evidence-based policies and programs through the generation of information
from sector studies;
• Involving key stakeholders towards their active participation in capacity development;
• Encouraging advocacy and health education activities among heads of households to improve
awareness, and modify behavior and practices of people on hygiene and sanitation; and
• Institutionalizing the creation and development of barangay sanitation volunteers.
Strategic alliance building programs are designed to strengthen the sanitation sector through
clear and strong policies on advocacy, awareness raising, education and enabling investment
environment. The policy directions will focus on the following:
• Facilitating an enabling environment for multi-sectoral and broad-based stakeholder
participation at the national and local levels.
There must be a clear policy to engage all relevant stakeholders from the government, donor
community, academic and civil society to promote and advance a national sanitation agenda.
The Lead Sector Driver, the DOH, must consciously tap existing networks and alliances,
and cooperation, collaboration and harmonization of sanitation programs and projects.
The PEN and the PDF-TF WSS are existing platforms for this purpose. Likewise, the
Lead Sector Driver must fi nd ways to strengthen local support groups engage in sanitation
programs.
• Enhancing institutional knowledge and understanding of sustainable sanitation.
• Involving the organized participation of service providers and private sector stakeholders.
Financing, investments and infrastructure programs are designed to provide for sanitation
as a development goal, prioritizing highly vulnerable areas, creating sanitation funds at local and
national levels. The policy directions will focus on the following:
• Creating the national account for sanitation and sewerage.
• Prioritizing access to sustainable sanitation especially for the poor.
• Developing and promoting innovative fi nancing schemes to promote sanitation investments,
entrepreneurship and private sector involvement (e.g. revolving funds, micro-fi nancing
strategies, leveraging of resources, etc).
Sanitation in disaster preparedness programs are designed to address sanitation concerns in
emergency situations, including the provision of appropriate relief and rehabilitation responses.
Policy directions will focus on the following:
• Defi ning minimum standards and emergency protocols for sanitation, hygiene and water supply response for different types of emergency situations;
• Integrating sanitation and hygiene concerns in disaster and risk reduction plans at all levels;
and
• Harnessing the broad alliances and platforms along with other national agencies and local
government units for quick mobilization of logistics.
Table 7 provides a more detailed description of policy directions and programs.
® ¯ ° ¯ ± ± ¯ ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¯ ² ¸ ¹ ° ³ ´ ¸ ² ¯ · ¸ · ¯ º ² » º ¸ ¼ ½ ¸ ±63
TABLE 7
POLICY DIRECTIONS AND PROGRAMS 2010 - 2028 ( 3 MTPDPS)
POLICY DIRECTION AND PROGRAMS
2009 BASELINESHORT-TERM PLAN
(2010-2013)MEDIUM TERM PLAN
(By 2016)LONG TERM PLAN
(By 2028)
Outcome 1: Responsive Sanitation Governance and Regulatory Strengthening
1. A National Sanitation Policy Expressed in the MTPDP & MTPIP
Sanitation Policy not a priority in the MTPDP & MTPIP (2004-2010)
Sanitation declared a priority policy in all agencies concerned in sanitation with corresponding budget line items proposed for GAA
Sanitation a priority in the MTPDP & MTPIP (2010-2016)
Sanitation Fund refl ected in the regular GAA under the National Social Fund (Pro-poor Fund)
Sanitation as a National Policy consistently refl ected in all MTPDP and MTPIP
2. A National Sanitation Program Implemented harmoniously by all concerned agencies
Sanitation Programs mostly limited to advocacy and use, distribution of toilet bowl
A National Sustainable Sanitation Plan launched and rolled out (with a decentralized implementation)
Sanitation integrated in all LGU development plans
All LGUs shall invest in sanitation (PPP, joint venture, outsourcing, BOT, etc.)
SUSEA Project is tasked to develop DOH National Plan and Communications Plan
MDGF is also developing a communications plan.
A short to medium term National Sustainable Sanitation Communications Plan
Communications Plan implemented
Communications Plan implemented
SUSEP will conduct a demand study on sanitation professionals
A social marketing program for sanitation is developed
3. Amended National Sanitation Code with strong and effective regulatory framework for sanitation
- Decentralization (LGC 1991)
- Updated Standards
- Strong Sanctions
- In harmony with Clean Water Act, Solid Waste Mgt. Act, Urban Development & Housing Act
DOH has started updating the Sanitation Code in 1995
The past three (3) Congresses has not acted on any amendment on the Sanitation Code
Less than 10 LGUs have local sanitation codes and these are all project driven
Current sanitation code is not culture sensitive to indigenous peoples nor gender sensitive.
Sanitation Code a priority in the national legislative agenda (Legislative Executive Development Advisory Council)
Amendment of the sanitation code fi led in both houses of congress
An amended National Sanitation Code passed and signed into law
All LGUs adopt their local sanitation code and vigorously implement it.
4. Integrated water and sanitation oversight function at national & local levels
Integration of functions at local level is limited to a few LGUs and still project driven
Oversight function in water & sanitation of IACEH and NEDA InfraCom SCWR is not palpable
DOH providing interim leadership
NEDA SCWR to lead the sector oversight and provides direction.
The amended Sanitation Code includes the creation of a National Water and Sanitation Authority
A vibrant National Water Supply and Sanitation Authority in place
Existing Basic Education Curriculum (BEC) not updated on sanitation development
Sanitation is absent in agricultural development
5. Policy on sanitation regulatory framework. and standards
No comprehensive sanitation standards specialy for informal settlers, schools, gyms, potential evacuation centers and other public bldgs. Building Code is silent on exit of effl uent from septic tanks.
Weak implementation of water quality mgt. and septage treatment
Sanitation not a priority in their local development plan except for a few LGUs.
Policy instruments and communication plans of other sectors on sanitation reviewed
Specifi c areas that need to be updated in the sanitation code identifi ed
Policy Study on sanitation regulation
NEDA Board Resolution clarifying mandate for sanitation regulation.
Sanitation fully integrated in all policy instruments and communication plans of other sectors
Sanitation concerns mainstreamed and fully implemented by all sectors
64¾ ¿ À Á À Â Â À Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È É À Ã É Ê Á Ä Å É Ã À È É È À Ë Ã Ì Ë É Í Î É Â
POLICY DIRECTION AND PROGRAMS
2009 BASELINESHORT-TERM PLAN
(2010-2013)MEDIUM TERM PLAN
(By 2016)LONG TERM PLAN
(By 2028)
Outcome 2: Improved Service Delivery, Communications and Capacity Development
1. Policy is integrated and decentralized implementation of sustainable sanitation programs
LGUS operating different sanitation systems not necessarily sustainableDILG Toolbox for decision makers
Assess the existing materials on capacity development and update them if neededDevelop offi cial guidelines and management models and technology options for LGUs on PIMEEnhance package for LCEs
Policy adopted and implemented by the DILG for LGUs.
Develop LGU capacities to enforce national policies including drafting of specifi c local ordinanceStrengthen the capacities of at least one Resource Center per region to integrate sanitation disciplines into their programsDevelop/Improve training plans, materials and core trainers for capacity developmentDevelop E-learning program on capacity development
LGUs capable of facilitating and overseeing local sustainable sanitation programs are in place.
Enforcement of policies by the LGUs.
2. Policy on capacity development system for different levels of implementers and situations
Established partnerships and capacities with other agencies/institutions for exchange of information or training
3. Policy on LGU performance and practice oriented thru benchmarking standards and monitoring
None Establish the performance indicators for LGUs and service providers•Establish benchmarks of LGU or service provider performance
Regular Monitoring and evaluation of the LGU and service provider performance
Regular Monitoring and evaluation of the LGU and service provider performance
4. Policy on involving relevant stakeholder towards active participation in sanitation capacity development
SuSEP Program that is enhancing curriculum for engineers; non-formal component (trainings for sanitary inspectors);Academe based consortium on sanitation
Identify core-group representing various capacity development providers and targets: Professional groups, Academe, national agencies, civic societies and aligning sub-groups of similar function
Engage the core-group as initiators and resource persons for capacity development activities among the other members of their respective agencies/ institutions or organizations
Capacity development program institutionalized within the sector and within individual organizations with continuous improvement impetus to address specifi c concerns
5. Policy on barangay level volunteer workers for sanitation
Community-based sanitation volunteers in SuSEA pilot areas
Train at least one Barangay sanitation volunteer per barangay
Engage and integrate the functions of barangay sanitation volunteer into the mainstream programs of the sector
Barangay sanitation offi cers are formally recognized and employed at the grassroot level while volunteerism is still advocated
6. Programs increasing the number of sanitary engineering professionals and continuously improving the quality of education on sustainable sanitation and public health engineering
There are only 500 practicing out of 2,500 registered Sanitary Engineers Low effective demand for the practice of SE professionSE institutions are closing(few enrolees and recently, only 15% pass the board)
Develop a social marketing program for sanitary engineering professionals Explore how to re-engineer the sanitary engineering curriculum involving the principles and practices of sustainable sanitationA study on how to engage better the skills of sanitary engineers
Carry out social marketing program for sanitary engineering professionalsIntroduce improvement in sanitary engineering curriculum in higher education institutions
Sanitary Engineering is a recognized profession that is an authority on sustainable sanitation and is an attractive profession at par with the other professions in the country
7. Programs for sanitary inspectors/sanitarians that would force them to conform to the requirements of sustainable sanitation programs in terms of numbers and effective performance
Less than 2000 Sanitary Inspectors (law says one SI per 20,000 popn);Minimum requirement is HS graduate; DOH has ongoing project on professionalizing Sanitation Inspectors
Develop the program on professionalizing sanitation inspectors at a level with the rest of the RHU professionals: develop or strengthen formal curriculum for sanitarians and improve compensationDevelop social marketing program for sanitation inspectors/ sanitarians
Introduce formal curriculum for sanitarians to higher education institutionsCarry out social marketing program for sanitation inspectors/sanitarians
All local government units employ suffi cient professional sanitarians/ sanitation inspectors duly responsive to the needs of sustainable sanitation programs
8. Formulation of evidence-based policies and programs on sustainable sanitation through generation of information from sector studies
Few studies are available locallyPoor link between information-generating sector and policy decision makers and program planners
Identifi cation of gaps and challenges on sector policies and programsSector capacity assessment and program development on research studies and developmentStrengthen linkages among information-generators and policy decision makers and program planners
Introduce and promote sustainable sanitation studies in higher education institutionsCarry out sector development programs among stakeholders on research and developmentInstitutionalize linkages with decision makers and program planners
All policies and laws, plans and programs, technology options, management strategies on sustainable sanitation are evidence-based
9. Sanitation sector policies and programs assessment are institutionalized conducted regularly or according to the need for information
National Sector assessment Process has just started under DILG
Establish a regular monitoring and assessment system including database generationRecurrent sector assessment reported regularly to policy decision makers and program planners
Regular water and sanitation sector assessment and reporting
Institutionalize a national assessment, monitoring and evaluation system for short and long term decision-making
Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ñ Ó Ó Ñ Ô Õ Ö × Ø Ù Ú Ñ Ô Ú Û Ò Õ Ö Ú Ô Ñ Ù Ú Ù Ñ Ü Ô Ý Ü Ú Þ ß Ú Ó65
POLICY DIRECTION AND PROGRAMS
2009 BASELINESHORT-TERM PLAN
(2010-2013)MEDIUM TERM PLAN
(By 2016)LONG TERM PLAN
(By 2028)
Outcome 3: Strengthening Strategic Alliances
1. Policy on facilitating an enabling environment for multi-sectoral and broad-based stakeholder participation, relevant to sanitation at the national and local levels
Local Government Code provisions on local development boards (one-fourth representation from the Civil Society)
Issues:a. No local Sanitation
bodyb. Accreditation rules
are considered ob-stacle to participation
Facilitate the creation of local resource pools, alliances or platforms for sanitation (individuals/ organization) to provide the proper representation in the Sanitation body
Promote partnerships on sanitation among government and civil society, POs, academe, media, religious sector and private sector in consonance with the Local Government Code and other relevant laws.
Support the development of the Sanitation Alliance Guidebook
Strong local sanitation platforms supportive of national sanitation policies established in selected highly urbanized areas
Institutionalize partnerships on sanitation among government and civil society, POs, academe, media, religious sector and private sector in selected highly urbanized areas
Strong local sanitation platforms supportive of national sanitation policies established nationwide
Institutionalize partnerships on sanitation among government and civil society, POs, academe, media, religious sector and private sector nationwide
2. Policy on organized participation of service providers and other relevant private sector stakeholders
Except for Metro Manila where two private concessionaires are involved in Sanitation, private sector involvement in the other places are unregulated, uncontrolled and often times non-existent. Most water districts are remiss in their mandate in providing sanitation facilities and services
Encourage water and sanitation professionals and service providers into effective alliances
Facilitate the creation of local sanitation professionals and service providers to promote sustainable sanitation
Strong local sanitation professionals and service providers established
3. Policy on Good Governance, Transparency and Accountability on sanitation
No sanitation governance at national and local level. Sanitation is not recognized as a human right and a public good
Through the various Sanitation Alliances or Platforms:
Defi ne a program to operationalize how sanitation can be accepted as a human right and as a public good.
Advocate a legislative program to operationalize how sanitation can be accepted as a human right and as a public good.
Implement the program in localizing and operationalizing sanitation as a human right and as a public good.
At the local level, the Sanitation body will:
Develop indicators and monitor progress of sanitation related plans and programs and performances
Monitor the indicators and progress of sanitation related plans and programs and performances
4. Policy to promote informed choices on sanitation options
Present guidelines are prescriptive and limited in scope. New knowledge base (Sanitation Sourcebook and other materials) is available but not widely disseminated and not institutionalized
Develop a strategy for participatory collaborative mechanisms for active evidence-based knowledge sharing and policy advocacy
Implement the strategy on participatory collaborative mechanisms for active evidence-based knowledge sharing and policy advocacy
66à á â ã â ä ä â å æ ç è é ê ë â å ë ì ã æ ç ë å â ê ë ê â í å î í ë ï ð ë ä
POLICY DIRECTION
AND PROGRAM
2009 BASELINE SHORT-TERM PLAN
(2010-2013)
MEDIUM TERM PLAN
(By 2016)
LONG TERM PLAN
(By 2028)
Outcome 4: Financing, Infrastructure and Investments in Priority Strategic Areas
1. Policy for priority investment towards highly vulnerable areas
none Vulnerable areas identifi ed;
Criteria set for prioritization;
Creation of a database
Investment requirements identifi ed
Investment requirements provided
2. Clear national/local policy on vinvestment for sanitation and regular inclusion in the MTPDP/MTPIP
none Study on sanitation tariff metholodies, cost recovery schemes, subsidies and incentives
Clear national policy on investments for sanitation
A distinct sanitation program regularly included in the MTPDP and MTPIP
Tracking of sanitation funds being collected and disbursed by the local governments
Guidelines for the development of local fi nancing policy for sanitation
Regular budgets allocated for sanitation at LGU level
Proposals for Funding including Research and Development and Capacity Development
Funding for research and development made available
Regular fund allocation for R and D and Capacity Development
3. Policy promoting
sanitation fi nancing options/strategies:
a) micro-fi nance
b) loans/grants
very limited grants/loans Study on cost of the technology approaches
Results of studies embodied in policies and is now in place.
Financing policies in place.
none Develop and undertake study on sustainable sanitation fi nancing
4. Policy providing special pro-poor sanitation funds
none Develop guidelines for pro-poor sanitation subsidies
Implementation in priority areas
Zero subsidy for sanitation
5-10% of the 23% provided with sanitation facilities
20-30% of the 23% provided with sanitation facilities
Remaining balance (of the 23%) provided with sanitation facilities
5. Policy on Sanitation Infrastructure Development
National Sewerage and Septage Program Report
Metro Manila Septage treatment capacity of about 1,800 cu. m. per day realized/ constructed;
Outside Metro Manila, 14 sewerage/septage systems built, operated and maintained
Metro Manila Septage treatment capacity of about 2,000 cu. m. per day realized/ constructed;
Outside Metro Manila, 57 sewerage/septage systems built,operated and maintained
Metro Manila Septage treatment capacity of about 3,100 cu. m. per day realized/constructed;
Outside Metro Manila, more than 76 sewerage/septage management systems, built and maintained
6. Policy for the Promotion of sanitation entrepreneurship
limited Undertake aggressive IEC/social marketing
PPPs in place for sanitation service delivery
Standards for PPPs in place for sanitation service delivery are developed
Facilitate access to fi nancing PPP in sanitation service provision
Outcome 5: Adequate Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion Mainstreamed in Emergency Response
1. Clear policy on an integrated water, sanitation and hygiene approach in emergency situations.
• Maximum no. of people /toilet ratio
• Acceptable, safe, hygienic toilet systems
• Handwashing facilities
Recurring problems and challenges regarding lack of sanitation in emergency situations Toilets segregated by sex
1:1 female to male ratio of toilets
No toilet to people ratio standard
Develop a policy on broad-based sanitation response to emergency situations
1:50 toilet to people ratio;
3: 1 female to male toilet ratio
Facilitate the creation of national and local broad-based sanitation alliances to respond to emergency situations
1:20 toilet to people ratio (international standard for humanitarian response)
3:1 female to male toilet ratio
Institutionalize national and local broad-based sanitation alliances to respond to emergency situations
1:20 toilet to people ratio (international standard for humanitarian response)
3:1 female to male toilet ratio
2. Program to develop more and or alternative mobile sanitation facilities for quick deployment when required.
Rental of portalets from private companies.
Design of alternative eco-friendly toilet systems
More mobile sanitation facilities for immediate deployment when required.
More mobile sanitation facilities for immediate deployment when required.
3. Program to provide WASH orientation to disaster response groups
No WASH Program in place; many adhoc initiatives
Regularly carry out capacity development for WASH in Emergency situations
Regularly carry out capacity development for WASH in Emergency situations
Regularly carry out capacity development for WASH in Emergency situations
ñ ò ó ô ó õ õ ó ö ÷ ø ù ú û ü ó ö ü ý ô ÷ ø ü ö ó û ü û ó þ ö ÿ þ ü � � ü õ67
4.2 PROPOSED PRIORITY PROGRAMS IN THE SANITATION SECTOR
The PSR proposes at least 18 major programs or projects under the fi ve outcomes to support the
sector:
A. Outcome 1: Responsive Sanitation Governance and Regulatory Strengthening
1. Strengthening of coordination mechanism at national level for sanitation
programs
This program aims to establish effective coordination mechanism among national
stakeholders on sanitation. It specifi cally aims to: 1)Map out existing government/
non-government institutions and their specifi c sanitation related functions/ mandates,
2) Review and rationalize these functions/ mandates of existing government/non-
government organizations/institutions, 3) For each agency to develop their sanitation
plans and programs and coordinate these at national level platforms, and 4) strengthen
the DOH as the lead sector driver.
2. Implementation of the National Sustainable Sanitation Planning Framework
and Processes
The national sustainable sanitation programs aim to be integrated with local development
plans through enhancement of LGU planning capacities. The programs specifi cally aim
to: (i) develop processes for preparing medium-term and long-term national sustainable
sanitation plans/programs that are updated according to the government’s medium term
planning cycle; (ii) develop the capacity of LGUs at all levels in planning, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation of sustainable sanitation programs; and (iii) update local level
(municipal and provincial) sanitation codes and ordinances based on the needs of local
communities. Such programs will be launched at the national level. However, similar
conferences and workshops will be carried out at the provincial and municipal levels to
raise the level of public consciousness on sanitation issues and programs.
Following are specifi c activities to effectively implement the NSSP:
• Advocate sanitation agenda to be included in the MTPDP and MTPIP as a line item
to ensure allocation of fi nancial resources;
• Advocate for the provision of grants and/or technical assistance to the National
Government Agencies (NGAs)/Offi ces who are engaged in sanitation related
projects/facilities.
• Consolidate all recommendations for further amendment of the Sanitation Code to
comply with existing environmental laws such as Clean Water Act and Ecological
Solid Waste Management Act; and
• Establish and institutionalize regular monitoring mechanism on sanitation program
accomplishments at LGU level.
These activities will be facilitated by DOH as the interim leader in coordination and
consultation with the NEDA SCWR.
3. Strengthening of the LGU Institutional Framework and Advocacy for ensuring
provision of adequate sanitation services
This program primarily aims to achieve institutional reforms and coordination
mechanisms among LGU local chief executives to consider sanitation aspects as priority
program in addressing current problems on environment, community health and safety.
This will be achieved through regular advocacy dialogues, distribution of IEC materials,
organized campaign for zero open defecations, strengthening linkages with other
68� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
stakeholders, etc. Review and revisiting of LGU sanitation codes and ordinance will be
carried out to identify proposed changes and integrate policies to prioritize sanitation
concerns.
4. Policy study for the appropriate and comprehensive regulatory framework for
sanitation.
This study is required to be the basis of formulating an appropriate and comprehensive
regulatory framework for sanitation. This includes the compilation of existing standards
and coming up with a clear standards-based regulation parameters. This study will be
a review of sanitation policy and legislation from 1976 to 2009 with the end view of
formulating recommendations on sanitation policies including how economic regulation
for sanitation services can also be put in place. The study will answer questions such as
should the NWRB and LWUA play a role in economic regulation for sewerage projects,
similar to what the MWSS Regulatory Offi ce is now doing with its regulation by contract
arrangements with their private concessionaires.
B. Outcome 2: Improved Service Delivery Through Communications and Capacity
Development
5. Development of a Sanitation Human Resource Development Framework
The government shall develop a program that will formulate national guidelines that
shall integrate and direct all agencies, sectors and other stakeholders to align their
goals, strategies and courses of action on the overall aim of a national sustainable
sanitation program. This program shall design capacity development systems through
the formulation of guidelines or management models on technology options, social
marketing/advocacy strategies, and coordination and linkages techniques which could
guide any interested entity in planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating
sustainable sanitation services or programs.
The components of this program include (a)an inventory and assessment of the
existing materials on capacity development from 1976 to 2009, (b)development/update
of offi cial national guidelines and management models and technology options, and
(c)translating the national guidelines for key sector stakeholder requirements such as for
LCEs, PPDCs/MPDCs, and other entities.
6. Stakeholders Capacity Development and Empowerment
This program shall enhance the capacity of human resources and organizations in
planning, implementing and evaluating sanitation programs, developing and improving
designs on sanitation, technology and coordinating sustainable sanitation projects/
programs. These shall include national and local agencies, professionals and practitioners
such as sanitary engineers, sanitarians/sanitation inspectors, public health specialists,
academe, civil society, and other similar groups. There are two basic objectives under
this program (1)to increase the number of entities/organizations or human resources
to meet the desired workforce and (2)to improve the standard of performance or
quality of competencies needed to achieve high degree of compliance to acceptable
sustainable sanitation systems.
The program components include (1) Organization and mobilization of core-groups
representing various capacity development providers and targets (2)Development of
social marketing activities for sanitation professionals, (3) Enhancement of formal and
non-formal education programs, (4) Establishment of physical infrastructure support,
(5)Implementation of Training Activities.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ! � " # � �69
7. Maintaining Quality of Training Programs
To ensure high quality of capacity development or training programs, the government
embarks on quality assurance programs. This shall entail the development of gold
standards, benchmarks, and performance indicators, assessment of training programs
and evaluation of trained individuals. Evaluation of training programs shall be conducted
by the government agencies and validated by independent assessment bodies.
The components of this program include: (1)development of standards, benchmarks,
performance indicators, (2)assessment of capacity development activities, (3)validation
by independent assessment bodies.
8. Research and Development
The program on research and development shall provide information in order to support
the formulation of evidence-based policies and decision making. It aims to strengthen
linkages between information-generating sector and policy decision makers and program
planners. The components of this program include: (1)Assessment of information
gaps and challenges of the sector, (2)Sector capacity assessment, (3)Formulating the
Research and Development Agenda (4) Coordination among information-generators
and policy decision makers under the sustainable sanitation program, and (5)Actual
specifi c research proposals developed.
9. Strengthening Water and Sanitation Monitoring and Evaluation
Sector Monitoring and Evaluation shall be strengthened at different levels to support
fundamental planning, implementation, and evaluation of sanitation programs and
activities. This program links with the PWSSR priority program on Sector Baseline
Assessment. Monitoring shall ensure proper alignment of activities with standards
while results of evaluation will confi rm or negate assumptions on policies and plans.
The program intends to provide immediate and long-term corrective measures on
strategies that need to be rectifi ed to conform to an optimal achievement of goals
and objectives of sustainable sanitation program. The components of this program
include: (1) Formulation of Water and Sanitation Monitoring and Evaluation Procedures
(2) Recurrent sector assessment and reporting, and (3) Establishment of web-based
database and information-exchange forums.
10. National Advocacy Program on Sustainable Sanitation
The sanitation roadmap aims to engage and capacitate national and sector agencies
and institutions and other stakeholders with the ultimate aim of enabling (1) village
or local communities to manage their own sanitation programs towards eliminating
open defecation practices and (2) sanitation service providers to manage wastes in a
sustainable fashion. To achieve this, it is fundamental that people themselves must
realize that the consequences of their (un)hygienic behavior and practices result to
demeaning quality of life, and for them to actively demand for reforms on sanitation
at the grass-roots level. The choice of methods of intervention in fi nding meaningful
solutions to sanitation problems should be initiated by these same people who clamor
for assistance and guidance so that they are made responsible for setting up their own
sanitation facilities and services.
The success of this agenda depends on how the target population would change their
behavior and practices by motivating them through effective education and information
programs (predisposing factors), by enabling them to have access to technology and
other resources with reinforcing factors such as collectively enhancing behavior and
practices of all community members.
70$ % & ' & ( ( & ) * + , - . / & ) / 0 ' * + / ) & . / . & 1 ) 2 1 / 3 4 / (
The National Advocacy Program on Sustainable Sanitation shall have the following
components: (1) Development of a National Communication Plan, (b) Development of
Information, Education, Communication and Motivation materials, (c) Implementation
of the Communication Plan, (d) Monitoring and Evaluation of the communication plan.
11. National Campaign on Zero Open Defecation
This program aims to raise awareness on the need for sanitation and to use communication
and hygiene promotion to trigger behavior change. The strategy is to get barangays and
municipalities to declare themselves as Open Defecation Free (ODF Barangay/City/
Municipality) and to encourage local legislation on penalties against open defecators.
This local legislation will be supported by facilitating or enabling the construction of
basic sanitation facilities. This is a campaign that relates to the MDG based targets of
reducing the number of households without sanitary toilets. The program calls for
rewards and incentives for ODF communities. In addition to toilet construction at the
household level, the project will also cover hygiene promotion and capacity building.
To be implemented starting March 2010 to February 2013, the total project cost is
estimated to be P13.3 B. Designated lead project coordinator is the DOH and lead
implementers will be the LGUs with support from DILG, and GFIs.
11. A Study on pro poor sanitation technology approaches
This study aims to identify, document and evaluate available pro poor sanitation
approaches in order to provide affordable sanitation options to those in the bottom
of the pyramid. Implementation period is from January 2011 to December 2012 with
a total project cost of P1.5 M. The identifi ed lead agency is DOH with support from
DILG, NAPC, LWUA, DENR, DPWH, NCIP NGOs, the academe and LGUs.
11. B Program on pro poor sanitation fi nancing
This study is geared towards development of specifi c pro poor sanitation fi nancing
models to help the poor secure access to sustainable sanitation facilities. It will include
the pre testing and piloting of the pro poor models in selected poor communities. Total
project cost is P1.5 M to be implemented from April 2010 to March 2011. Both NEDA
and DOH are designated lead agencies with the active participation of NAPC, DOf,
DBM, GFIs and LGUs.
C. Outcome 3: Broad-based Alliance of Multi-sectorial and Multi-level Stakeholders
Strengthening the Sanitation Sector
This program has three aims:
1. To promote good governance and institution strengthening by:
a. Mobilizing sanitation networks like PEN and Philippine Society of Sanitary
Engineers to rally behind identifi ed sector champions at national and local
levels;
b. Harnessing, strengthening and mobilizing the resources and mandate of existing
inter agency bodies, e.g., IACEH Sub-Committee on Sanitation and PDF Task
Force on WSS for more effective coordination, cooperation and collaboration
towards policy promotion and implementation;
c. Creating strong Executive-Legislative linkages and alliances.
2. To vigorously pursue multi-stakeholder participation in capacity development for sanitation
a. Creating a consortia of committed and capable academic and training institutes
for capacity development on sustainable sanitation;
5 6 7 8 7 9 9 7 : ; < = > ? @ 7 : @ A 8 ; < @ : 7 ? @ ? 7 B : C B @ D E @ 971
b. Providing affordable and sustainable training programs to all mandated agencies
and institutions like LGUs and Water Supply and Sanitation providers;
c. Capacity Development specially at the local level by stimulating local demands
for Sustainable Sanitation services, facilities and infrastructures.
d. Advocacy for sanitation investments and budget allocations at national and local
levels.
3. To promote Private Sector and small scale sanitation enterpreneurship involvement by:
a. Widening the playing fi eld for sanitation service providers;
b. Organizing the association of sanitation service providers.
c. Developing investment strategies and investment/subsidy schemes for small,
medium and large sanitation infrastructure projects.
d. Promoting Public-Private-Partnerships.
D. Outcome 4: Financing and Infrastructure Investments in Priority Strategic Areas
13.A. Inventory, identifi cation and mapping of vulnerable areas
This project is intended to carry out the inventory, identifi cation and mapping
of vulnerable areas that are seriously affected by lack of sanitation. This will
include collection and compilation of existing data, information and maps
of “vulnerable areas” Vulnerable areas will include areas that are subject to
fl ooding, landslides, coastal areas, IP areas, public parks and playground as well
as schools, tourist areas and interisland shipping vessel lanes. Part of the study
is to come up with defi nition of “vulnerable areas. This is a one year study
with DILG as the lead agency with support to be provided by DENR, LLDA,
NSCB, DepEd, NAPC, NCIP, the different leagues as well as the academe and
NGO. Estimated cost of the study is P 25 M to cover priority areas nationwide.
Implementation period is Jan. 2010 to Dec., 2011.
13.B Development and operationalization of database of vulnerable areas.
A component of the inventory, identifi cation and mapping of vulnerable areas,
this project aims to develop a database of the areas identifi ed as vulnerable.
The idea is to facilitate the management of attribute and spatial information
in a GIs setting to help policy makers and planners in addressing the sanitation
needs of these areas thru the provision of timely data in support of policies and
programs.
To be implemented for one year the designated lead agency is DILG with
support to be provided by DOH, DENR, LLDA, NSCB, DepEd, NAPC, NCIP,
the different leagues as well as the academe and NGO. Estimated cost is P 10.5
M for the hardware and software including limited training of concerned staff
to handle the database. Implementation period is Jan. 2010 to Dec., 2011.
13.C Comprehensive Infrastructure Program for Sanitation
The NSSMP provides the program for Sewerage and Septage Management.
This program has to be approved, funded and implemented by the LGUs with
National government support. NEDA should incorporate the sanitation targets
in the CIIP updates that it regularly produces.
14. Development of the Investment and Financing Framework for sanitation
This project is intended for the development of appropriate policy for investment
72F G H I H J J H K L M N O P Q H K Q R I L M Q K H P Q P H S K T S Q U V Q J
prioritization of areas defi ned as highly vulnerable heavily impacted by the lack of
sanitation. Part of the policy development is the formulation of investment priority
criteria and guidelines to serve as basis for investment priority programming. This will
also entail series of consultation with concerned stakeholders through focus group
discussions, round table discussions and meetings.
DILG is the designated lead agency with support to be provided by DOH, DENR,
LLDA, NSCB, DepEd, NAPC, NCIP, the different leagues as well as the academe and
NGO. Project cost is estimated to be P500,000. However, it will have to build on a
number of studies to inform the framework:
14.A. Study on sanitation tariff methodologies including sanitation incentives and
subsidies
This project is intended to develop a tariff methodology that would allow
suffi cient level of recovery of sanitation investment and development of an
attractive package of sanitation incentives and subsidy schemes to encourage
investment into sanitation. Pilot implementation of the tariff methodology
covering priority provinces will also be conducted as part of the study.
Estimated cost of study is P 2.5 M to be implemented from July 2010 to July
2011. Designated lead agency is NEDA with the active involvement of DILG,
DOH, DOf and selected LGUs.
14.B. Tracking sanitation funds at the LGU levels
This project aims to determine collection levels, effi ciency and track how
sanitation fees currently collected by LGUs are being spent and used. Based
on study results, recommendations will be formulated to improve collection
effi ciency and use of sanitation fees. Implementation period is from march,
2010 to February, 2011. Total project cost is P 1.8 M. DILG is expected to
take the lead with the active participation of pilot LGUs down to the barangay
level.
14.C. Study on development of sanitation fi nancing models
This study intends to develop innovative fi nancing models that would help
provide the necessary funding support for the implementation of sanitation
programs, projects and activities. Part of the study is to pre test the models in
selected pilot areas, The designated lead implementing agency is NEDA with
support from DOH, DOF, DILG and development partners. Implementation
period is from July 2010 to June 2011. Project cost is P 2.5 M.
15. Expansion of the Metro Manila septage capacity and construction of sewerage
and/or septage facilities in highly urbanizing cities
This project is intended to support the construction of sewerage and sewage system for
highly urbanizing cities as indicated in the National Sewerage and Septage Management Plan.
Implementation period is from January 2010 to December 2016. Lead implementing agency
is the NSSMP secretariat/DPWH with support from LWUA, MWSS and its concessionaires,
DOH, DENR and LGUs including DepEd. Estimated project cost is P6.7 B.
NOTE: budget does not include the expansion of MM septage capacity
16. Development and promotion of sanitation entrepreneurship social marketing
plan
This project is intended to develop and implement a strategic social marketing /IEC plan to
promote and popularize sanitation entrepreneurship as an innovative business opportunity.
W X Y Z Y [ [ Y \ ] ^ _ ` a b Y \ b c Z ] ^ b \ Y a b a Y d \ e d b f g b [73
Project coverage is nationwide. Total project cost is P2.5 M with DOH as lead implementing
agency and with active support from DTI, DILG, CDA, LGUs and NGOs.
16.A. Study on documentation of PPP sanitation service provision
This study aims to document current and existing projects on public-private
partnership for sanitation service delivery and provision. It will highlight good
practices that can be showcased and scaled up. Total project cost is P 1.5 M to
be implemented from January 2011 to December 2013. DOF is the lead agency
with support coming from NEDA, DOH, GFIs, NGOs,DTI and PCCI as well
as private sector representatives.
17. Study on development of sanitation national account system
This study is intended to assess the needs and feasibility of establishing an account
system for sanitation to be able to keep tract of the sanitation expenditure at the
household and national level. Based on results, policies will be developed and a separate
accounting system will be set up. Designated lead agency is NEDA, in particular NSCB
with support from DOH, NSO, DILG, DENR, DPWH , LGUs and the academe.
Project cost is P2.5 M to be implemented in July 2010 to Dec. 2011.
E. Outcome 5: Adequate Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion is Mainstreamed in
Emergency Relief and Rehabilitation
18. WASH in Emergency Situations
This program aims to develop further the policy guidelines, technologies and coordination
approaches in managing excreta disposal in evacuation centers. The program is expected
to result in a sourcebook for sanitation in different types of emergency situations and
a corresponding training support for disaster preparedness focusing on the WASH
aspects of disaster risk management.
4.3 ONGOING AND PIPELINE PROGRAMS
This section briefl y presents on-going and pipeline projects in the sector under NGAs that directly
contributes to the priority programs discussed in the previous section. While some of these
projects prioritize water supply over sanitation, it nevertheless provides opportunities and entry
points for sanitation projects.
Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Project in Visayas and Mindanao (RW3SPVM)
The program aims to increase the level of commitment of LGUs to sustainable provision
of potable water by ensuring the inclusion of water and sanitation in their local development
plans and investment programs. The long-term objective is to upgrade Level I facilities based
on technical feasibility and people’s willingness-to-pay. It will promote sustainability through
community participation in planning, implementation, management and operation of completed
water systems. It will involve construction of approximately 800 Level II water systems with
technical provision for ready benefi ting about 850,000 people plus construction of sanitation
facilities for about 150,000 households in 35 municipalities in Visayas and Mindanao classifi ed as
waterless. This project directly contributes to the priority program on LGU capacity development
in planning, monitoring and regulation wherein DILG is the lead proponent of the project with
support from LWUA and NWRB targeting a 4-year implementation period starting 2009/2010
and possible funding support from ADB.
Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project Phase V – North Luzon (RWSSPV)
This project is funded by the JBIC and involves 1) construction of 289 level I water supply
facilities and 58 sanitation facilities; 2) organization and training of 231 BWSAs; and 3) conduct of
74h i j k j l l j m n o p q r s j m s t k n o s m j r s r j u m v u s w x s l
capability building to 4 LGUs towards providing potable water supply and sanitation facilities and
promoting sustainability through community participation, i.e. BWSA formation. Although the
NG-JBIC loan had been closed in 2007, construction of the remaining works will be implemented
by the LGUs through their own funds. To date, only 2 project areas remain for completion by
December 2009.
Water District Development Sector Project (WDDSP)
The WDDSP is a sector loan which aims to provide improved livability and competitiveness in
urban areas outside Metro Manila due to enhanced water supply and sanitation infrastructure
like wastewater collection and treatment as well as the sustainable provision of safe water supply
and sanitation services. The project supports capacity development for both LWUA and water
districts. LWUA as the lead implementing agency is responsible for short-listing 5 water districts
for preparation of subproject appraisal reports. This sector loan from ADB contributes to the
priority program on capacity development of water service providers and LWUA as support
services provider of the water districts.
The project has the following components: (i) an investment program for urban water supply
and sanitation infrastructure, (ii) a capacity development program to improve the fi nancial and
operating performance of water utilities, (iii) a program to increase awareness of sanitation and
public health issues, and (iv) reorganization of LWUA. The project is expected to (i) increase the
access of the population in the provincial cities to improved water supply and sanitation, (ii) reduce
the quantity of nonrevenue water and enhance asset management, and (iii) improve the operating
and fi nancial performance of water utilities.
Philippine Water Revolving Fund (PWRF)
The PWRF is an innovative fi nancing designed to support the long term investment requirements
of LGUs and Water Districts for water supply and sanitation. It has a unique feature of engaging
PFIs as co-lenders with the Development Bank of the Philippines using JICA funds and credit
guarantees from LGU Guarantee Corporation and the USAID Development Credit Authority.
Within this program is the Municipal Development Fund Offi ce (MDFO) PWRF Standby
Credit Facility ( PWRF-SCF). The MDFO-Policy Governing Board (PGB) has initially allocated
P500 Million in February 2006 to lengthen the tenor of Private Financing Institutions( PFIs) loan
to LGUs. The PWRF-SCF is an MDFO standby loan fi nancing window which can be accessed by
LGUs that are already participating under the PWRF program.
Millenium Development Goals Fund (MDG-Fund)
Apart from the PWRF SCF, the MDFO was also mandated by its PGB to establish and fi nance LGU
initiatives that directly contribute to the attainment of the MDGs parallel to the DILG’s “Guide
to LGUs in the Localization fo the MDGs”. Included in Component 1 (Investment Support) of
the facility are water supply and sanitation projects for 4th-6th income class municipalities. On
the other hand, provincial LGUs may also qualify for loan fi nancing provided that their 4th-6th
income class municipalities will be benefi tted.
Municipal Development Fund Project (MDFP)
This fi nancing facility of the MDFO has an initial allocated amount of P500 Million in October
2006 to offer fi nancing to cities, provinces, municipalities for revenue generating, social and
environmental projects as well as other Infrastructure Projects and Equipment. Included in the
environmental projects are solid waste management facilities such as materials recovery facility
(MRF), sanitary landfi lls, composting facility, waste management such as sewerage systems,
drainage systems, waste water treatment facilities, bio gas digesters, air quality management projects
(support to the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999);and Land Conservation such as River/Seashore
Protection and Seawall.
y z { | { } } { ~ � � � � � � { ~ � � | � � � ~ { � � � { � ~ � � � � � � }75
LGU Investment Programme
This is a fi nancing facility for projects like sanitation, drainage and fl ood control, water supply and
other modes to be agreed among LBP as the implementing agency, Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau
(KfW) and concerned LGUs. The proposed interest shall be fi xed for the duration of the loan,
based on the prevailing market rate at the time of availment but not to exceed 13%. A maximum
of 2 years grace period may be allowed on the principal depending on the nature of the project.
The facility would be available to LGUs in the Visayas and Mindanao to support the focus of the
German Development Cooperation Program. Programme duration is from 2006-2010.
Provincial Towns Water Supply and Sanitation Program (KfW III) - North Luzon
Improvement of water supply systems for 2 big and 10 small WDs towards Improved and expanded
water supply services. Implementing agency is LWUA. The design stage started in the 2nd quarter
of 2008, while the IAC clearance was issued on 30 June 2009.
Provincial Towns Water Supply and Sanitation Program (KfW III) - Metro Luzon
The project includes improvement of water supply systems for 1 big and 30 small water districts,
construction of storage facilities and drilling of new well sources etc., and supports the cooperation
between water districts and local administrations for sewage management towards enhanced water
supply and sanitation services provision within the water districts' franchise areas. Implemented by
LWUA, the project duration is from 2009 to 2012.
CEZA Upgrade of Sewage Treatment Plant
Upgrade of the existing Sewage Treatment Plant of the CEZA (Region 2 – Cagayan) to accommodate
a minimum of one thousand (1,000) users towards ensuring that wastewater produced by the
CEZA Complex can be safely released to any body of water. Implementing Agency: CEZA with
funding from the national government-GAA.
Kapit-Bisig sa Ilog Pasig
The “Kapit Bisig sa Ilog Pasig” (Arm-in-Arm for the Pasig River) program was launched by the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in February 2009 through PRRC,
and ABS-CBN Foundation. The partnership’s goal is to turn the Pasig into a Clean River Zone in
7 years by ensuring zero toxic input into the river through solid waste management, household or
community septic tanks desludging, and septage treatment. It will also continue the rehabilitation
and resettlement work initiated by the PRRC. DENR-PRRC’s Pasig River Environmental
Management and Rehabilation Sector Program (PAREMAR-SDP) expects to improve the water
quality of the Pasig River and develop environmental preservation areas for urban renewal and is
funded by the national government-GAA and ADB.
Manila Third Sewerage Project
In 2007, the World Bank approved an investment grant of US$5 million. The objectives of the
project are to assist the Filipino Government in reforming institutions in order to attract private
investment in the wastewater sector, to improve the coordination of institutions responsible
for preventing water pollution, and to promote innovative wastewater treatment techniques.
The project, which runs from 2007 to 2012, provides technical assistance as well as support for
institutional coordination and private sector involvement . The project aims to increase the coverage
and effectiveness of sewerage service delivery through an integrated approach involving septage
management, sewage management, and heightened consumer awareness . The project follows the
Manila Second Sewerage Project, which was carried out from 1996 to 2005 .
Establishment of Wastewater Treatment Facilities for Marikina River Basin
This project aims to conduct feasibility studies and construct wastewater treatment plants towards
improved water quality in the Marikina River to class "C" or recreational level. The project is being
76� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
implemented by Manila WAter Company, Inc. in coordination with MMDA and Marikina LGU.
Provincial Urban Sewerage and Septage Management Programme
This project focuses on the development of sewerage and septage management projects in areas
covered by water districts (a total of 18 projects). Expected outcomes are to provide sewerage
facilities/septage management programs in various WD areas in line with the government's
sanitation/environment concern. Implemented by LWUA from 2009 to 2015, the project is
funded by the national government and is currently conducting feasibility studies for Dasmarinas
and Cavite WDs.
Millennium Challenge Corporation Water Supply and Sanitation Component
The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) I is a United States Government corporation
designed to work with some of the poorest countries of the world. MCC funding may be between
$500 Million to $1 Billion disbursed over 5 years wherein WSS projects are in the priority list of
the proposed development program.
World Bank Strategic Local Development and Investment Project
This is a lending facility focusing on strategic investment support to infrastructure, utilities and
improvement of LGU fi nance and is made available to all eligible and qualifi ed applicants comprising
of LGUs, public utilities and private operators providing local infrastructure services nationwide,
including solid waste management facilities, wastewater treatment, and housing. Implementation is
from 2007-2012, with LBP as the implementing agency.
World Bank LGU Urban Water and Sanitation Project (APL 2)
This is a lending facility whose sub-loan terms is 9% annual interest rate with 3 years grace period
and 15 years tenor with target program participants being LGUs and water districts. The second
Local Government Unit (LGU) urban water project aims to reach approximately 40 LGU-operated
water systems, which are given technical assistance and fi nancial support. The four components of
the project are to: (i) fi nance civil works, equipment, and supervision for improved water supply
systems in LGUs, including private sector participation where feasible; (ii) fi nance improved
sanitation infrastructure; (iii) provide investment and assistance in micro-drainage infrastructure;
and (iv) provide funds for the hiring of a construction supervision consultant and specialized
consultants. The World Bank decided to contribute through a US$30 million loan to the project,
while the remaining US$5.2 million are fi nanced by local institutions. The project began in 2001
and will end in 2008
Department of Education-Physical Facilities and Schools Engineering Division (PFSED)
projects
A. Schools’ Water and Electrical Facilities Assessment Project ( SWEFAP)
The DepED has initiated the SWEFAP to assess the water facilities of schools, identify
schools with poor or without water facilities and poor sanitation facilities and practices
in order to provide corrective measures and interventions. The project was undertaken
in partnership with private sector, cooperatives, water utilities and companies, soci-civic
organizations, foundations, health and nutrition centers, LGUs and the DOH. Series of
orientation and information dissemination was undertaken to launch the project, the
creation of SWEFAP Task Force in schools, followed by actual assessment and inspection
and provision of corrective measures. Two assessment manuals were prepared to guide
the SWEFAP Tsask Forces created in all schools to undertake assessment and inspection,
and a database on schools without water, sanitation and electrical facilities which are now
available and the Department’s basis in providing assistance and interventions to all schools
nationwide.
� � � � � � � � ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ � ¦ § � ¡ ¢ ¦ � ¥ ¦ ¥ � ¨ © ¨ ¦ ª « ¦ �77
B. Construction/Repair/Rehabilitation of Classrooms and Schools’ Water and Sanitation
Facilities
The construction, repair/rehabilitation of classrooms and water and sanitation facilities in
schools is part of th epump priming projects of the President, considering that classroooms
and sanitation facilities are one of the requirements in building safe learning environment
for school children. In view of this, the Department of Education issued DO No. 4, s.2009
"Implementing Guidelines for the Construction/Repair/Rehabilitation of Classrooms
and Schools' Water and Sanitation Facilities" indicating budget appropriations for priority
projects including construction and/or repair/rehabilitation of toilet and water facilities in
high need areas. This project is covered in the loan agreement with the World-Bank under
BESRA-NPSBE. Single or clustered projects amounting to $100,000.00 or Php4,750,000.00
(using the current rate of $1=Php47.50) shall be implemented using the Principal-led SBP
Scheme. Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) shall only be released upon contract
award has been undertaken. Selection of priority schools prepared by the PFSED is based
on data on shortage of toilet and water facilities on the BEIS (SY 2008-2009) and the
SWEFAP.
Department of Education-Essential Health Care Program (EHCP)
The implementation of the “EHCP for Filipino Children” is a program which is readily available at
a cost of P 25.00 per child per year. This program advocates for school-based health interventions
particularly on the importance of handwashing with soap and water as the simplest, most effective
way of improving sanitation and hygiene. Exposure to school based daily handwashing, fl ouride
tooth brushing and twice a year de-worming will familiarize children with healthy habits and is
expected to have an impact on awareness concerning water and sanitation issues in the communities
and hygiene practices in family life. Department Orders Nos. 65, 55 and 76, s.2009 calls for the
institutionalization of EHCP in schools and ordering the immediate construction of water and
handwashing facilities. In addition,the Department issued Department Memo No. 450, s.2009
"Implementation of an Annual Global Handwashing Day every 15th of October" to conduct
activities with the DOH and PhilHealth every year.
KALAHI-CIDSS
The DSWD’s Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan – Comprehensive Integrated Delivery of Social
Services (KALAHI-CIDSS) Project initiated in 2003 has a Municipal Allocation Fund of
PhP300,000 which LGUs can use for community subprojects including (but not limited to) basic
social services such as water system and tribal housing/shelter, (including sanitation facilities, if
required), and for sanitation and/or solid waste management facilities. It covers the 42 poorest
provinces including 4216 barangays in 183 municipalities. Aside from provision of grant funds,
KALAHI-CIDSS conducts social preparation, capability building and implementation support to
the communities, as well as multi-level assessment and impact evaluation. The WB-funded project
ends in May 2010, and additional fi nancing for the next years has been proposed to the NEDA
for approval.
Community-Based Monitoring System (CBMS)
The CBMS is a tool for monitoring social indicators for health, nutrition, shelter, water and
sanitation, basic education, income, employment and peace and order. The system is an organized
process of data collection and processing at the local level. The data collected through CBMS
is then integrated into local planning, program implementation and impact-monitoring. The
NAPC Secretariat, in cooperation with CBMS Network Team, continues to instruct and guide
local governments on the use of the Community-Based Monitoring System (CBMS) and conducts
78¬ ® ¯ ® ° ° ® ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · ® ± · ¸ ¯ ² ³ · ± ® ¶ · ¶ ® ¹ ± º ¹ · » ¼ · °
forums to familiarize NGAs on the concept and design of the CBMS National Repository; present
and explain the policies and procedures of accessing and using CBMS data in their own planning,
monitoring, and evaluation endeavors; and generate comments/suggestions to enhance CBMS
National Repository concept and operating policies.
President's Priority Program on Water (P3W)
Under this program, LGUs are assigned to implement water supply projects for waterless areas
without water districts. DOH serves as the funding agency while the Local Water Utilities
Administration (LWUA) is the designated implementing agency, while NAPC oversees the
monitoring and inspection of ongoing projects.
MDGF Project – Joint Programme Enhancing Access, and Provision of Water Services
with the Active Participation of the Poor (UNDP-Spain)
Launched April 2009, the program seeks to address the plight of about 432 local governments that
would have less than 50% water supply coverage in their localities. Thirty six (36) of these so-called
waterless municipalities located in 12 provinces, in 5 Regions of the country are targeted to benefi t
from the MDGF UNDP-Spain joint programme.
DILG-GTZ Water Supply and Sanitation Capacity Development Program for LGUs
This program aims to provide technical assistance to help local institutions in the planning,
management and delivery of rural water supply systems. The program seeks to overcome the
institutional confusion and to strengthen governmental organizations at the national, provincial,
and municipal levels. In addition, the decentralization plan of the National Water Resources Board
is supported. The program, which runs from 2006 to 2009, has already achieved a successful
introduction of low-cost options for sanitation, the construction of dehydration toilets, and the
fi rst Filipino constructed wetland, treating wastewater from about 700 households.
National Program Support for Environment and Natural Resources Management Project
The project aims to assist the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to
improve its service delivery through a better allocation of its limited fi nancial resources. The
components of the projects include integrated ecosystem management and environmental and
natural resources management. The World Bank approved a US$50 million loan in 2007 for the
project which runs from 2007 to 2011.
Sanitation Action Week
Launched during the International Year of Sanitation 2008, priority agenda is the signing of a
Presidential Proclamation (Adopting 2008 as the International Year of Sanitation and declaring the
fourth week of June of every year as Sanitation Action Week)
Department of Health training for sanitary inspectors
In 2004, the DOH prepared the "Training Modules on Integrated Health and Environment for
Capacity Building of Sanitation Inspectors in LGUs" designed to enhance the sanitary inspectors'
roles at the LGUs. These modules can be used by the Center for Health Development in the
regions in the conduct of their training program for Sanitation Inspectors, and encourages strong
partnership between the CHD and LGUs in the use of the modules for capacity building for
effective protection and promotion of health and application of an integrated environmental
approach.
Zero Diarrhea awards for barangays
The Department of Health (DOH) Zero Diarrhea awards are for barangays with the best sanitation
practices. DOH conducted a nationwide search January to December 2008 with the help of
½ ¾ ¿ À ¿ Á Á ¿ Â Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È ¿ Â È É À Ã Ä È Â ¿ Ç È Ç ¿ Ê Â Ë Ê È Ì Í È Á79
Centers for Health Development–Regional Technical Working Groups, Provincial Health Offi ces,
and Local Government Units. ADB joined the DOH in recognizing the 28 winning barangays
by hosting an awarding ceremony at ADB Headquarters. The initiative aimed to: 1) Disseminate
information on the importance of sanitation and its impact on people’s health; 2) Encourage local
governments to initiate and promote sanitation activities; 3) Recognize exemplary barangays and
showcase their best sanitation practices. DOH and ADB presented the Zero Diarrhea Award to
a total of 28 barangays, chosen from among 42,000 other Philippine barangays, for implementing
the best sanitation practices in the country. Each winning barangay was awarded a plaque and
PhP150,000 cash prize.
Sustainable Sanitation in East Asia Philippines Program (SuSEA)
The Sustainable Sanitation in East Asia (SuSEA) Philippines component supports in-country
mechanisms to help increase access, especially of the poor, to sustainable sanitation. The desired
program outcomes are: At the national level, sustainable sanitation program is initiated in the
Philippines to support increased access by poor Filipinos to sanitation services. In participating
localities, improvement of environmental health conditions by 2010.
SuSEA Philippines was conceived as a learning program to support the Government of the
Philippines update its approaches and interventions in sanitation and needs that were not present
or not addressed in traditional sanitation programs that focused on two extremes – 1) toilet-bowl
distribution and hygiene education and 2) centralized sewerage systems. The strategy of SUSEA
Philippines for increasing access of the poor to sustainable sanitation is by systematically responding
to the key causal factors that impede the demand for and supply of sanitation. SuSEA Philippines
would be a platform for a) testing, learning and developing tools for scaling-up interventions b)
capacity and institution building of local government units in implementing appropriate sanitation
solutions and c) improvement of national sanitation policy and programs as exemplifi ed from the
best fi eld-based results.
Six sites are participating in the main program sub-component of SuSEA. These are: Bauko
Municipality in the Mt. Province, Dagupan City in Pangasinan Province, Guian Municipality in
Eastern Samar Province, Gereral Santos City and Polomolok Municipality in South Cotabato, and
Alabel Municipality in Saranggani.
Under SuSEA there are a number of other sub-projects:
Developing Sustainable Sanitation Education Programs in the Philippines- SUSEP (US$ 200,000)
This sub-component was developed to address a key underlying factor for the sanitation sector
under performance, i.e. the quality and capacity of current cadre of sanitation practitioners
particularly those serving local governments. The activity will review the existing state of education
programs on sanitation (formal and informal) and will work with interested partner institutions to
develop and test sustainable sanitation education modules targeting existing practitioners as well as
potential future cadre of sanitation professionals. This work commenced in July 2008 and will be
included as a subject of the mid-term review.
National Sewerage and Septage Management Program – NSSMP (US$ 150,000)
The objective of this activity is to support the formulation of an implementation strategy for
a proposed NSSMP as mandated under the Clean Water Act (2004). The legislation calls for
the preparation of a national program and instructs highly urbanized cities (HUCs) to provide
sewerage and septage services to minimize the adverse impacts of domestic wastewater discharges
to the water quality of water resources in general. This sub-component will provide consultants
to work with the NSSMP technical working group formed by the Government to formulate the
80Î Ï Ð Ñ Ð Ò Ò Ð Ó Ô Õ Ö × Ø Ù Ð Ó Ù Ú Ñ Ô Õ Ù Ó Ð Ø Ù Ø Ð Û Ó Ü Û Ù Ý Þ Ù Ò
program strategy (including making recommendations on the technical packages, institutional and
fi nancing frameworks) and identify an initial list of 10 participating HUCs.
This National Sewerage and Septage Management Program (NSSMP) was prepared by the
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), in coordination with other government
agencies, as required by the Clean Water Act (CWA). It will become a subsection of the National
Sustainable Sanitation Plan,1 which will be a broader, overarching framework that will include the
full spectrum of sanitation challenges. The primary focus of the NSSMP is sewerage and septage
infrastructure projects and the promotions and supporting environment needed to make them
successful.
The goal of the NSSMP is to improve water quality and public health in urban areas of the
Philippines by 2020. The objective is to enhance the ability of local implementers to build and
operate wastewater treatment systems for urban centers and promote the behavior change and
supporting environment needed for systems to be effective and sustainable.
The main strategy is to facilitate a bottom-up, demand-driven project development process by
providing national government support and incentives. DPWH and Department of Health (DOH)
will lead a nationwide training and promotions campaign and DPWH will create an information
offi ce. Both DPWH and DOH will provide some funding for sewerage and septage project
development at the local level through their annual general appropriations budget. DENR will also
support project development through the creation of the National Water Quality Management
Fund (NWQMF). DENR regional offi ces will lead the establishment of Water Quality Management
Areas (WQMAs) and Area Water Quality Management Funds (AWQMFs) to support local project
development. Local implementers will use the NSSMP Guide to develop infrastructure and services
supported by effective promotion campaigns, policies, enforcement and user fees.
The program implementation plan will begin with the approval of the NSSMP in August 2009,
convening of the NEDA INFRACOM Subcommittee on Water Resources as the NSSMP
Committee, and designation of the NSSMP Offi ce in DPWH by January 2010. A three-
part nationwide training and promotions campaign will be held from July to December 2010,
followed by development of projects by local implementers thereafter. The NSSMP Offi ce with
gather data on the number of local sanitation plans developed, number of projects developed,
approximate number of people benefi ting from the projects, amount of money spent nationwide,
and approximate amount of pollution diverted from the environment. The Offi ce will report this
information to the NSSMP Committee every August starting in 2011.
Independent Study on Sanitation for Indigenous Communities (US$ 26,000)
This study aims to contribute to understanding the complexity of sanitation practices, particularly,
why people have specifi c sanitation habits and how these are shaped by the cultural context within
which these habits are situated as well as factors from without. Moreover, this study provides
guidelines for the development of a model for a more culturally sensitive, community-led sanitation
program. The study will illustrate a comprehensive scenario of sanitation habits by gathering data
from various sources and through different methods, namely, a review of literature that focused
on sanitation program implementation which was global in scope (on-going), a workshop among
sanitation program implementers that is national in scope (to be conducted in November, 2008),
and lastly, community studies in two barangays in Polomolok, South Cotabato.
Local Government Grants for Sanitation Pilots (US$ 320,000)
This is a recipient-executed sub-program that will assist local governments prepare and implement
sanitation projects on a matching grant basis. The aim is the reduction of sanitation-related disease
and water pollution in six program sites through the establishment of sanitation services/facilities.
At least four sanitation infrastructure projects implemented by participating local governments
within an overall local sanitation plan and program framework are expected as this sub-programs
ß à á â á ã ã á ä å æ ç è é ê á ä ê ë â å æ ê ä á é ê é á ì ä í ì ê î ï ê ã81
outputs. This sub-program commenced preparations in August 2008 and is expected to start
implementing in early 2009.
Innovative Sanitation Intervention Projects- IsIP Grants (US$ 40,000)
A small innovation grant window was opened under SuSEA Philippines to provide funding support
on a competitive basis to non-government organizations for developing and trialling innovations in
sanitation interventions (including approaches to behaviour change or technical solutions) focused
on targeting the poor, vulnerable groups or those living in diffi cult environments. This sub-program
commenced calls for proposals in November 2008 but will not be implemented until 2009.
Municipal Development Fund (from various ODA sources)
The MDF is a revolving fund which uses proceeds of foreign loans, assistance or grants to fi nance
specifi c projects and activities of LGUs including water supply projects. The fund also provides
training to LGU loan borrowers. The Municipal Development Fund Offi ce (MDFO) National
Government – LGU cost sharing policy, enacted in December 2002, states that cluster 3 “brown”
sub-projects (which include solid waste management, drainage, sewerage and sanitary support
facilities) require municipalities and provinces to provide 10%-20% in equity, obtain 20%-50% in
grant fi nance, and avail the remaining 40%-60% in loan fi nance. Fourth and fi fth Class Cities are
eligible to use 20% grant fi nance supported by 20% equity and 60% in loan fi nance, but all other
cities are ineligible for grants.
Philippine Basic Urban Services Sector (PBUSS)
The ADB-funded sector project will (i) increase access by citizens and economic enterprises to
basic public infrastructure in urban and peri-urban areas; (ii) enhance the growth of the local
economies through infrastructure development, and better employment and income opportunities;
(iii) improve facilities for the fi nancing of infrastructure investments, including public-private
partnerships in the fi nancing and implementation of basic urban services programs; and (iv)
improve local government capacity, and empower local institutions and organizations. The PBUSSP
is expected to have three components, as follows:
• Component A (infrastructure investment plan) will fi nance subprojects of local government
units, possibly in association with private sector proponents, in these subsectors, among others:
local roads and bridges, water supply and sanitation, drainage and fl ood control, solid waste
management, bus terminals, public facilities (such as municipal buildings, public parks, and
public markets), sports facilities, slaughterhouses and ice plants, and economic infrastructure
(such as incubation centers for small and medium enterprises, area development projects, and
economic and cluster development zones). Preference will be given to revenue-generating
subprojects.
• Component B (institutional capacity development) will cover capacity development and
support for project management, subproject preparation, and implementation; assistance to
local governments in computerized fi nancial resource management; assistance to fi eld offi ces
of the Department of the Interior and Local Government in administering and managing
the performance measurement system; and cross-learning and governance knowledge
management.
• Component C: Sector reform initiatives for improved public-private partnership in fi nancing,
implementing, and operating infrastructure facilities. This component will assist local
governments and private sector investors in developing regulatory frameworks and operational
guidelines for sector reforms, including those for public-private partnerships.
About 110 eligible local governments and provinces in Luzon (excluding the National Capital
Region), Visayas, and Mindanao are expected to invest in various basic urban service sectors. These
82ð ñ ò ó ò ô ô ò õ ö ÷ ø ù ú û ò õ û ü ó ö ÷ û õ ò ú û ú ò ý õ þ ý û ÿ � û ô
will include local government units that have expressed interest but were not accommodated in
the current Manila BUSS project. The investments and transactions can include lending for private
sector investments under build-operate–transfer, build-operate-own, or other arrangements for
public-private partnerships. The expansion of the area of urban service coverage will promote
equitable development across urban areas in the country. The sector project will help (i) reduce the
infrastructure backlog, (ii) increase the economic productivity of cities and municipalities, and (iii)
improve income and employment opportunities for the affected population.
Agusan Integrated Water Resources Management PPTA
The project aims to reduce poverty, and improve health and living conditions in the Agusan
River Basin. Expected outcomes of the ADB-funded project include the implementation of key
elements of the Agusan basin master plan in a coordinated and effi cient series of investments.
Expected outputs are:
• Feasibility studies and project designs for communal irrigation, water supply and sanitation,
water quality management, watershed management, biodiversity and wetlands management,
fl ood control, and chemical spills management investments; and
• Strengthened management arrangements for coordinating development
Philippine Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Portal
The PhilWATSAN portal (www.philwatsan.org.ph) started as a project initiated by NWRB in
2006, in collaboration with other government agencies, with support from the German Technical
Cooperation Agency (GTZ)-Water Sanitation Program. The portal contains policies, projects/
programs, research/publications and statistics related to water supply and sanitation sector. Update
of information is done by member agencies through the internet.
Philippine Sanitation Alliance
The Philippine Sanitation Alliance (PSA) works with LGUs, water districts and private sector
partners to develop affordable ways to protect biodiversity and reduce public health risks through
improved sanitation. Projects include low-cost, low-maintenance treatment facilities for public
markets, slaughterhouses hospitals and low-cost housing; and city-wide programs to properly
maintain septic tanks (septage management). Cities are developing effective promotion campaigns
to increase willingness to pay for sanitation services and reduce the incidence of diarrhea through
proper hygienic practices, particularly handwashing. Governance is also being strengthened to
reduce threats to biodiversity as LGUs work to control wastewater discharges to coastal and
freshwater ecosystems. The PSA works with ten cities (Cagayan de Oro, Calbayog, Dumaguete,
Iloilo, Malaybalay, Meycauayan, Muntinlupa, Naga, Sta. Rosa, Zamboanga), and four water districts
(Calamba, Cebu, Davao and Laguna). The PSA is a 4-year program of the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) being implemented by AECOM International Development
from 2007-2011.
4.4 MEDIUM TERM OPERATIONAL PLAN (2010-2016)
The Sanitation Sector Inter-Agency Operational Plans for 2010-2016 are shown below. These operational
plans are meant to guide the mobilization and implementation of the detailed plans and programs
among the national government and implementing agencies in the water supply and sanitation sector.
Each table summarizes the activities to be implemented with the corresponding milestones, timelines,
lead (implementing agency), support agencies and indicative budgets under the different outcomes
and outputs as outlined in the Roadmap’s Logical Framework.
These integrated plans and programs are useful tools for coordination among the sector agencies and
for monitoring the detailed implementation of the Roadmap on an annual basis.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �83
TABLE 8
SANITATION ROADMAP OPERATIONAL PLAN 2010-2016
ACTIVITY MILESTONE TIMELINE DRIVER SUPPORTINVESTMENT
REQUIREMENTS
Outcome 1: Responsive Governance and Regulatory Strengthening
OUTPUT 1.1 Strengthen the DOH as the lead sector agency supported by all the NGs and LGUs in implementing sustainable sanitation programs
1. Formulate strategy plans per sector agency as basis for budgeting
Sanitation plans and programs included in agency OPB
Apr 2010, Apr 2011, Apr 2012, Apr 2013, Apr 2014, Apr 2015
DOH
Inter-Agency TF members, DILG, DENR, DPWH, LWUA, DepED, LEAGUES, DBM, OP
(15pax*1,500)*
6 events)
=P 135,000.00
• Convene Inter-agency task Force on sanitation for a workshop
Sanitation programs of agencies presented
• Harmonize plans and program of concerned national agencies
Sanitation implementation plans of national agencies synchronized
2. Consolidate Strategic Plans of National Agencies
Consolidated National Strategic Plan on Sanitation
Apr 2010, Apr 2011, Apr 2012, Apr 2013, Apr 2014, Apr 2015
DOH
• Review and Finalize Agency Strategic Plans
Output 1.2 A clear and sustainable sanitation policy and Program
1. Conduct Consultation Conference with concerned national agencies to review identifi ed amendments in the Sanitation Code
Proposed policy changes identifi ed
Jan -Mar 2011 DOH Inter-Agency TF members, DILG, DENR, DPWH, LWUA, DepED, LEAGUES, DBM, OP
((30pax*1,500) * 3 events)
= P 135,000.00
2. Mainstream sanitation plan
in the Local Development
Plans of LGUs
Sanitation plans,
programs and activities
integrated in the Local
Development Plans
Aug 2010 – July 2015 DILG, DOH LCEs Facilitators: ((8,000RT+3,000DSA
& Transpo.)* 5Facilitators)* 13
Regions)*6yrs
= P 4.49M
One Day Meeting: ((30pax*1,500)* 13
Regions)*6yrs
= P 3.50M
Total= P 7.99M
84� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ! " � �
ACTIVITY MILESTONE TIMELINE DRIVER SUPPORTINVESTMENT
REQUIREMENT
OUTPUT 1.3 Rationalized/Strengthened sector coordination mechanisms
1. Conduct assessment
of existing IACEH
and member
agencies to include
its membership,
mandates and
functions
IACEH and member
agency assessed to
include its functionality,
membership and specifi c
role in sanitation
May 2012 – Jan
2013
DOH Inter-Agency TF
members, DILG,
DENR, DPWH,
LWUA, DepED,
LEAGUES, DBM,
OP
Consultant: P500,000 Contract
- Identify gaps
and weaknesses
and recommend
measures of
improvement
2. Conduct quarterly
meetings of the
IACEH to strengthen
coordination
mechansim
Resolution of sector
issues and concerns
Quarterly 2010-2015 DOH Inter-Agency TF
members, DILG,
DENR, DPWH,
LWUA, DepED,
LEAGUES, DBM,
OP
(15pax*1,500)* 4qtrs)* 6 events
= P540,000.00
OUTPUT 1.4 Localized policies, plans and programs within the framework of the national policies
1. Conduct consultation
workshops with
LGUs on new
policies to enable
LGUs to formulate
and implement
local policies and
ordinances on
sanitation related
activities in line with
the national policies.
Awareness of LGUs to
new policy changes
2010-2015 DOH Inter-Agency TF
members, DILG,
DENR, DPWH,
LWUA, DepED,
LEAGUES, DBM,
OP
Facilitators:
((8,000RT+3,000DSA &
Transpo.)* 5Facilitators)* 13
Regions)*6yrs
= P 4.49M
One Day Meeting:
((30pax*1,500)* 13
Regions)*6yrs
= P 3.50M
Total= P 7.99M
2. Conduct Sanitation
planning workshops
at LGU level
National Sanitation
programs integrated
with LGU
implementation plans
Jan 2012,
Jan 2013,
Jan 2014,
Jan 2015
DOH, DILG LGUs Facilitators:
((8,000RT+3,000DSA &
Transpo.)* 5Facilitators)* 13
Regions)*6yrs
= P 4.49M
One Day Meeting:
((30pax*1,500)* 13
Regions)*6yrs
= P 3.50M
Total= P 7.99M
Total Investment Requirement for Outcome 1 for 6 years: P30,050,000
# $ % & % ' ' % ( ) * + , - . % ( . / & ) * . ( % - . - % 0 ( 1 0 . 2 3 . '85
ACTIVITY MILESTONE TIMELINE DRIVER SUPPORTINVESTMENT
REQUIREMENTS
Outcome 2: Improved Service Delivery through Communication and Capacity Development
OUTPUT 2.1 An integrated and decentralized Capacity Development System for different types of implementer and situations.
2.1.1 Assess the existing materials on capacity development and update them if needed 1
Gather the guidelines, toolkits, other materials and experiences avaialble on sanitation communications, technology options, management models
Mar-10 DILG DOH, DAR, DENR, MDFO, DSWD, NGOs, LGA
Coordination meetings: P300,000
Inventory and Assessment of materials: P150,000
2.1.2 Develop offi cial guidelines and management models and technology options for LGUs on PIME
Guidelines, management tools & techno options developed and approved
Sep-10 DILG DOH, DAR, DENR, MDFO, DSWD, NGOs, LGA
3,500,000
2.1.3 Enhance package for LCEs 2 Briefi ng/orientation kits for LCEs developed
Sep-10 DILG LCP, LMP,LPP 4,500,000
LCE Briefi ng Commencing Oct-10
DILG/LGA
2.1.4 Enhance package for PPDCs/
MPDCs
Training of PPDCs (82)/MPDCs (?), 17 regional trainings
Commencing Nov 2010
DILG/LGA DOH, DAR, DENR, MDFO, DSWD, NGOs, LGA
21,000,000
2.1.5 Formulate the Cap Dev Programa Cap Dev program developed
Sep-10
OUTPUT 2.2 Benchmarks on LGU performance and best practice established.
2.2.1 Establish the performance indicators
for LGUs and service providers 3
Performance indicators developed for LGUs
Sep-10 DILG/DOH LCP, LMP,LPP 5,800,000
2.2.2 Establish benchmarks of LGU or
service provider performance
Benchmarking system developed (including questionnaire, pilot testing)
Dec 2010 - Aug 2016
DILG/DOH LCP, LMP,LPP 5,000,000
OUTPUT 2.3 Stakeholders mobilized in promoting sustainable sanitation concepts, practice and behavior. change.
2.3.1 Identify core-group representing
various capacity development
providers and targets: Professional
groups, Academe, national agencies,
civic societies and aligning sub-
groups of similar function
Sanitation Cap Devt practitioners organized
Jun-10 DOH, PEN DAR, DENR, MDFO, DSWD, NGOs, LGA
1,500,000
National Conference of CD Practitioners
Jun-10 DOH, PEN DAR, DENR, MDFO, DSWD, NGOs, LGA
5,000,000
2.3.2 Train at least one Barangay sanitation volunteer per barangay
Program developed for Barangay sanitation volunteers training:Target from 40000 barangays
Commencing Sept 2010
DILG DAR, DENR, MDFO, DSWD, NGOs, LGA, participants of National Conference
P500*40,000 = 20,000,000
2.3.3 Develop a social marketing program for sanitation professionals;
Social Marketing Plan Jan-10 PSSE/MIT Sanitary Inspector’s Association of the Philippines (SIAP),NGOs
150,000
2.3.4 Explore how to re-engineer thTe sanitary engineering curriculum
Open University for SEs, Sanitarians
Jun-11 PSSE/MIT SIAP,NGOs 300,000
2.3.5 Support the proposed Institute of Water by LGA
LGA has set up the Institute for Water and Sanitation.
Jan 2011 LGA DOH, DILG,NGOs, 500,000
OUTPUT 2.4 Research and Development Agenda towards sustainable sanitation solutions and policy reforms.
2.4.1 Develop research and development agenda
List of R and D priorities Sep-10 DILG DOH, DAR, DENR, MDFO, DSWD, NGOs, LGA,DA,DOF
7,750,000
2.4.2 Prepare research and development program
R and D proposals developed
OUTPUT 2.5 Institutionalized Monitoring and Evaluation of the sector.
2.5.1 Develop Sanitation Monitoring and
Evaluation System
System developed Apr-10 DILG/DOH consultant 2,000,000
2.5.2 Prepare recurrent water and
sanitation Sector Report
2009 Sector Report Apr-10 DILG/DOH NGOs,LGUs, LWUA,,NWRB,NEDA,
2,000,000
2.5.3 Establish a web-based database that
includes the indicators collected for
the sector assessment
web-based database Dec-11 DILG link to NWRB web-based portal/DILG KM portal
2,500,000
864 5 6 7 6 8 8 6 9 : ; < = > ? 6 9 ? @ 7 : ; ? 9 6 > ? > 6 A 9 B A ? C D ? 8
ACTIVITY MILESTONE TIMELINE DRIVER SUPPORTINVESTMENT
REQUIREMENTS
OUTPUT 2.6 National and local communication plans for sustainable sanitation and hygiene in place.
2.6.1 Conduct workshops /
writeshops on awareness,
attitude and practices of
the people on health and
sustainable sanitation
National Communication
Plan on sustainable sanitation
developed
2010-2016 DOH 4,000,000
2.6.2 Print multi-media materials to
support the communication
plan on sustainable sanitation
Information, Communication,
Education and Motivation
materials developed
September
– December
DOH 10,000,000
Total Indicative Investment requirements for Outcome 2 95,800,150
ACTIVITY MILESTONE TIMELINE DRIVER SUPPORTINVESTMENT
REQUIREMENTS
Outcome 3: Strengthened Strategic Alliances
Output 3.1 Strong and active national multi-sector support group that will advocate, lead and advance sustainable sanitation policies, plans,
programs and activities
3.1.1 Support and strengthen the
Philippine Ecosan Network
(PEN) and the Philippine
Development Forum-Task
Force on Water Supply and
Sanitation (PDF-TF WSS) so it
can continue to act as platform
for policy and program
advocacy, coordination,
harmonization and greater
synergy among the Champions
and partners.
Strategic planning for PEN
conducted
(Back-to-Back with National
Conference for Sanitation CD
Practitioners)
Month 06 (June
2010)
PEN DOH, PEN
members
500,000
3.1.2 Identify and gather information
on experts, champions,
organizations, institutions
and stakeholder groups in
sanitation at the national and
local levels
Inventory of experts and
champions in all relevant
sectors
Month 12 (Dec
2010)
PEN, DOH,
DILG
DepEd, NCIP,
Offi ce of
Muslim Affairs,
NGOs, Leagues
(B/M/C/P),
Academe, media
500,000
3.1.3 Conduct regular dialogues,
fora and conventions among
sustainable sanitation,
champions, decision maker,
legislators, practitioners,
advocates at different levels
and sectors to promote
sustainable sanitation
Annual Conference on
Sustainable Sanitation.
Use the PEN website to
create a web-based National
Sanitation Events Calendar
and data base of resource
materials
Month 10
Month 22
Month 34
Month 46
Month 58
Month 70
PEN, DOH,
DILG
Donors and
other agencies
1,000,000
1,100,000
1,300,000
1,500,000
1,700,000
2,000,000
OUTPUT 3.2 Clear mechanisms for collaboration in knowledge sharing, education, and human resource pooling for awareness and knowledge building
3.2.1 Develop, support and
strengthen consortia in the
academic, research and training
sectors to institutionalize
dissemination of new
knowledge on sustainable
sanitation.
Academic and Training
consortium organized.
Month 04 (April
2010)
CAPS, PEN, DOH, DAP, 2,500,000
Campaign Alliance
established.
3.2.2 Develop/enhance sustainable
sanitation curricula and
information materials for
publication and dissemination
Training modules developed.
Campaign/IEC materials/
messages developed.
Month 06 (June
2010)
CAPS, PEN,
Academic
consortium
DOH, DAP,
LGA, Academe,
donors
2,500,000
3.2.3 Conduct regular skills
upgrading training for Sanitary
Inspectors and Sanitary
Engineers
Training sessions conducted. Month 10
(October 2010)
onward to 2016
DOH, Academe,
PSSE,PEN
DOH, DAP,
LGA, Academe,
donors
10,000,000
Pool of experts, trainors,
presenters and other resource
person identifi ed and
mobilized
E F G H G I I G J K L M N O P G J P Q H K L P J G O P O G R J S R P T U P I87
ACTIVITY MILESTONE TIMELINE DRIVER SUPPORTINVESTMENT
REQUIREMENT
Financing and Adequate Infrastructure Investments
OUTPUT 4.1 Prioritized intervention in highly vulnerable areas that are seriously affected by the lack of sanitation
4.1.1 Inventory, Identifi cation and mapping of vulnerable areas
Vulnerable areas inventoried, identifi ed and mapped
January 2010 - December 2011
DILG Leagues/ NSCB/ DENR/ LLDA/ DOT/ DEPED/ NCIP/ NAPC/ Academe/ NGOs
25,000,000
Database developed 10,500,000
Prioritization guidelines developed
500,000
OUTPUT 4.2 Develop fi nancing strategies and incentive schemes for sustainable infrastructure development
4.2.1 Study on sanitation tariff methodologies, cost recovery schemes, subsidies and incentives
Sanitation tariff methodology developed
July 2010 - June 2011
NEDA DILG/ DOH/ DOf/ LGUs
2,500,000
Cost recovery schemes developed
Package of incentives developed
4.2.2 Tracking of sanitation funds and fees collected and disbursed by LGUs
Tracking of sanitation funds and fees completed in pilot areas
March 2010 - February 2011
DILG LGUs down to barangay level
1,800,000
4.2.3 Study on development of proposed fi nancing models
Models developed and pre-tested in pilot areas
July 2010 - June 2011
NEDA DOH/ DOf/ DILG/ donors
2,500,000
4.2.4 Proposals for funding including research and development (i. e. low cost sanitation solutions for the poor), capacity development and institution building
Initial discussions/dialogues with potential funders, i. e. GFIs, foreign-funding institutions, etc.
January 2010 - June 2016
DOH or identifi ed lead agency
DILG/ GFIs/ NEDA/ LWUA/ DOST
6,000,000
Proposals prepared and submitted
Initial commitment from potential funders obtained
4.2.5 Study on pro-poor cost of sanitation technology approaches
Pro-poor technologies identifi ed and evaluated
January 2011 - December 2012
DOH DILG/ NAPC/ LWUA/ LGUs/ NGOs/ Academe/ NCIP/ DENR/ DPWH
1,500,000
Financial costings/project feasibilities prepared
4.2.6 Study on pro-poor sustainable fi nancing schemes
Pro-poor sustainable fi nancing models developed and pre-tested
April 2010 - March 2011
NEDA/ DOH NAPC/ LGUs/ DOf/ DBM/ GFIs/ DFA
1,500,000
Guidelines developed and disseminated to stakeholders
Identifi ed LGUs with commitment to implement pro-poor sanitation projects targetting 5-10% of the 23% without access to sanitation services
3.2.4 Establish strong links with international knowledge centers, knowledge eschange and training.
website links established; network built
Month 1 onwards
PEN Secretariat
ACTIVITY MILESTONE TIMELINE DRIVER SUPPORT BUDGET (P,000)
Output 3.3: A strong alliance of sanitation service providers at the national and local levels
3.3.1. Develop a database on all sanitation service providers
Directory of service providers Month 06 (June 2010)
DOH PEN, LWUA, MWSS, DTI
P400,000
3.3.2 Organize regular fora, dialogues, seminars and workshops among sanitation service providers for sustainable sanitation.
A program of action for alliance building of sanitation service providers
Month 11 (November 2010)
Philippine Water Alliance and other private sector groups and cooperatives
LWUA, MWSS, NAWASA DOH, DILG, PEN,
P600,000
3.3.3 Facilitate professionalizing and development of sanitation service provider sector
A program of action to professionalize and develop the sanitation service provider sector
Month 13 (January 2011)
Philippine Water Alliance and other private sector groups and cooperatives
DOH, DILG, PDF-TF WSS, DOf, PEN
P1,000,000
Total Investment Requirements for Outcome 3 for six years 26,600,000
88V W X Y X Z Z X [ \ ] ^ _ ` a X [ a b Y \ ] a [ X ` a ` X c [ d c a e f a Z
4.2.7 Provision of incentives for toilet construction including hygiene promotion and capacity building in order to meet the MDG on sanitation
LGUs identifi ed with pro-poor sanitation funding available
Trigger construction of 3.8 million toilets through hygiene promotion and social marketing and PPP
Capacity building modules developed and implemented
January 2010 to December 2016
DOH/DILG LGUs/NAPC/NICP/PEN/DOF,DBM
26,163,000,000*
ACTIVITY MILESTONE TIMELINE DRIVER SUPPORTINVESTMENT
REQUIREMENT
4.2.8 Push for the implementation of the national sewerage and septage program
55 septage projects and 6 sewerage projects implemented**
Increase in sanitation coverage in Metro Manila of 56% in 2011 and 85% by 2016***
January 2010 - December 2016
NSSMP Secretariat/ DPWH/MWSS
LWUA/ MWSS/ Concessionaires/ MMDA/ DOH/ LGUs/ DENR/ DEPED-CHED
8,996,684,000**
52,000,000,000***
OUTPUT 4.3 Establish/Enhance PPPs and sanitation entrepreneurship
4.3.1 Develop IEC/social marketing plan for the promotion of sanitation entrepreneurship
Social marketing plan developed/ promoted
January 2011 - December 2013
DOH or lead agency
DTI/ CDA/ NGOs/ academe
2,500,000
4.3.2 Conduct a study to document PPP in sanitation service provision
PPP models documented and enhanced for implementation
Dec 2013 DOF DOH/ LGU/ NEDA/ DTI/ NGOs/ PCCI/ private sector representatives
1,500,000
OUTPUT 4.4 A well-established national account for sanitation
4.4.1 A study on the development of the national account for sanitation
Study commissioned Dec 2010 DOH DBM 2,500,000
4.4.2 Advocacy work to institutionalize a national account for sanitation.
Separate national account for sanitation
Budget for 2011 DOH PEN,NGAs 500,000
OUTPUT 4.5 Identifying investment requirements to meet the MDG and MTPDP targets
4.5.1 Preparation f MDG and MTPDP based sanitationplanning including its annual updating.
Report prepared annually every March of each year from 2010 to 2016
DOH/NEDA PEN/NGAs 300,000
Total investment required for Outcome 4 for six years: 87,193,784,000
Explanatory note on the budget:
* for the targeting of toilet to be constructed, DOH 2008 data was used as basis for determining those without access to sanitary toilet; the average annual estimated toilets to be constructed is 646,000; Unit cost used was P6,750 broken down as incentive of P5,000 for actual toilet construction; P750 for hygiene promotion and P1,000 for capacity building. Of the estimated budget, NHA budget allocation of P1,541 B for construction of houses with sanitary toilets is considered.
** All NSSMP data used were provided by the NSSMP secretariat and derived from the NSSMP draft document which is currently under review
*** data used were sourced from the 2 MWSS concessionnaires, CAPEX budget
g h i j i k k i l m n o p q r i l r s j m n r l i q r q i t l u t r v w r k89
ACTIVITY MILESTONE TIMELINE DRIVER SUPPORTINVESTMENT
REQUIREMENT
Outcome 5: Adequate sanitation and hygiene promotion is mainstreamed in emergency response
OUTPUT 5.1 Sourcebook and tool kit appropriate approaches for different situations
5.1.1 Inventory and identifi cation of appropriate sanitation approaches for emergency situations
Toolkits and sourcebooks on appropriate sanitation approaches for emergency situations such as typhoon, fl ooding, landslides, earthquake and other natural calamities
January 2010 - June, 2010
DOH DILG, NDCC, LGUs
750,000
Production and distribution of toolkits to target benifi cairies
Jan 2011 - Dec 2012 DOH DILG, LGUs 1,500,000
Piloting appropriate sanitation approaches in resettlement areas and evacuation camps
July 2010- Dec 2010 DOH NDCC.DILG, LGU, NGO
2,000,000
5.1.2 Capacity Development on use of toolkit
Training conducted October 2010 to May 2016
DOH/PEN 5,000,000
5.1.3 Conduct of R and D on approapriate design of WASH for emergency situation
Design of WASH facilities for emergency situation and stockpiling
Jan 2012- Dec 2015 DOH NDCC.DILG, LGU, NGO
6,500,000
OUTPUT 5.2 Integration of emergency sanitation in disaster and risk reduction plans at all levels
5.2.1 Review of disaster preparedness plans
Recommendations on how to integrate sanitation in relief and rehab operations of government and non-government organizations
October 2010 DOH/PEN/NDCC PEN/NGA/LGUs
5,000,000
5.2.2 Development of Policy guidelines
Policy guidelines approved
December 2010 DOH/NDRC
OUTPUT 5.3 Building partnerships for quick mobilization of logistics for sanitation in emergency situations
5.3.1 Coordination mechanisms at national to municipal level established including capacity building
A strong network capable of emergency sanitatin repsonse established
December 2010 to June 2016
NDRC/DOH Wash Cluster
LGUs/PEN/NGAs
5,000,000
Total Investment Requirement for Outcome 5 for six years 25,750,000
90x y z { z | | z } ~ � � � � � z } � � { ~ � � } z � � � z � } � � � � � � |
4.5 INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE SANITATION SECTOR
Table 9 shows that the most immediate needs of the sanitation sector for the 6 years action plan requires an indicative estimated budget of about PhP 87 Billion The amount is allocated to the
following outcome areas:
Table 9: Summary of Investment Requirements for 2010-2016
Responsive Governance and Regulatory Strengthening for the sanitation sector 30,050,000
Improved Service Delivery through Communications and Capacity Development 95,800,150
Strengthening of strategic alliance 26,600,000
Financing Sanitation investments and infrastructure development 87,193,784,000
Adequate Sanitation for emergency situations 25,750,000
Grand Total for the 5 outcome areas:PHP 87,371,984,150
The budgetary needs for sanitation is quite substantial mainly because the country has to develop more systems to address the infrastructure, human resource and communications requirements. Sanitation budgets is traditionally non existing, thus, the need to provide budgets so that starting 2010 the country could implement a catch up plan to meet the MDG targets on a sustainable
manner.
PROVIDING SANITATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND INVESTMENT TO MEET
THE MDGS
Under the approved Philippine Sustainable Sanitation Roadmap, a strong and vibrant sanitation sector is expected to emerge with strong investment and infrastructure support. For this purpose, the national government is required to support the investment requirements to meet the MDG commitment of ensuring that 84% of the total households have access to sanitation While government may not have the total budget required to achieve this feat, it can embark on various innovative strategies to trigger household level investments and private sector contribution.
From 2010 to 2016, it is estimated that 3,876,000 households need to be assisted to have their own toilets. This is translated to about 646,000 toilets annually for the next 6 years. If each of the 46,000 barangays will target 15 households per year, then the objective is achievable. The estimate of cost of a minimum amount of about P5,000 per toilet can be provided by the households themselves. Funds can come from micro-fi nancing schemes or attractive incentive packages.
Where should the sanitation fund come from? Clearly, there are three broad possible sources for the provision of sanitation goods and services:
1. Public funds fl owing through the national or local government and raised through general taxation, public borrowing and overseas development assistance
2. Private funds fl owing directly between benefi ciary households and service providers
3. Semi public/ charitable funds fl owing in the form of payments made to communities, households or service providers by donors, foundations and other non government organizations.
This budget includes private sector contribution estimated at about 50% of fi nancing investments. This includes household level contribution for toilet construction. The NHA have allocated funds to provide toilets for about 400,000 households. The private concessionaires of MWSS is expected to collectively contribute about P 13.6 Billion by 2012. The LGUs are also expected to cover at least 25% of the costs of infrastructure investments from their IRA and sanitation fees. National government agencies like the DOH who have regular budgets for communication and health advocacies is expected to contribute to the fund. ODA funds are expected to cover the costs of
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �91
the proposed studies and provide access to soft loans that LGUs, WDs and private providers can access.
For the government to provide the much needed budgetary requirements for sanitation, the following strategies and schemes are being proposed:
• National government fi nancing – national government to provide a distinct line item budget as part of the General Appropriation Act (GAA) for agencies with sanitation mandate such as DOH, DILG, DPWH, and DENR
• Allocating part of the LGU Internal Revenue Allocation for local sanitation programs of the LGU. Whenever applicable, these can also be used by LGU to leverage for sanitation funding from the national government. This can be accessed for building wastewater treatment plant sewerage plants and even toilets at the household levels
• Government and private sector partnership in fi nancing sanitation - this can be in the form of guaranteed fi nancing where private sector may be encouraged to allocate part of their Company Social Responsibility funds for sanitation to be matched by the national or local government
• Microfi nancing schemes wherein private and NGOs may jointly provide funding/loans for household toilet construction with affordable interest rates.
• Congressional allocation for sanitation wherein portion of the pork barrel will be allocated for sanitation infrastructure development ranging from septage and sewerage treatment plants, communal and household toilets
4.6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MTPDP 2010-2016
The following specifi c recommendations are highlighted as proposals for inclusion in the 2010-2016 MTPDP:
Specifi c Recommendations for the MTPDP 2010-2016 include the following:
1. Preparation of the National Policy document on Sanitation
2. MDG Sanitation targets included in the 2010-2016 MTPDP and MTPIP
3. Local Sanitation targets integrated in all LGU development plans
4. Improved sanitation coverage in priority cities/province by 50% (from 14 areas having below than 50% coverage to 7 cities/provinces)
• Safe and adequate sanitation solutions for the 23 million Filipinos without access to improved sanitation facilities located in poor rural and peri-urban areas. Priority to the top 13 “Unsanitary Cities/Municipalities”
• Health and Hygiene Promotion in place in communities and schools.
5. Sanitation Investment Plans in the National and Local Investment Plans for Health
• Sewerage and or septage management in 57 highly urbanized cities in place
• Local Sustainable Sanitation Plans developed with budgets
6. Pro-poor Sanitation Fund refl ected in the regular GAA under the National Social Fund
7. A national sustainable sanitation communications plan implemented
8. Sanitation fully integrated in all policy instruments and communications plans of other sectors.
9. A national account for sanitation is established.
10. Enactment of the National Sanitation Act that supercedes the 1976 Sanitation Code of the Philippines.
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS
� � � � � � � � � ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ � � ¥ ¦ � ¡ ¥ � � ¤ ¥ ¤ � § � ¨ § ¥ © ª ¥ �93
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS
The Roadmap brings together institutions from government, civil society, and the private sector engaged
in sanitation-related activities in order to establish coherence, pool resources and promote coordination
and collaboration within a constrained institutional environment. The institutional arrangement represents
pooled coordination of various institutions in government that considers their existing mandates, roles and
functions in the development of the sector.
5.1 General Oversight and Guidance
The overarching policy parameters guiding the Roadmap implementation shall be the government’s
adoption of the MDGs and current strategic directions outlined in the 2004-2010 MTPDP and
the MTPIP.
The general oversight, overall policy guidance and steering of the Roadmap shall be exercised
by the NEDA Board through the Sub-Committee on Water Resources (SCWR) of the NEDA
Infrastructure Committee (INFRACOM). The INFRACOM-SCWR shall be assisted by a
Secretariat composed of representatives from NEDA INFRACOM Staff and the NWRB.
5.2 Management and Supervision
The implementation of the Sanitation Roadmap shall be managed and supervised by the SCWR
through a Sub- sub-committee on sanitation, which shall be created through a NEDA Board
Resolution. Figure 5.1 shows the Proposed Implementation Structure of the Roadmap.
The core members of the SCWR shall be composed of the following:
The Assistant Director-General, National Development Offi ce – National
Economic and Development Authority (NEDA)
Chairperson
National Water Resources Board (NWRB) Co-Chair
Department of Finance (DOF) Member
Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Member
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Member
Department of Health (DOH) Member
Department of Agriculture (DA) Member
Department of Energy (DOE) Member
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Member
Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) Member
Department of Justice (DOJ) Member
Department of Tourism (DOT) Member
Offi ce of the President – Executive Secretary (OP) Member
University of the Philippines – National Hydraulics Research Center (UP-NHRC) Member
Department of Interior and Local Governments ( DILG) Member
Philippine Water Partnership (PWP) Member
94« ¬ ® ¯ ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ ° ¶ · ® ± ² ¶ ° µ ¶ µ ¸ ° ¹ ¸ ¶ º » ¶ ¯
The membership of the SCWR Sub committee on sanitation may be expandable to include
representatives from the different sanitation-related agencies on the basis of sector focus such as:
Table 10. Sanitation Sub-sector Members
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) Member
Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) Member
National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) Member
National Water and Sanitation Association of the Philippines (NAWASA) Member
Department of Social Work and Development (DSWD) Member
Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) Member
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Member
League of Provinces of the Philippines (LPP) Member
League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) Member
League of Municipalities of the Philippines (LMP) Member
Department of Education ( DepED) Member
Department of Tourism (DOT)) Member
National Housing Authority (NHA)) Member
The DOH has agreed to be the lead driver for sanitation. In particular, the Environmental and
Occupational Health Offi ce (EOHO) will lead the sub committee on sanitation of the NEDA
INFRACOM-SCWR. The EOHO is currently one of the offi ces under the National Center for
Disease Prevention and Control (NCDPC) which is coordinated under the Health Policy and
Service Delivery Team ( PSDT) of the DOH. Other DOH units expected to contribute are the
Health Policy Planing Bureau, The National Center for Health Promotion, the Bureau of Local
Health Development and the National Epidemiology Center.
The DOH is currently mobilizing inter-agency support for Environmental Health through the
Inter-agency Committee on Environmental Health ( IACEH). The members of the sectoral Task
Force on Sanitation of the IACEH will all be members of hte Sanitation Sub-sommittee of the
SCWR.
Duties and Functions
The SCWR shall have the following duties and functions:
a) Ensure that the direction set for the sector is carried out in accordance with the Roadmap;
b) Coordinate sector monitoring as well as the conduct of periodic review, evaluation and
assessment of the sector, e.g., extent and status of the implementation of programs/activities
identifi ed in the Roadmap, deviation of actual performance from programmed targets, problem
areas encountered in program implementation;
c) Coordinate and/or advise the conduct of studies, researchers and policy analyses on various
aspects of the sector and make subsequent policy recommendations to the NEDA Board
through the INFRACOM;
d) Formulate areas of cooperation and coordination among the various agencies and
instrumentalities of the government involved in the sector programs and projects to avoid
duplication of efforts;
e) Serve as clearinghouse of sector information; and
¼ ½ ¾ ¿ ¾ À À ¾ Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ Ç ¾ Á Ç È ¿ Â Ã Ç Á ¾ Æ Ç Æ ¾ É Á Ê É Ç Ë Ì Ç À95
f) Serve as a forum/platform for the discussion and resolution of arising issues in the sector.
Meetings
The SCWR shall hold quarterly meetings upon notice issued by the Chairperson. Special and/or
emergency meetings may be held at the motion of any member submitted to the Chairperson
provided that such is certifi ed by a majority of the members through a referendum.
Decision-making
The Sub-Committee shall aim to build consensus in all its major decisions. In cases where divergence
of opinions regarding decision points would require a vote, the decision/s shall be made through
a simple majority (50%+1) of all members present. To facilitate decision-making, all the necessary
information shall be provided by the Secretariat to the SCWR members prior to the meeting.
Quorum
Quarterly meetings of the SCWR shall observe a quorum. Quorum shall be defi ned as majority
(i.e., 50%+1) f the core members including majority (i.e., 50%+1) of the agencies identifi ed per
sub-sector (i.e., water supply, sewerage and sanitation, irrigation, fl ood and hazard mitigation and
water resources management).
Secretariat Services
The designated representatives of the NEDA-INFRACOM Staff and of the NWRB shall provide
the necessary secretariat services to the SCWR.
All heads of departments, bureaus, offi ces and instrumentalities of the government shall also be
requested to extend full cooperation and assistance to the SCWR to ensure the accomplishment
of its tasks.
The SCWR may also create technical working groups (TWGs) as may be necessary for the purpose
of discharging its functions.
Tenure
The NEDA Board Resolution shall determine the length of tenure of the SCWR and the level of
representation from each concerned agency or institution. It is proposed that each SCWR term
shall be for an initial period of six (6) years in line with duration of the MTPDP and its long-term
tenure shall be for a period until year 2025 in line with the Roadmap’s vision.
A mandatory review shall be conducted in year 2015.
96Í Î Ï Ð Ï Ñ Ñ Ï Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö × Ø Ï Ò Ø Ù Ð Ó Ô Ø Ò Ï × Ø × Ï Ú Ò Û Ú Ø Ü Ý Ø Ñ
FIGURE 5
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION STRUCTURE
5.3 PROJECTS EXECUTION
The specifi c targets outlined in the medium-term plans and annual operational plans shall be executed
by the respective agencies and institutions according to their mandates, roles, functions, resources
and areas of competence. Where projects require stronger coordination and collaboration, inter-
agency arrangements or GO-NGO-PO mechanisms shall be established for the purpose. Sanitation
projects shall be implemented by sanitation service providers such as water districts, LGUs, local
water and/or sanitation associations and cooperatives, small sanitation service providers, private
concessionaires and NGOs through donor-funded programs.
Agencies and institutions involved in the provision of enabling environments (related to policy and
law, capacity development, fi nancing, education, advocacy, public information et al) are expected
to align their individual projects to the medium-term strategies and annual operational plans of
the Roadmap.
5.4 FRAMEWORK OF COLLABORATION
The various stakeholders of the sanitation sector may be grouped according to their specifi c roles
as providers of an enabling environment, service providers and users as illustrated in Figure 6.
Þ ß à á à â â à ã ä å æ ç è é à ã é ê á ä å é ã à è é è à ë ã ì ë é í î é â97
FIGURE 6
FRAMEWORK OF COLLABORATIONï ð ñ ò ó ô õ ö ÷ ø ù ú ð ö ûü ý þ ÿ � þ � � � þ � � � � � � � � � þ � � � þ ý ü � � ü � ý � � � þ ý � ý þ � � ý þ� � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � �ü ý þ ÿ � þ � � � þ � � � þ ý ü � þ � � �ü � � � � ý þ � ÿ � � � � � � � � � � ÿ �ü � � �� � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � �� ý þ � ÿ � þ ÿ � þ � � þ � þ ÿ � þ � � � ü � ÿ �ü þ � � � � � � ý � ý ÿ � � ü � � � � � � � � ü � �ÿ ÿ þ ý � ý � ü � � � � � ý ü � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � !� � � " � # � � $þ � � � ü � � � � � � ÿ �� � � � ý � � � ÿ � � % � & � � ý �þ ý ü � � � � �
' ( ) * + , -. / 0 1 2 , , 2 , - 3 * + ) * + , -4 5 6 , - 7 8 ( 9 + 8 + 9 0 (7 2 / : 9 1 2 . / 0 : 9 ; 2 / , -< 8 + 2 / = 9 , + / 9 1 + , - . / 9 : 8 + 27 2 1 + 0 / - . / 0 : 9 ; 2 / ,
5.5 MECHANISMS AND PROCESSES
5.5.1. Oversight Mechanisms. The main oversight mechanisms of the sanitation sector and of
the Roadmap shall be the existing institutions mandated for the purpose as defi ned in the
SCWR Organizational Structure (Figure 5) and the Framework of Collaboration (Figure
6). The added value of the Roadmap is the recognition of the oversight role of non-state
bodies such as civil society and the media. In implementing the Roadmap, there may be
instances where collaborative mechanisms shall be established for specifi c functions.
5.5.2. Support Mechanisms. The Roadmap implementation shall utilize existing support
mechanisms through agencies such as the CDA, NAPC, DAR, NIA, MMDA, DSWD, PWP,
PEN, government and private fi nancing institutions, donors, NGOs, research institutions
and the academe.
5.5.3. Legislative and Policy Development Mechanisms. While the Roadmap implementation shall
operate within existing legal and policy settings and mechanisms, it shall also propose policy
and legislative reforms through existing lawmaking institutions such as the Congress and
LGU-level legislative bodies as well as policymaking institutions such as the NEDA, NWRB,
DILG, LGU, DOF and DENR.
5.5.4. Regulatory Mechanisms. The regulation of various activities of sanitation service providers
and users in the sanitation sector is currently shared by the NWRB, LWUA, DOH, DENR,
MWSS-RO, contracted regulatory offi ces and the judiciary. The Roadmap implementation
shall seek policy and legal reforms leading to harmonization of the economic regulatory
framework. One major reform objective is the decentralization of sanitation regulatory
functions and the possible deputization of the regional offi ces and/or the LGUs for
undertaking regulatory functions at the local level.
98 > ? @ A @ B B @ C D E F G H I @ C I J A D E I C @ H I H @ K C L K I M N I B
5.5.5. Donor Coordination Mechanisms. The Paris Declaration of 2005 has advocated for
harmonization and closer coordination among donors. At the national level the Philippine
Development Forum (PDF) acts as a platform for policy dialogue among the government,
donor countries and agencies and other development partners. The SCWR can coordinate
and collaborate with relevant PDF Working Groups on topics and activities related to the
MDGs and Social Progress, Growth and Investments and Sustainable Rural Development
and Infrastructure.
5.5.6. Consultative Mechanisms. The Roadmap upholds the IWRM framework which promotes
multi-stakeholder consultations. Roadmap implementers shall establish consultative
mechanisms (e.g., annual exhibits and symposia) and shall promote the establishment of
local consultative mechanisms.
5.5.7. Monitoring and Evaluation. This Roadmap adopts the Results-Based Monitoring and
Evaluation Framework and its accompanying tools and mechanisms. The RBME results
shall feed into assessment and planning activities and public information. Periodically,
independent external evaluators shall be tapped by the SCWR by individual implementing
agencies.
5.5.8. Feedback. The SCWR shall maintain the KM Portal through a KM Portal Task Group
headed by the NWRB. The Portal shall serve as a platform for interactive feedback and
interaction between the various stakeholders of the sector. Individual implementing agencies
and service providers shall also establish appropriate platforms for feedback.
6.0 RESULTS-BASED MONITORING AND EVALUATION
O P Q R Q S S Q T U V W X Y Z Q T Z [ R U V Z T Q Y Z Y Q \ T ] \ Z ^ _ Z S101
6.0 RESULTS-BASED MONITORING AND
EVALUATION
The Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation (RBME) System is integral to the sector institutions
inasmuch as its related activities are integrated into the annual plans and other work plans of the
organizations involved in the sector.
The central RBME function shall be lodged at the SCWR. Monitoring activities and evaluations
shall be decentralized to the national implementing agencies, local government units and SSPs levels
based on the Roadmap’s central monitoring and evaluation plan. Each implementing agency, LGU
and SSPs shall be encouraged to set up RBME units or designate specialized RBME personnel.
The SCWR shall also create its own RBME TWG or unit.
The Roadmap Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for 2010-2013 are shown in Tables 11 and 12. The
Detailed Evaluation Plan Matrix in Table 11 outlines the requisite sector-wide summative evaluation,
optional ex-ante evaluation of selected projects, mid-term evaluation of selected projects and end-
program thematic evaluation on compelling policy issues to evaluate the achievement of 2016
goals. Although the matrix outlines only the indicators of goal attainment, the evaluation shall
examine the vertical logic and shall, therefore, cover an assessment of the outputs and outcomes
according to pre-agreed evaluation criteria and guidelines.
102 ` a b c b d d b e f g h i j k b e k l c f g k e b j k j b m e n m k o p k d
q r s t u s v w x y x z{ | } ~ � x s t� � � w � r � � � y v � � � � � �� y � w � s v x � � � � v s w t � � � � � � � w � v w x y x z� y � w � s v x � � � s � � t w y � s y �� s � � � v � s t u �� { | | � � � s v s � x u � � � � � x � s t w v � s y �� w � w y � � � � y � �� � � � x y � w � t �
����������� ¡������� ��� ���¢£���
¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ ¨ § © ¦ ª « ¬ ¬ § ¦ ¨ ® ¯ ° ¥ ¨ ® ± § ¦ ¥ ¬ ¬² © ¬ § ³ § ¦ ´ ¨ ° « µ ® ¦ ¨ ´ ¥ ¦ ±³ © µ µ « ¦ § ³ ¥ ¨ § © ¦ ´² ¬ ¥ ¦ ´ © ª © ¨ ¶ ® °´ ® ³ ¨ © ° ´ · ° ® ² ¥ ° ¥ ¨ § © ¦ © ª ¨ ¶ ® ¸ ¥ ¨ § © ¦ ¥ ¬· © ¬ § ³ ± © ³ « µ ® ¦ ¨ © ¦¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ ¨ § © ¦¹ ¦ ¥ ¨ § © ¦ ¥ ¬ ´ « ´ ¨ ¥ § ¦ ¥ º ¬ ®´ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ ¨ § © ¦ ³ © µ µ « ¦ § ³ ¥ ¨ § © ¦ ´² ¬ ¥ ¦ § µ ² ¬ ® µ ® ¦ ¨ ® ±» ¦ ¥ ³ ¨ µ ® ¦ ¨ © ª ¨ ¶ ® ¸ ¥ ¨ § © ¦ ¥ ¬¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ ¨ § © ¦ ¹ ³ ¨ ¨ ¶ ¥ ¨´ « ² ® ° ´ ® ± ® ´ ¨ ¶ ® ¼ ½ ¾ ¿¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ ¨ § © ¦ À © ± ® © ª ¨ ¶ ®· ¶ § ¬ § ² ² § ¦ ® ´Á ¹ ¤ »  à ¸ » Ä ´ ¨ § ¬ ¬ ¨ ©º ® ® ´ ¨ ¥ º ¬ § ´ ¶ ® ±Å ¹ Æ Ç » ÅÈ ¹ Â É » ¤ Äà ¦ ³ ° ® ¥ ´ ® § ¦ ¨ ¶ ®¦ « µ º ® ° ¥ ¦ ±ª ° ® Ê « ® ¦ ³ © ª§ ¦ ¨ ® ° ´ ® ³ ¨ © ° ¥ ¬± § ¥ ¬ © ¯ « ® ´¥ ¦ ± Ë © § ¦ ¨ ¥ ³ ¨ § Ì § ¨ § ® ´© ¦ ´ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ ¨ § © ¦· ° § © ° § ¨ ¨ © ¨ ¶ ® ¨ © ²¼ Í Î É ¦ ´ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ ° À § ¨ § ® ´ Ï Ð « ¦ § ³ § ² ¥ ¬ § ¨ §® ´ Ѥ ® Ò ® ° ¥ ¯ ® ¥ ¦ ± Ï © °´ ® ² ¨ ¥ ¯ ®µ ¥ ¦ ¥ ¯ ® µ ® ¦ ¨ § ¦Ó ¾ ¶ § ¯ ¶ ¬ « ° º ¥ ¦ § Ô ® ± ³ § ¨ § ® ´ § ¦² ¬ ¥ ³ ®Õ ® ³ ° ® ¥ ´ ® ±¦ « µ º ® °¥ ¦ ± ª ° ® Ê « ® ¦ ³ © ª ´ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ ¨ § © ¦ Ö° ® ¬ ¥ ¨ ® ± § ¬ ¬ ¦ ® ´ ´ ® ´× © ° µ « ¬ ¥ ¨ § © ¦ © ª¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ ¨ § © ¦ ² © ¬ § ³ § ® ´¥ ¦ ± ² ¬ ¥ ¦ ´ ¥ ¨ ¬ © ³ ¥ ¬¥ ¦ ± ¦ ¥ ¨ § © ¦ ¥ ¬¬ ® Ì ® ¬ ´× © ° ¯ § ¦ ¯ © ª · · ·Ð Ø ¹ ´ ¥ ¦ ± Ð Ø É ´¥ ¨ ¬ © ³ ¥ ¬ ¥ ¦ ±¦ ¥ ¨ § © ¦ ¥ ¬ ¬ ® Ì ® ¬ ´
Õ ¹ Å ¹ ¤ Ø É Æ À » ¤ Ĺ ¦ ¦ « ¥ ¬ µ © ¦ § ¨ © ° § ¦ ¯° ® ² © ° ¨ ´Ð § ± Ö ¨ ® ° µ ° ® Ì § ® Ò° ® ´ « ¬ ¨ ´· ° © Ë ® ³ ¨ ® Ì ¥ ¬ « ¥ ¨ § © ¦° ® ´ « ¬ ¨ ´¸ Ç ¹ Ù Â Ç É Ù Ú ¤ ·± ¥ ¨ ¥ º ¥ ´ ® ´· ¶ § ¬ Ú ¹ Å ¤ ¹ ¸ · © ° ¨ ¥ ¬¸ ¤ Ø ± ¥ ¨ ¥Á ® ¦ ³ ¶ µ ¥ ° Û § ¦ ¯´ ¨ « ± § ® ´Æ ® ¬ ¥ ¨ ® ± ¬ § ¨ ® ° ¥ ¨ « ° ®· ° § µ ¥ ° ± ¥ ¨ ¥ Ü ª ° © µ§ ¦ ¨ ® ° Ì § ® Ò ´ Ù ª © ³ « ´¯ ° © « ² ± § ´ ³ « ´ ´ § © ¦ ´ Ù© ³ « ¬ ¥ ° Ì § ´ § ¨ ´ Ý
¤ ® ³ ¨ © ° Ö Ò § ± ®´ « µ µ ¥ ¨ § Ì ®® Ì ¥ ¬ « ¥ ¨ § © ¦ § ¦Þ ß ¼ à· ° © Ë ® ³ ¨® Ì ¥ ¬ « ¥ ¨ § © ¦ ´ § ¦Þ ß ¼ ÍÅ ¶ ® µ ¥ ¨ § ³® Ì ¥ ¬ « ¥ ¨ § © ¦ § ¦Þ ß ¼ ÍÐ § ± Ö Å ® ° µÆ ® Ì § ® Ò © ª´ ® ¬ ® ³ ¨ ® ±² ° © Ë ® ³ ¨ ´ § ¦ Þ ß ¼ ¼ª © ° § ¦ ¨ ® ° § µ¥ ´ ´ ® ´ ´ µ ® ¦ ¨ © ª© « ¨ ³ © µ ® ´Ø ² ¨ § © ¦ ¥ ¬ ® á Ö ¥ ¦ ¨ ®® Ì ¥ ¬ « ¥ ¨ § © ¦ © ª´ ® ¬ ® ³ ¨ ® ±² ° © Ë ® ³ ¨ ´ § ¦Þ ß ¼ ¼ Ï Þ ß ¼ Þ
Ú ¹ Å ¤ ¹ ¸ ¤ « º ÖÀ © µ µ § ¨ ¨ ® ® © ªÃ ¸ × Æ ¹ À Ø Ð ¨ ©³ © © ° ± § ¦ ¥ ¨ ® © °³ © ¦ ¨ ° ¥ ³ ¨ © « ¨´ « µ µ ¥ ¨ § Ì ®® Ì ¥ ¬ « ¥ ¨ § © ¦ ¥ ¦ ±¨ ¶ ® µ ¥ ¨ § ³® Ì ¥ ¬ « ¥ ¨ § © ¦Ã µ ² ¬ ® µ ® ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¯¥ ¯ ® ¦ ³ § ® ´ ¨ ©³ © © ° ± § ¦ ¥ ¨ ® ² ° © Ë ® ³ ¨® Ì ¥ ¬ « ¥ ¨ § © ¦ ´¸ Ç ¹ ´ Ù Â Ç É ´ ÙÚ ¤ · ´ ¥ ¦ ± ¸ Ç Ø ´¨ © ² ° © Ì § ± ®µ © ¦ § ¨ © ° § ¦ ¯ ± ¥ ¨ ¥Â © ³ ¥ ¬ ¥ ¦ ±¦ ¥ ¨ § © ¦ ¥ ¬´ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ ¨ § © ¦ ² ¬ ¥ ¦ ´¥ ¦ ± º « ± ¯ ® ¨ ´ § ¦² ¬ ¥ ³ ® ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ ¨ § © ¦ ¨ ¥ ° ¯ ® ¨ ´§ ¦ ³ ¬ « ± ® ± § ¦ ¨ ¶ ® Þ ß ¼ ß ÖÞ ß ¼ ¿ Ð Å · Õ · ¥ ¦ ±Ð Å · à ·
 © ³ ¥ ¬ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ ¨ § © ¦¨ ¥ ° ¯ ® ¨ ´ § ¦ ¨ ® ¯ ° ¥ ¨ ® ± § ¦¥ ¬ ¬ Â Ç É ± ® Ì ® ¬ © ² µ ® ¦ ¨² ¬ ¥ ¦ ´
· ° © Ö ² © © ° ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ ¨ § © ¦× « ¦ ± ° ® ª ¬ ® ³ ¨ ® ± § ¦ ¨ ¶ ®° ® ¯ « ¬ ¥ ° Ç ¹ ¹ « ¦ ± ® °¨ ¶ ® ¸ ¥ ¨ § © ¦ ¥ ¬ ¤ © ³ § ¥ ¬× « ¦ ±
¹ ¦ ¥ ¨ § © ¦ ¥ ¬ ¥ ³ ³ © « ¦ ¨ª © ° ´ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ ¨ § © ¦ § ´® ´ ¨ ¥ º ¬ § ´ ¶ ® ±Ã µ ² ° © Ì ® ±´ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ ¨ § © ¦³ © Ì ® ° ¥ ¯ ® § ¦² ° § © ° § ¨ ³ § ¨ § ® ´ Ï ² ° © Ì § ¦ ³ ®º Ó ß â Ü ª ° © µ ¼ ॠ° ® ¥ ´ ¶ ¥ Ì § ¦ ¯¬ ® ´ ´ ¨ ¶ ¥ ¦ Ó ß â³ © Ì ® ° ¥ ¯ ® ¨ © ¾³ § ¨ § ® ´ Ï ² ° © Ì § ¦ ³ ® ´ Ý ¤ ¥ ª ® ¥ ¦ ± ¥ ± ® Ê « ¥ ¨ ®´ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ ¨ § © ¦ ´ © ¬ « ¨ § © ¦ ´ª © ° ¨ ¶ ® Þ Í µ § ¬ ¬ § © ¦× § ¬ § ² § ¦ © ´ Ò § ¨ ¶ © « ¨¥ ³ ³ ® ´ ´ ¨ © § µ ² ° © Ì ® ±´ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ ¨ § © ¦ ª ¥ ³ § ¬ § ¨ § ® ´¬ © ³ ¥ ¨ ® ± § ¦ ² © © ° ° « ° ¥ ¬¥ ¦ ± ² ® ° § Ö « ° º ¥ ¦¥ ° ® ¥ ´ ã
ä ® ¥ ¬ ¨ ¶ ¥ ¦ ± ä ¯ § ® ¦ ®· ° © µ © ¨ § © ¦ § ¦ ² ¬ ¥ ³ ® § ¦³ © µ µ « ¦ § ¨ § ® ´ ¥ ¦ ±´ ³ ¶ © © ¬ ´¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ ¨ § © ¦Ã ¦ Ì ® ´ ¨ µ ® ¦ ¨· ¬ ¥ ¦ ´ § ¦ ¨ ¶ ®¸ ¥ ¨ § © ¦ ¥ ¬ ¥ ¦ ±Â © ³ ¥ ¬Ã ¦ Ì ® ´ ¨ µ ® ¦ ¨· ¬ ¥ ¦ ´ ª © ° ä ® ¥ ¬ ¨ ¶  © ³ ¥ ¬ ¤ « ´ ¨ ¥ § ¦ ¥ º ¬ ®¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ ¨ § © ¦ · ¬ ¥ ¦ ´± ® Ì ® ¬ © ² ® ± Ò § ¨ ¶º « ± ¯ ® ¨ ´
TABLE 11
DETAILED EVALUATION PLAN MATRIX
The Results Monitoring Plan Matrix in Table 12 outlines progress monitoring of the fi ve key result
areas and their corresponding indicators. Monitoring activities shall include monitoring of inputs,
outputs and other implementation issues (such as risks and problems encountered). This Roadmap
also suggests the integration of the monitoring plan into the existing work plans of NGAs, LGUs,
SSPs and related NGOs, installation of RBME systems, formulation of individual RBME plans
and designation and activation of M&E units and/or offi cers.
It should be mentioned here that the monitoring of the Roadmap component on the provision
of adequate infrastructure support is lodged in the annual updating of the CIIP done by NEDA
with inputs from the different national implementing agencies. Furthermore, other on-going and
pipeline infrastructure projects that are mentioned in the chapter on priority programs are likewise
monitored by the concerned oversight agencies for the projects and are reported to the SCWR for
information and guidance of the NEDA Board and other monitoring committees.
å æ ç è ç é é ç ê ë ì í î ï ð ç ê ð ñ è ë ì ð ê ç ï ð ï ç ò ê ó ò ð ô õ ð é103
OUTCOME
PROGRESS
MONITORING
AGREED
INDICATORS
DETAILED
DESCRIPTION Of
INDICATORS
BASELINE AND
TARGET VALUE
DATA SOURCES:
METHODS
Of DATA
COLLECTION
MODALITY AND
TIMING
AGENCY
RESPONSIBLEö ÷ ø ù ú û ü ý þÿ ü � � ú � � � � ü � ú � ü � �� � � ù ü� � � ü � ÷ � ø ú � �� ø � ü � � ø � ü � � � � Strong local sanita-tion plans and pro-grams developed and implemented by LGUs within the national sanitation policy and sup-ported by the DOH as the national sani-tation institutional driver.
• Implementation of the NSSP through orienta-tion workshops at the local level
• Strengthen enforcement sys-tems, mechanisms and processes at the local level through series of planning work-shops
Baseline: There is a need to review/revisit exist-ing Local Govern-ment Ordinances to ensure harmoniza-tion with the NSSP
Target Value:NSSP programs integrated with Local Development Plans
Data Sources:NSSP
Data Collection Methods:Consultation Con-ferencesDesk ReviewDocumentation
Series of Orienta-tion Workshops to be conducted per region from 2010-2013
DOH, NEDA, DILG, DENR, LWUA,LGUs
Strengthened DOH to act as sector lead driver; DOH to develop its own sanitation plans and programs.
NEDA SCWR giving priority to sanitation concerns.
DOH Sanitation Strategy developed, approved and is being implemented across the countyr.
Oversight function and policy direction of NEDA SCWR felt through regular sanitation meetings and policy docu-ments.
Baseline: Fragmented coordi-nation mechanism for sanitationFragmented and outdated policies and legislations
Target Value:Lead sector agency and implementing unit identifi edNational Sanitation Code Amended
Data Sources:NSSPDirectory of Sanita-tion concerned agenciesAnnual Reports & Accomplishment & Monitoring ReportsPolicy briefsSenate & Lower House Bills
Data Collection Method:Regular MonitoringDocumentation of Lower House & Senate Committee MeetingsCoordinator Meet-ing with LEDAC, Congress and Senate
Semi-Annual and Annual Monitoring at INFRACOM NEDA SCWR
DOH, DILG, LWUA, NEDA
A clear articulation and sustainable implementation of the national and local sanitation policies
Advocacy for Sanitation to be declared a priority policy in all agen-cies concerned with corresponding budget line items proposed for GAAAmendment of the Sanitation Code to comply with more recent laws with provisions relating to sanitationIssuance of policy statement by NEDA Board on the inclusion of sanitation programs in the MTPDP
Baseline:Sanitation programs and projects are not included in the MT-PDP and MTPIPSanitation programs do not have a budget item under DOH
Target Value:Position paper on sanitation to be included in the GAA.
Data Sources:Existing National Sanitation CodeLGU Sanitation CodesLocal Government CodeNew Environmen-tal Laws on Water and Solid Waste)
Data Collection Methods:Key Informant InterviewsDesk ReviewDocumentation
Bi-monthly monitor-ing through consulta-tions with NEDA Board and DBM
DOH, NEDA, DILG, DENR, DBM
Rationalized/strengthened sector coordination mecha-nisms
Sanitation concerns mainstreamed and aligned with the National Sanitation Sector Plan
Baseline:There is a need to review/update existing sanitation instruments, com-munication plans and programs in the sector
Target Value:Integrated sanita-tion concerns on environment, health and safety aspects
Data Source:Sector plans and programsPolicy briefs
Data Collection Methods:InterviewsDesk ReviewStakeholders Con-sultationDocumentation
Quarterly Consulta-tive meetings with concerned sector agencies for updates on the status of inte-gration of sanitation concerns.
DOH, NEDA, DILG, DENR, LWUA
TABLE 12
RESULTS MONITORING PLAN MATRIX
104 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
OUTCOME
PROGRESS
MONITORING
AGREED
INDICATORS
DETAILED
DESCRIPTION Of
INDICATORS
BASELINE AND
TARGET VALUE
DATA SOURCES:
METHODS
Of DATA
COLLECTION
MODALITY AND
TIMING
AGENCY
RESPONSIBLE
Outcome 2:
Improved service
delivery through
communications
and capacity
development.
Institutions and
Organizations
capable of
developing,
communicating,
implementing,
monitoring and
evaluating their
medium term
sanitation plans
Capacity
development needs
refer to NGAs,
LGUs/LCEs,
MPDCs/PPDCs,
Academe/Training
Institutions,
Sanitation
Professionals, and
General Public
It includes
the provision
of required
competencies to
develop a SMART
medium term
plan e.g. local
policy formulation
on sustainable
sanitation;
technology options;
social marketing
and advocacy;
research and
development;
benchmarking;
monitoring and
evaluation and
information
exchange
Responsive
interventions refer
to development
appropriate training
designs, conduct of
training activities,
communication
and advocacy
plans for public’s
behavioral change,
and effi cient
information
exchange
Baseline: still to be
established based
on compilation of
inventory results,
TNA analysis and
KAP surveys
Target values:
A national offi cial
guideline on
technology options,
management
models, and PIME
on sustainable
sanitation programs
Trainings per year:
• 82 LCEs
• 30 PPDCs
• 200 MPDCs
Establish 10 New
Higher Learning
Institutions that
offer B.S. Sanitary
Engineering and
Training Course
for Sanitation
Inspectors
80 percent of
LGUs have
complied with
responsive
training strategies
using standard
benchmarks
80 percent of
LGUs actively
utilizing web-
based information
exchange
Heightened
awareness and
practices of the
general public
on sustainable
sanitation and
hygiene
Data Sources:
Annual
accomplishment
reports of NGAs,
LGUs, PPDCs,
MPDCs, NGOs
Academe/Learning
Institutions,
Sector Reports
KAP Surveys
Web-site log count
Training activity
reports
Training evaluation
reports
Benchmarking
studies
Training
conferences
(proceedings)
Related ODA
reports from
NEDA
Data Collection
Methods:
Compilation of
Reports / Desktop
Review of Reports
Surveys, Cross-
sectional studies
Case studies
Observation
methods
Training
Conferences
Training evaluation
Regular quarterly
and annual
monitoring
Regular training
assessments
Periodic training
conferences
Annual KAP
surveys
National Agency
for Sustainable
Sanitation (when
established)
Collection by
M&E units/
offi cers of NGAs,
LGUs, PPDC/
MPDC, NGO,
Academe/Training
Institutions
DILG/DOH
� � ! " " # $ % & ' ( ) # ) * ! $ % ) # ( ) ( + # , + ) - . ) "105
OUTCOME
PROGRESS
MONITORING
AGREED
INDICATORS
DETAILED
DESCRIPTION Of
INDICATORS
BASELINE AND
TARGET VALUE
DATA SOURCES:
METHODS
OF DATA
COLLECTION
MODALITY AND
TIMING
AGENCY
RESPONSIBLE
Outcome 3:
Broad-based alliance of multi-sectoral and multi-level stakeholders strengthening the sanitation sector
3.1: Strong and active national multi-sector support groups that will advocate, lead and advance sustainable sanitation policies, plans, programs and activities.
Joint activities and programs conducted
Baseline: Three national and some regional sanitation conferences held by PEN since 2006
Target values: Annual national and regional sustainable sanitation conferences held. Include sanita-tion governance and emergency sanitation as major issues to address.
Data Sources:• Post activity/ con-
ference documenta-tion
• PEN website• PDF-TF on SAB
minutes.• Flyers/Brochures
of events
Data Collection methods
• Documentation• Key informant
interviews
• Quarterly and an-nual monitoring.
• Periodic workshops and conferences
• Collection by Secre-tariats of PEN and PDF-TF on SAB
• Coordination and compilation by Secretariats of PEN and PDF-TF on SAB
• Interim compilation by Secretariats of PEN and PDF-TF on SAB
3.2: Clear mechanisms for collaboration in knowledge sharing, education, and human resource pooling for awareness and knowledge building.
Establishment of training and education consortia
Baseline: One academic consortium being organized.
Target values: At least one active academic consortium providing relevant and effective education on sustainable sanitation.
Data Sources:• ACSuSan Consor-
tium business plans, reports and minutes of meeting.
• Annual accomplish-ment reports of ACSuSan members
• ACSuSan Member websites
• Flyers/Brochures of trainings
Data Collection methods:• Documentation• Key informant
interviews• Course evaluations
and assessments
• Quarterly and an-nual monitoring.
• Requisite post-training activity and evaluation
• Periodic training and conduct of courses
• Collection indi-vidual ACSuSan members
• Coordination and compilation by DepEd, CHEd, and ACSuSan Secretariat
• Interim compila-tion by ACSuSan Secretariat
3.3: A strong alliance of sanitation service providers at the national and local levels
Formulation of clear programs of action for alliance building and professionalizing and developing the sanitation service provider sector
Baseline: Weak involvement, sup-port and regulation of private sector except in Metro Manila.
Target values: • A national policy
with correspond-ing guideline for professionalizing sanitation service providers.
Data Sources:• WSPs and NSSMP
Offi ces• Proceedings of fora
conducted and ac-complishment reports
Data Collection methods• Documentation• Key informant
interviews
• Quarterly and an-nual monitoring.
• Periodic activities of WSPs.
• Collection by M&E units/offi cers of NGAs, LGUs, WSPs, and NGOs
• Coordination and compilation by DOH, NSSMP Of-fi ce and water and sanitation service providers networks
• Interim compilation by PDF-TF, PWRF, NSSMP Of-fi ces and water and sanitation service providers networks
106 / 0 1 2 1 3 3 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 : 1 4 : ; 2 5 6 : 4 1 9 : 9 1 < 4 = < : > ? : 3
OUTCOME PROGRESS
MONITORING
AGREED INDICATORS
DETAILED DESCRIPTION Of
INDICATORS
BASELINE AND TARGET VALUE
DATA SOURCES: METHODS OF DATA
COLLECTION
MODALITY AND TIMING
AGENCY RESPONSIBLE
Outcome 4:
Financing investments andinfrastructure provision for sanitation developed in strategic priority areas
Prioritized interven-tion in highly vulner-able areas seriously affected by lack of sanitation
Development of in-terventions for highly vulnerable areas seriously affected by the lack of sanitation incl. prioritization guidelines
Baseline: Still to be developed
Target value: Availability of inter-vention and priority guidelines
Data Sources: DOH, DILG, DENR
Data Collection Method:Agency accomplish-ment and monitor-ing reports
Quarterly and annual monitoring of NGAs concerned
DILG as lead
Financing strategies and incentive schemes for sus-tainable infrastruc-ture developed.
Sanitation tariff methodology that allows full cost recoveryInnovative sanitation fi nancing modelsPackage of incen-tives that will attract potential investorsR and D and capac-ity development proposals packaged and submitted to interested funders
Support to toilet construction.
Expansion of MM septage capacity and construction of sewerage facilities in HUCs
Baseline: Still to be developed
Target value: Adaption and implementation of the sanitation tariff methodologyPilot testing of sanitation fi nancing modelsAt least 5 proposals implemented in the short term period of 3 years
Provision of sup-port to toilet con-struction, hygiene promotion and capacity develop-ment.
Data Sources: DOF. DOH, DILG, LGUs, DENR, MWSS, DPWH, NEDA
Data Collection Method:Agency accomplish-ment reports
Quarterly and an-nual monitoring of NGAs concerned
NEDA
Pro poor fi nancing model developed and implemented
At least 10 LGUs providing funds for pro poor sanitation in the short termIncreased capac-ity for septage and sewerage in MM and in at least 14 HUCs
Established and enhanced public-private partnerships and sanitation entrepreneurship
Documentation and enhancement of PPP models in sanitation service provisionIEC/Social market-ing plan imple-mentedSanitation enterpris-es developed
Baseline: Still to be developed
Target value: At least 3 PPP models documented and enhanced IEC/social market-ing plan actively pursuedAt least 3 sanitation enterprises imple-mented
Data Sources:DTI, DOF PCCI
Data Collection Method:Agency accomplish-ment and monitor-ing reports
Quarterly and an-nual monitoring of NGAs concerned
DOF
A well-established national account for sanitation
Distinct accounting for sanitation in the National Account System
Baseline: Still to be developed
Target value: Institutionaliza-tion of a sanitation accounting as part of the National Ac-count System
Data Sources:HH surveys, DOH, DILG, DPWH, DepED, NSO
Data Collection Method:Agency accomplish-ment and monitor-ing reportsResult of HH surveys
Quarterly and an-nual monitoring of NGAs concerned HH survey every 3-5 years
NEDA
Investment require-ments identifi ed and secured to meet the MDG and MTPDP targets
Strong advo-cacy and lobby for making sanitation part of the prior-ity program of the governmentA distinct sanitation program, project, activities (PPA) for all agencies with sanitation mandate including LGUs with corresponding targets and budgetsDevelop sanitation champions at local and national levels of governance
Baseline: Sanitation program still not included in the MT-PDP and MTPIP but still considered part of the water sector target and budget
Target value: Concrete sanitation targets and budgets included in the MT-PDP and MTPIP
Data Sources/Col-lection MethodMTPDP and MT-PIP documents and reports
Regular monitoring NEDA
@ A B C B D D B E F G H I J K B E K L C F G K E B J K J B M E N M K O P K D107
OUTCOME PROGRESS
MONITORING
AGREED INDICATORS
DETAILED DESCRIPTION Of
INDICATORS
BASELINE AND TARGET VALUE
DATA SOURCES: METHODS OF DATA
COLLECTION
MODALITY AND TIMING
AGENCY RESPONSIBLE
Outcome 5:
Adequate sanitation and hygiene promotion is mainstreamed in emergency relief and rehabilitation efforts
Appropriate approaches for different situations identifi ed and toolkits and sourcebooks developed
Inventory and identifi cation of appropriate sanitation approaches for emergency situationsPriority areas for intervention identifi edPiloting appropriate sanitation approaches in existing evacuation centers and resettlement areasSourcebook and toolkits on appropriate approaches for different situations publishedCapacity building on sanitation preparedness in emergency situation
Baseline: still to be developed
Target values:Sourcebook and toolkits published and disseminated to national and local disaster coordinating committees and LGUsTranslation of sourcebooks and toolkits in major Filipino dialectsTraining in sanitation preparedness for emergency situations for local disaster coordinating committees
Data Sources:DND, DOH, DepED, DILG, DBMLocal and national disaster coordinating committees plansLGU policies and plansList of Evacuation CentersLocal and national allocations for calamity fund and other resources
Data Collection Methods: Survey Questionnaire for local and national policies and plansCompilation of Reports / Desktop Review of ReportsKey Informant Interviews
One-page survey questionnaire and/or key informant interviews during start and end of fi scal year
DOHNational Agency for Sustainable Sanitation (when established)NDCCDILG/LGUs
Emergency sanitation integrated into disaster response and risk reduction plans at all levels
Development of emergency sanitation plan component for integration into the disaster and risk reduction plan at all levelsEmergency sanitation planning institutionalized in development planning and capacities built
Guidelines for the integration of sanitation in disaster risk reduction planLocal and national plans on disaster preparedness includes • specifi c plans
and provisions for sanitation for short-, medium- and long-term relief/rehabilitation responses
• collaborative mechanisms between public and private sector for logistical support
Building partnership for quick mobilization of logistics for sanitation in emergency situations
Partnerships and strong coordination mechanisms at local municipal, provincial and national levels established for:• Identifying
priority areas of intervention
• Quick mobilization of resources
• Immediate response in emergency situations
Information caravan promoting sustainable sanitation practices conducted
MOA or MOU among concerned agencies, LGUs and private sector for instant and effi cient delivery of services
Directory of contact persons or organizations at the local and national levels who can provide technical and other needed assistance during emergency situations
108 Q R S T S U U S V W X Y Z [ \ S V \ ] T W X \ V S [ \ [ S ^ V _ ^ \ ` a \ U
1 Philippine Sanitation Sourcebook and Decision Aid, December 2005
2 Sustainable Sanitation Alliance, http://www.susana.org/lang-en/intro/156-intro/53-what-is-sustainable-sanitation
3 Integrated water resources management approach is a national policy that provides for the adoption of a more integrated and holistic management of our water resources that involves the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources within hydrological boundaries, to optimize economic and social welfare without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems.
4 NWRB 2007. � e Philippine IWRM Plan Framework guides stakeholders to prepare IWRM plans and the government agencies in ensuring that IWRM is mainstreamed in their respective plans and programs.
5 Sanitation : A Human Rights Imperative, 2008. UN Habitat, WATERAID, Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation, Center on Housing Rights and Evictions
6 For purposes of accuracy and consistency, data used in this Roadmap is based on the NSO 2000 Census, Data from the Department of Health’s Field Health Service Information System Annual 2007 provides more recent data and is also cited in this document.
7 Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000 Report
8 Wilfredo, Jose. Asian Development Bank. “Wastes treat Wastes.” 2005.
9 Philippine Environment Monitor, 2003. Manila: DENR and the World Bank Group
10 Urban Sewerage and Sanitation: 30 years of Experiences and Lessons Learned
11 NEDA Board Committee on Infrastructure (INFRACOM) Resolution No. 2, Series of 2008.
12 Specifi c, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Time Bound
13 Urban Sewerage and Sanitation: 30 years of Experience and Lessons
WSP, USAID, Economic Impacts of Sanitation in the Philippines, 2008, Jakarta: World Bank.
Data in the presentation were sourced from an Asian Development Bank (ADB) study titled “Water in Asian Cities: Utilities Performance and Society Views,” and also included in a WB study in 2005 titled “Philippines: Meeting Infrastructure Challenges.”
ENDNOTES
ANNEXES
b c d e d f f d g h i j k l m d g m n e h i m g d l m l d o g p o m q r m f111
ANNEXESs t t u v w x y s z u { | } s ~ � z � � � z � � � z �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
112 � � � � � � � � ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ � ¦ § � ¡ ¢ ¦ � ¥ ¦ ¥ � ¨ © ¨ ¦ ª « ¦ �
¬ ® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ¯ ® ´ µ ¶ ® ¬ µ ·¬ ¸ ¸ ¬ ° ¹ ® º¬ ® ¯ ° ³ ® » ¼ µ ¯ ° ¸ ³ ½ ¯ »¾ ¿ À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È É Ê Ë Ì Í Ç È É É Î Ï Ï Ð Ð È ÃÑ Æ Ï Ð Å Ò Ð Ó È Ë Å Ô Ð Ó ¿ Ã Ó Ë Å Ð Ó Ï Õ Æ Ï Ï Õ Ð Ö Î Å Ð Ô Ï Î È Ã Ó Ð Ï Ä È Å Ï Õ Ð Ó Ð Ô Ï È Å Î Ó Ô Æ Å Å Î Ð Ö Í È Ë Ï Î ÃÆ Ô Ô È Å Ö Æ Ã Ô Ð × Î Ï Õ Ï Õ Ð Ó Ð Ô Ï È Å Ø Ù Æ Ã Ú Î Û Ð Û Ò È Æ Ö É Æ Ø Ü ÝÇ È È Å Ö Î Ã Æ Ï Ð Ó Ó Ð Ô Ï È Å É È Ã Î Ï È Å Î Ã Þ Æ Ó × Ð Ù Ù Æ Ó Ï Õ Ð Ô È Ã Ö Ë Ô Ï È Ä Ø Ð Å Î È Ö Î ÔÅ Ð ß Î Ð × à Ð ß Æ Ù Ë Æ Ï Î È Ã Æ Ã Ö Æ Ó Ó Ð Ó Ó É Ð Ã Ï È Ä Ï Õ Ð Ó Ð Ô Ï È Å Ú Ð Û Þ Û à Ð á Ï Ð Ã Ï Æ Ã ÖÓ Ï Æ Ï Ë Ó È Ä Ï Õ Ð Î É Ø Ù Ð É Ð Ã Ï Æ Ï Î È Ã È Ä Ø Å È Þ Å Æ É Ó â Æ Ô Ï Î ß Î Ï Î Ð Ó Î Ö Ð Ã Ï Î Ä Î Ð Ö Î Ã Ï Õ ÐÒ È Æ Ö É Æ Ø à Ö Ð ß Î Æ Ï Î È Ã È Ä Æ Ô Ï Ë Æ Ù Ø Ð Å Ä È Å É Æ Ã Ô Ð Ä Å È É Ø Å È Þ Å Æ É É Ð ÖÏ Æ Å Þ Ð Ï Ó à Ø Å È Ì Ù Ð É Æ Å Ð Æ Ó Ð Ã Ô È Ë Ã Ï Ð Å Ð Ö Î Ã Ï Õ Ð Ø Å È Þ Å Æ ÉÎ É Ø Ù Ð É Ð Ã Ï Æ Ï Î È Ã Ü ÝÇ È È Å Ö Î Ã Æ Ï Ð Ó Æ Ã Ö â È Å Æ Ö ß Î Ó Ð Ó Ï Õ Ð Ô È Ã Ö Ë Ô Ï È Ä Ó Ï Ë Ö Î Ð Ó à Å Ð Ó Ð Æ Å Ô Õ Ð Ó àÆ Ã Ö Ø È Ù Î Ô ã Æ Ã Æ Ù ã Ó Î Ó È Ã ß Æ Å Î È Ë Ó Æ Ó Ø Ð Ô Ï Ó È Ä Ï Õ Ð Ó Ð Ô Ï È Å Æ Ã Ö É Æ ä ÐÓ Ë Ì Ó Ð å Ë Ð Ã Ï Ø È Ù Î Ô ã Å Ð Ô È É É Ð Ã Ö Æ Ï Î È Ã Ó Ï È Ï Õ Ð ¾ ¿ À Á æ È Æ Å Ö Ï Õ Å È Ë Þ ÕÏ Õ Ð Â ¾ ç Ò Á Ç è é Ýç È Å É Ë Ù Æ Ï Ð Ó Æ Å Ð Æ Ó È Ä Ô È È Ø Ð Å Æ Ï Î È Ã Æ Ã Ö Ô È È Å Ö Î Ã Æ Ï Î È Ã Æ É È Ã Þ Ï Õ Ðß Æ Å Î È Ë Ó Æ Þ Ð Ã Ô Î Ð Ó Æ Ã Ö Î Ã Ó Ï Å Ë É Ð Ã Ï Æ Ù Î Ï Î Ð Ó È Ä Ï Õ Ð Þ È ß Ð Å Ã É Ð Ã Ï Î Ã ß È Ù ß Ð ÖÎ Ã Ï Õ Ð Ó Ð Ô Ï È Å Ø Å È Þ Å Æ É Ó Æ Ã Ö Ø Å È ê Ð Ô Ï Ó Ï È Æ ß È Î Ö Ö Ë Ø Ù Î Ô Æ Ï Î È Ã È Ä Ð Ä Ä È Å Ï Ó ÝÊ Ð Å ß Ð Ó Æ Ó Ô Ù Ð Æ Å Î Ã Þ Õ È Ë Ó Ð È Ä Ó Ð Ô Ï È Å Î Ã Ä È Å É Æ Ï Î È Ã Ý Æ Ã Ö ß Ð Ã Ë Ð Ä È Å Ï Õ ÐÖ Î Ó Ô Ë Ó Ó Î È Ã Æ Ã Ö Å Ð Ó È Ù Ë Ï Î È Ã È Ä Æ Å Î Ó Î Ã Þ Î Ó Ó Ë Ð Ó Î Ã Ï Õ Ð Ó Ð Ô Ï È Å ÛÀ è ë ¿ Ã ß Î Å È Ã É Ð Ã Ï Æ Ù ìè Ô Ô Ë Ø Æ Ï Î È Ã Æ Ù ë Ð Æ Ù Ï Õè Ä Ä Î Ô Ð À Ð ß Ð Ù È Ø Ó Ø Ù Æ Ã Ó à Ø È Ù Î Ô Î Ð Ó à Ø Å È Þ Å Æ É Ó Æ Ã Ö Ó Ï Å Æ Ï Ð Þ Î Ð Ó Ï È É Æ Ã Æ Þ ÐÕ Ð Æ Ù Ï Õ Õ Æ í Æ Å Ö Ó Æ Ã Ö Å Î Ó ä Ó Æ Ó Ó È Ô Î Æ Ï Ð Ö × Î Ï Õ Ð Ã ß Î Å È Ã É Ð Ã Ï Æ Ù Æ Ã Ö × È Å äÅ Ð Ù Æ Ï Ð Ö Ä Æ Ô Ï È Å Óî È Ô Æ Ù Ñ Æ Ï Ð Å ï Ï Î Ù Î Ï Î Ð ÓÁ Ö É Î Ã Î Ó Ï Å Æ Ï Î È ÃÚ î Ñ ï Á Ü Ê Ø Ð Ô Î Æ Ù Î í Ð Ö Ù Ð Ã Ö Î Ã Þ Î Ã Ó Ï Î Ï Ë Ï Î È Ã Ï Õ Æ Ï Ø Å È É È Ï Ð Ó Ï Õ Ð Ö Ð ß Ð Ù È Ø É Ð Ã Ï àÅ Ð Þ Ë Ù Æ Ï Î È Ã Æ Ã Ö Ä Î Ã Æ Ã Ô Î Ã Þ È Ä × Æ Ï Ð Å Ö Î Ó Ï Å Î Ô Ï Ó È Ë Ï Ó Î Ö Ð é Ð Ï Å È é Æ Ã Î Ù ÆÀ ð Ñ ë é Ð Ï Å È Ø È Ù Î Ï Æ ÃÑ Æ Ï Ð Å × È Å ä Ó Æ Ã ÖÊ Ð × Ð Å Æ Þ Ð Ê ã Ó Ï Ð ÉÚ é Ñ Ê Ê Ü Ç È Ã Ó Ï Å Ë Ô Ï Ó à É Æ Î Ã Ï Æ Î Ã Ó Æ Ã Ö È Ø Ð Å Æ Ï Ð Ó Ö È É Ð Ó Ï Î Ô â É Ë Ã Î Ô Î Ø Æ Ù × Æ Ï Ð ÅÓ Ë Ø Ø Ù ã Æ Ã Ö Ó Ð × Ð Å Æ Þ Ð Ø Å È ê Ð Ô Ï Ó Î Ã é Ð Ï Å È é Æ Ã Î Ù Æ Æ Ã Ö Æ Ö ê Æ Ô Ð Ã Ï Ô Î Ï Î Ð Ó ÛÇ Ð Ã Ï Å Æ Ù î Æ Ì È Åæ Æ Ó Ð Ö âÇ È É Ø Å Ð Õ Ð Ã Ó Î ß ÐÁ Þ Å Æ Å Î Æ Ã Ò Ð Ä È Å ÉÚ Ç î æ â Ç Á Ò ð Ü ñ È È ä È ß Ð Å Ï Õ Ð Ù Ð Æ Ö Ð Å Ó Õ Î Ø Î Ã Ø Å Ð Ø Æ Å Î Ã Þ Ï Õ Ð ¾ Æ Ï Î È Ã Æ Ù Ê Ð × Ð Å Æ Þ ÐÆ Ã Ö Ê Ð Ø Ï Æ Þ Ð é Æ Ã Æ Þ Ð É Ð Ã Ï ð Ù Æ Ã Ú ¾ Ê Ê é ð ÜÀ ¿ ¾ Ò ¿ Ã ß Î Å È Ã É Ð Ã Ï Æ Ùé Æ Ã Æ Þ Ð É Ð Ã Ïæ Ë Å Ð Æ Ë Ú ¿ é æ Ü ç È Å É Ë Ù Æ Ï Ð Ó Ð Ã ß Î Å È Ã É Ð Ã Ï å Ë Æ Ù Î Ï ã Ó Ï Æ Ã Ö Æ Å Ö Ó Ä È Å × Æ Ï Ð Å à Ù Æ Ã Ö à Æ Î Å àÃ È Î Ó Ð Æ Ã Ö Å Æ Ö Î Æ Ï Î È Ã ÝÁ Ø Ø Å È ß Ð Ó Ð Ã ß Î Å È Ã É Ð Ã Ï Æ Ù Î É Ø Æ Ô Ï Ó Ï Æ Ï Ð É Ð Ã Ï Ó Æ Ã Ö Î Ó Ó Ë Ð Ó¿ Ã ß Î Å È Ã É Ð Ã Ï Æ Ù Ç È É Ø Ù Î Æ Ã Ô Ð Ç Ð Å Ï Î Ä Î Ô Æ Ï Ð Ó
ANNEX 2. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WITH SANITATION-RELATED RESPONSIBILITIES
ò ó ô õ ô ö ö ô ÷ ø ù ú û ü ý ô ÷ ý þ õ ø ù ý ÷ ô ü ý ü ô ÿ ÷ � ÿ ý � � ý ö113
� � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �! � " � � � � � � � � � � � # $ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � % � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � & � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ' � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � $ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � % � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � % � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � $ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ' � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ( � � � � ) * � � * )� * � * � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ' � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
� ) * � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � * � � + � � , $ - � , $ � � � � � �
� * � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� $ � ) & . � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � / 0 � $ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 0 � $ � � � � � � � � � 0 � $ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 0 � $ � � � � � � � , � & � � � � � � � � � � � � � � , � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � - � � � � � � � � � � � �0 1 � � � � � � � ) � � � � � � 2 3 4 � � � � � � � � � 3 5 - 4 6 7 8 - � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � ) � � � � � � � % � � % � 9 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � -� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � : � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � ! � 2 � 2 - � � � � � � � � � � � - � � � � � ' � � - � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � "� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � - � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � : � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � / � ; , $ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � % � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � - � � � � ( � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 2 � � � � � � � � � + � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � - / � ; , � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � - � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 2� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ' � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � #� / � & � + � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � % � � � � � � � � � � � � � � - � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � - � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � - � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 2� � � � � � � ' � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ' � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � -� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � - � � � � � � � - � � � � � � � � � � � � � ( � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ' � � � � � � � � 2 � � � � � + � ' � � � � � � � � � � �� � � % � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � - � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ' � � � 2
114 < = > ? > @ @ > A B C D E F G > A G H ? B C G A > F G F > I A J I G K L G @
M N O O P Q O R S T O N U R P V W X W T U Y W Z U R U Y W Z W R S X [ \ Q [ \ R Q N ] P W V S [ W^ O T Z ] N U S \ O R U R P \ Z _ N W Z W R S U S \ O R O ^ _ O N \ Q \ W V ` V S U R P U T P V ` _ T O Y T U Z VU R P _ T O a W Q S V ^ O T U R \ R S W Y T U S W P ^ N O O P Q O R S T O N ` P T U \ R U Y W U R PV W X W T U Y W V b V S W Z cd T e U R T W R W X U N ` f O R \ R Y U R P N U R P ] V W _ N U R R \ R Y ` U R P V [ W N S W TV W T g \ Q W V X [ \ Q [ \ R Q N ] P W V S [ W ^ O T Z ] N U S \ O R ` U P O _ S \ O R U R P\ Z _ N W Z W R S U S \ O R O ^ _ O N \ Q \ W V ` V S U R P U T P V ` T ] N W V U R P T W Y ] N U S \ O R V `_ T O Y T U Z V U R P _ T O a W Q S V S O T U S \ O R U N \ f W U R P O _ S \ Z \ f W ] T e U R N U R P ] V WU R P _ T O g \ P W P \ T W Q S \ O R S O ] T e U R Y T O X S [ U R P W h _ U R V \ O R ` S [ WT W [ U e \ N \ S U S \ O R U R P P W g W N O _ Z W R S O ^ V N ] Z U R P e N \ Y [ S W P U T W U V ` S [ WP W g W N O _ Z W R S O ^ V [ W N S W T U R P [ O ] V \ R Y ^ U Q \ N \ S \ W V U R P S [ W _ T O g \ V \ O R O ^R W Q W V V U T b V O Q \ U N V W T g \ Q W V S [ W T W O ^ ci W U N S [ U R P V U R \ S U S \ O R ` ] T e U R _ T O S W Q S \ O R U R P _ O N N ] S \ O R Q O R S T O N X [ \ Q [\ R Q N ] P W V S [ W ^ O T Z ] N U S \ O R U R P \ Z _ N W Z W R S U S \ O R O ^ _ O N \ Q \ W V ` T ] N W V U R PT W Y ] N U S \ O R V ` V S U R P U T P V ` _ T O Y T U Z V U R P _ T O a W Q S V ^ O T S [ W _ T O Z O S \ O RU R P V U ^ W Y ] U T P \ R Y O ^ S [ W [ W U N S [ U R P V U R \ S U S \ O R O ^ S [ W T W Y \ O R U R P ^ O TS [ W W R [ U R Q W Z W R S O ^ W Q O N O Y \ Q U N e U N U R Q W U R P S [ W _ T W g W R S \ O R `Q O R S T O N U R P U e U S W Z W R S O ^ W R g \ T O R Z W R S U N _ O N N ] S \ O R cj k l m n o p q r s t r u v u s wx r y z { | } s r t r ~ u v j � q � v � � m p } o t � o � � } v u y r p s � � u y � o m } ~ ~ v z u s w m u s r y u y r p s u s w� t p s p � r t o � � } v u y r p s p � y � � r o } y r v r y r � m � n v u s s r s � �� r s u s t r s � u s w r � ~ v � � � s y u y r p s p � � u y � o m } ~ ~ v z u s wm u s r y u y r p s ~ o p � o u � m r s t v } w r s � �
n o � ~ u o u y r p s p � � u y � o m } ~ ~ v z � m � � � o u � � u s wm u s r y u y r p s m � t y p o ~ v u s m �
| p s r y p o r s � p � v p t u v � u y � o u s w m u s r y u y r p s t p q � o u � �u s w } ~ w u y r s � p � m � t y p o ~ o p � r v � �
n o p q r m r p s p � m } ~ ~ p o y y p � � n m m } t � u m � { � � � � m �t p p ~ � o u y r q � m u s w � u y � o } m � o m � � o p } ~ r s t v } w r s �� } s w r s � � o p � y � � r o � � �� u o u s � u z j � q � v x u s r s r y r u y � v p t u v � � u o u s � u z m � v � q � v p o w r s u s t � m u s wt p p o w r s u y � m t v p m � v z � r y � y � � � } s r t r ~ u v � p q � o s � � s y r su w w o � m m r s � y � � s � � w m p � y � � r o t p s m y r y } � s y m �
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ¡ � � � ¢ � � � £ � � � ¤ � � � � ¥ � ¦ ¤ � � � � ¤ � � � � � � ¥ � ¤ � � ¥ � � � ¥ � � � � � � � � � ¡ � � � � � � ¤ §
¨ © ª « ª ¬ ¬ ª ® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ª ³ ´ « ® ¯ ³ ª ² ³ ² ª µ ¶ µ ³ · ¸ ³ ¬115
¹ º º » ¼ ½ ¾ ¿ À Á  » Ã Ä Â » Å » Æ Ä Ç Á º ¿ Æ Ä È ¹ Æ É À É Ã ¹ Á º ¹ Ê Æ » É ¹ º Á à ¹ à Á Ä º Ç Æ ¹ ºË Ì Í Î Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ð Ó Ô Õ Ì Ð Ò Ñ Ï Ð Ï Ñ Ö Ò Ñ Ò × Ð Î Ï Ø Î Ñ Ð Ë Ì Í Ì × Ø Ù Ú Û Ñ Ô Ñ Ü Ü Ñ Ò Õ Î Ú Ý Ö Þ Ý Ð ß Ì Õ Ü Ï Õ ß Ó Õ Ý à á á â Ù¹ ¾ Á ã ä å æ ç è é ä ê æ ãÊ ¾ Ê å ê ë ì ç ë í é å ê î ä ê æ ã æ ì ï ð ä ë å ð ã ç í ð ã ê ä ð ä ê æ ã í ä ð ä è í æ ì ä ñ ë é æ ò ò è ã ê ä óÈ ¾ É ð ã ê ä ð ä ê æ ã î å æ ô õ ë ò í ð ã ç ê í í è ë í ¾ Ç æ ä ë ã ä ê ð õ ê ò î ð é ä æ ì í ð ã ê ä ð ä ê æ ã î å æ ô õ ë ò í» ¾ È è å å ë ã ä î å æ ö å ð ò í ð ã ç ð é ä ê æ ã í ð ç ç å ë í í ê ã ö í ð ã ê ä ð ä ê æ ã î å æ ô õ ë ò í÷ ¾ É è í ä ð ê ã ð ô õ ë í ð ã ê ä ð ä ê æ ã î å æ ö å ð òø ù ú û ü û ý þ ü ÿ � ÿ � � � þ ÿ� ù � ÿ � ÿ � � � þ ÿ ý � � ý � � ü � þ � ý � � ÿ û � � ü ù � ý � � ý þ � þ ÿ ü ý � ÿ � � � � � þ� ù � � � � � � � þ ÿ � ÿ û ý þ ü ÿ � � ÿ � � û � ü � þ � � � ÿ û ý þ ü� ù � � � � ý � ÿ � � � ü � � � ü � û � � � � � � þ ÿ û þ � ü ÿ � � ÿ � � û � ü� ù � � � � � ÿ ü � þ � � � ÿ û � û ÿ û � ü� ù � � � û � þ � � � ý � ý ÿ û ý þ � þ � � û ü � � ü � ü � � � � û � � � þ � �� ù � ÿ � � � ü � � � ý � ÿ ÿ � ü � ü � þ � � � ÿ û � û ÿ û � ü� ù � � þ û ÿ � ÿ û ý þ ÿ � � � þ ý � ý � û � üø ù ! û þ � þ � û � � � � " � û � � � � þ ÿ � þ � û þ � � ü ÿ � � þ ÿ � � � þø ø ù � � � � þ û # � ÿ û ý þ $ � � þ � � � � � þ ÿ $ û þ ü ÿ û ÿ � ÿ û ý þ � � � � � � þ � � � � þ ÿ üø � ù � û � � � � � � �ø ù % ý þ û ÿ ý � û þ � � þ � � � � � � � ÿ û ý þø � ù � þ ü ÿ û ÿ � ÿ û ý þ � � û # û þ � ÿ � � � ý � � � ü � ü ÿ � û þ � � � ü � þ û ÿ � ÿ û ý þ � � � þø � ù & � � ý � � � � � þ � � ý � � � þ û � � ÿ û þ � ÿ � � � � � þø � ù ' û ü � � ü ü � ü ü � � þ ÿ
116 ( ) * + * , , * - . / 0 1 2 3 * - 3 4 + . / 3 - * 2 3 2 * 5 - 6 5 3 7 8 3 ,
ANNEX 4. RELEVANT SANITATION LAWS AND POLICIES
9 : ; < ; = = ; > ? @ A B C D ; > D E < ? @ D > ; C D C ; F > G F D H I D =117
118 J K L M L N N L O P Q R S T U L O U V M P Q U O L T U T L W O X W U Y Z U N
[ \ ] ^ ] _ _ ] ` a b c d e f ] ` f g ^ a b f ` ] e f e ] h ` i h f j k f _119
ANNEX 5. LIST OF EXISTING, UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNED SEWERAGE FACILITIES
120 l m n o n p p n q r s t u v w n q w x o r s w q n v w v n y q z y w { | w p
} ~ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �121
122 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
ANNEX 6. INVENTORY OF AVAILABLE SANITATION TECHNOLOGIES
Urine Diverting Dry Toilets
� ¡ ¢ ¡ £ £ ¡ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ª ¡ ¤ ª « ¢ ¥ ¦ ª ¤ ¡ © ª © ¡ ¬ ¤ ¬ ª ® ¯ ª £123
124 ° ± ² ³ ² ´ ´ ² µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ º » ² µ » ¼ ³ ¶ · » µ ² º » º ² ½ µ ¾ ½ » ¿ À » ´
ANNEX 7: SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA FOR SANITATION Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ Æ Ç Æ Ä Ã Å È Ã É Ê Ë Æ Ã È Å Ä Ã Ä Å Ì È ÍÎ Â Ë Ï Ã Å È Ì É Ð Ë Ñ Ä Å Ò Ë Ì Ó Ã Æ Ã È Å Ä Ã Ä Å Ì È Æ Ô Æ Ä Ë Ï Å Æ Ä Ì Õ Ö Ì Ä Ë Ñ Ä Ã È × Õ Ö Ì Ï Ì Ä Ë Â Ç Ï Ã È Â Ë Ã Ê Ä Â É ÔÕ Ö Ì Ò Å × Å È Ø Ã Ñ Ê Ë Ã È Ë È Ò Å Ö Ì È Ï Ë È Ä Ã È × É Ö Ë Ã Ù Å È Ø Ä Â Ë Ñ Ô Ñ Ê Ë Ì Ó × Å Æ Ë Ã Æ Ë Ú Û È Ì Ö × Ë Ö Ä Ì É Ë Æ Ç Æ Ä Ã Å È Ã É Ê Ë ÜÃ Æ Ã È Å Ä Ã Ä Å Ì È Æ Ô Æ Ä Ë Ï Â Ã Æ Ä Ì É Ë È Ì Ä Ì È Ê Ô Ë Ñ Ì È Ì Ï Å Ñ Ã Ê Ê Ô Ò Å Ã É Ê Ë Ü Æ Ì Ñ Å Ã Ê Ê Ô Ã Ñ Ñ Ë Õ Ä Ã É Ê Ë Ü Ã È ×Ä Ë Ñ Â È Å Ñ Ã Ê Ê Ô Ã È × Å È Æ Ä Å Ä Ç Ä Å Ì È Ã Ê Ê Ô Ã Õ Õ Ö Ì Õ Ö Å Ã Ä Ë Ü Å Ä Æ Â Ì Ç Ê × Ã Ê Æ Ì Õ Ö Ì Ä Ë Ñ Ä Ä Â Ë Ë È Ò Å Ö Ì È Ï Ë È Ä Ã È × Ä Â ËÈ Ã Ä Ç Ö Ã Ê Ö Ë Æ Ì Ç Ö Ñ Ë Æ ÚÁ Â Ë È Å Ï Õ Ö Ì Ò Å È Ø Ã È Ë Ý Å Æ Ä Å È Ø Ã È × Þ Ì Ö × Ë Æ Å Ø È Å È Ø Ã È Ë ß Æ Ã È Å Ä Ã Ä Å Ì È Æ Ô Æ Ä Ë Ï Ü Æ Ç Æ Ä Ã Å È Ã É Å Ê Å Ä ÔÑ Ö Å Ä Ë Ö Å Ã Ö Ë Ê Ã Ä Ë × Ä Ì Ä Â Ë Ó Ì Ê Ê Ì ß Å È Ø Ã Æ Õ Ë Ñ Ä Æ Æ Â Ì Ç Ê × É Ë Ñ Ì È Æ Å × Ë Ö Ë × àá Ú â Ë Ã Ê Ä Â Ã È × Â Ô Ø Å Ë È Ë à Å È Ñ Ê Ç × Ë Æ Ä Â Ë Ö Å Æ Ù Ì Ó Ë Ý Õ Ì Æ Ç Ö Ë Ä Ì Õ Ã Ä Â Ì Ø Ë È Æ Ã È × Â Ã ã Ã Ö × Ì Ç ÆÆ Ç É Æ Ä Ã È Ñ Ë Æ Ä Â Ã Ä Ñ Ì Ç Ê × Ã Ó Ó Ë Ñ Ä Õ Ç É Ê Å Ñ Â Ë Ã Ê Ä Â Ã Ä Ã Ê Ê Õ Ì Å È Ä Æ Ì Ó Ä Â Ë Æ Ã È Å Ä Ã Ä Å Ì È Æ Ô Æ Ä Ë Ï Ó Ö Ì ÏÄ Â Ë Ä Ì Å Ê Ë Ä Ò Å Ã Ä Â Ë Ñ Ì Ê Ê Ë Ñ Ä Å Ì È Ã È × Ä Ö Ë Ã Ä Ï Ë È Ä Æ Ô Æ Ä Ë Ï Ä Ì Ä Â Ë Õ Ì Å È Ä Ì Ó Ö Ë Ç Æ Ë Ì Ö × Å Æ Õ Ì Æ Ã Ê Ã È ×× Ì ß È Æ Ä Ö Ë Ã Ï Õ Ì Õ Ç Ê Ã Ä Å Ì È Æ Ú Î Â Å Æ Ä Ì Õ Å Ñ Ã Ê Æ Ì Ñ Ì Ò Ë Ö Æ Ã Æ Õ Ë Ñ Ä Æ Æ Ç Ñ Â Ã Æ Â Ô Ø Å Ë È Ë Ü È Ç Ä Ö Å Ä Å Ì È Ã È ×Å Ï Õ Ö Ì Ò Ë Ï Ë È Ä Ì Ó Ê Å Ò Ë Ê Å Â Ì Ì × Ã Ñ Â Å Ë Ò Ë × É Ô Ä Â Ë Ã Õ Õ Ê Å Ñ Ã Ä Å Ì È Ì Ó Ã Ñ Ë Ö Ä Ã Å È Æ Ã È Å Ä Ã Ä Å Ì È Æ Ô Æ Ä Ë Ï Ü Ã Æß Ë Ê Ê Ã Æ × Ì ß È Æ Ä Ö Ë Ã Ï Ë Ó Ó Ë Ñ Ä Æ Úä Ú å È Ò Å Ö Ì È Ï Ë È Ä Ã È × È Ã Ä Ç Ö Ã Ê Ö Ë Æ Ì Ç Ö Ñ Ë Æ à Å È Ò Ì Ê Ò Ë Æ Ä Â Ë Ö Ë æ Ç Å Ö Ë × Ë È Ë Ö Ø Ô Ü ß Ã Ä Ë Ö Ã È × Ì Ä Â Ë ÖÈ Ã Ä Ç Ö Ã Ê Ö Ë Æ Ì Ç Ö Ñ Ë Æ Ó Ì Ö Ñ Ì È Æ Ä Ö Ç Ñ Ä Å Ì È Ü Ì Õ Ë Ö Ã Ä Å Ì È Ã È × Ï Ã Å È Ä Ë È Ã È Ñ Ë Ì Ó Ä Â Ë Æ Ô Æ Ä Ë Ï Ü Ã Æ ß Ë Ê ÊÃ Æ Ä Â Ë Õ Ì Ä Ë È Ä Å Ã Ê Ë Ï Å Æ Æ Å Ì È Æ Ä Ì Ä Â Ë Ë È Ò Å Ö Ì È Ï Ë È Ä Ö Ë Æ Ç Ê Ä Å È Ø Ó Ö Ì Ï Å Ä Æ Ç Æ Ë Ú Û Ä Ã Ê Æ Ì Å È Ñ Ê Ç × Ë ÆÄ Â Ë × Ë Ø Ö Ë Ë Ì Ó Ö Ë Ñ Ô Ñ Ê Å È Ø Ã È × Ö Ë Ç Æ Ë Õ Ö Ã Ñ Ä Å Ñ Ë × Ã È × Ä Â Ë Ë Ó Ó Ë Ñ Ä Æ Ì Ó Ä Â Ë Æ Ë ç Ë Ú Ø Ú Ö Ë Ç Æ Å È Øß Ã Æ Ä Ë ß Ã Ä Ë Ö è Ö Ë Ä Ç Ö È Å È Ø È Ç Ä Ö Å Ë È Ä Æ Ã È × Ì Ö Ø Ã È Å Ñ Ï Ã Ä Ë Ö Å Ã Ê Ä Ì Ã Ø Ö Å Ñ Ç Ê Ä Ç Ö Ë é Ü Ã È × Ä Â Ë Õ Ö Ì Ä Ë Ñ Ä Å Ì ÈÌ Ó Ì Ä Â Ë Ö È Ì È ê Ö Ë È Ë ß Ã É Ê Ë Ö Ë Æ Ì Ç Ö Ñ Ë Æ Ü Ë Ú Ø Ú Ä Â Ö Ì Ç Ø Â Ä Â Ë Õ Ö Ì × Ç Ñ Ä Å Ì È Ì Ó Ö Ë È Ë ß Ã É Ê Ë Ë È Ë Ö Ø Å Ë Æç Æ Ç Ñ Â Ã Æ É Å Ì Ø Ã Æ é Úë Ú Î Ë Ñ Â È Ì Ê Ì Ø Ô Ã È × Ì Õ Ë Ö Ã Ä Å Ì È à Å È Ñ Ì Ö Õ Ì Ö Ã Ä Ë Æ Ä Â Ë Ó Ç È Ñ Ä Å Ì È Ã Ê Å Ä Ô Ã È × Ä Â Ë Ë Ã Æ Ë ß Å Ä Â ß Â Å Ñ ÂÄ Â Ë Ë È Ä Å Ö Ë Æ Ô Æ Ä Ë Ï Å È Ñ Ê Ç × Å È Ø Ä Â Ë Ñ Ì Ê Ê Ë Ñ Ä Å Ì È Ü Ä Ö Ã È Æ Õ Ì Ö Ä Ü Ä Ö Ë Ã Ä Ï Ë È Ä Ã È × Ö Ë Ç Æ Ë Ã È × Þ Ì Ö ì È Ã Ê× Å Æ Õ Ì Æ Ã Ê Ñ Ã È É Ë Ñ Ì È Æ Ä Ö Ç Ñ Ä Ë × Ü Ì Õ Ë Ö Ã Ä Ë × Ã È × Ï Ì È Å Ä Ì Ö Ë × É Ô Ä Â Ë Ê Ì Ñ Ã Ê Ñ Ì Ï Ï Ç È Å Ä Ô Ã È × Þ Ì ÖÄ Â Ë Ä Ë Ñ Â È Å Ñ Ã Ê Ä Ë Ã Ï Æ Ì Ó Ä Â Ë Ê Ì Ñ Ã Ê Ç Ä Å Ê Å Ä Å Ë Æ Ú í Ç Ö Ä Â Ë Ö Ï Ì Ö Ë Ü Ä Â Ë Ö Ì É Ç Æ Ä È Ë Æ Æ Ì Ó Ä Â Ë Æ Ô Æ Ä Ë Ï ÜÅ Ä Æ Ò Ç Ê È Ë Ö Ã É Å Ê Å Ä Ô Ä Ì ß Ã Ö × Æ Õ Ì ß Ë Ö Ñ Ç Ä Æ Ü ß Ã Ä Ë Ö Æ Â Ì Ö Ä Ã Ø Ë Æ Ü î Ì Ì × Æ Ü Ë Ã Ö Ä Â æ Ç Ã Ù Ë Æ Ë Ä Ñ Ú Ã È × Ä Â Ëî Ë Ý Å É Å Ê Å Ä Ô Ã È × Ã × Ã Õ Ä Ã É Å Ê Å Ä Ô Ì Ó Å Ä Æ Ä Ë Ñ Â È Å Ñ Ã Ê Ë Ê Ë Ï Ë È Ä Æ Ä Ì Ä Â Ë Ë Ý Å Æ Ä Å È Ø Å È Ó Ö Ã Æ Ä Ö Ç Ñ Ä Ç Ö Ë Ã È × Ä Ì× Ë Ï Ì Ø Ö Ã Õ Â Å Ñ Ã È × Æ Ì Ñ Å Ì ê Ë Ñ Ì È Ì Ï Å Ñ × Ë Ò Ë Ê Ì Õ Ï Ë È Ä Æ Ã Ö Ë Å Ï Õ Ì Ö Ä Ã È Ä Ã Æ Õ Ë Ñ Ä Æ Úï Ú í Å È Ã È Ñ Å Ã Ê Ã È × Ë Ñ Ì È Ì Ï Å Ñ Å Æ Æ Ç Ë Æ à Ö Ë Ê Ã Ä Ë Ä Ì Ä Â Ë Ñ Ã Õ Ã Ñ Å Ä Ô Ì Ó Â Ì Ç Æ Ë Â Ì Ê × Æ Ã È × Ñ Ì Ï Ï Ç È Å Ä Å Ë ÆÄ Ì Õ Ã Ô Ó Ì Ö Æ Ã È Å Ä Ã Ä Å Ì È Ü Å È Ñ Ê Ç × Å È Ø Ä Â Ë Ñ Ì È Æ Ä Ö Ç Ñ Ä Å Ì È Ü Ì Õ Ë Ö Ã Ä Å Ì È Ü Ï Ã Å È Ä Ë È Ã È Ñ Ë Ã È × È Ë Ñ Ë Æ Æ Ã Ö ÔÖ Ë Å È Ò Ë Æ Ä Ï Ë È Ä Æ Å È Ä Â Ë Æ Ô Æ Ä Ë Ï Ú ð Ë Æ Å × Ë Æ Ä Â Ë Ë Ò Ã Ê Ç Ã Ä Å Ì È Ì Ó Ä Â Ë Æ Ë × Å Ö Ë Ñ Ä Ñ Ì Æ Ä Æ Ã Ê Æ Ì × Å Ö Ë Ñ ÄÉ Ë È Ë ì Ä Æ Ë Ú Ø Ú Ó Ö Ì Ï Ö Ë Ñ Ô Ñ Ê Ë × Õ Ö Ì × Ç Ñ Ä Æ ç Æ Ì Å Ê Ñ Ì È × Å Ä Å Ì È Ë Ö Ü Ó Ë Ö Ä Å Ê Å Æ Ë Ö Ü Ë È Ë Ö Ø Ô Ã È × Ö Ë Ñ Ê Ã Å Ï Ë ×ß Ã Ä Ë Ö é Ã È × Ë Ý Ä Ë Ö È Ã Ê Ñ Ì Æ Ä Æ Ã È × É Ë È Ë ì Ä Æ Â Ã Ò Ë Ä Ì É Ë Ä Ã Ù Ë È Å È Ä Ì Ã Ñ Ñ Ì Ç È Ä Ú ñ Ç Ñ Â Ë Ý Ä Ë Ö È Ã ÊÑ Ì Æ Ä Æ Ã Ö Ë Ë Ú Ø Ú Ë È Ò Å Ö Ì È Ï Ë È Ä Ã Ê Õ Ì Ê Ê Ç Ä Å Ì È Ã È × Â Ë Ã Ê Ä Â Â Ã ã Ã Ö × Æ Ü ß Â Å Ê Ë É Ë È Ë ì Ä Æ Å È Ñ Ê Ç × ËÅ È Ñ Ö Ë Ã Æ Ë × Ã Ø Ö Å Ñ Ç Ê Ä Ç Ö Ã Ê Õ Ö Ì × Ç Ñ Ä Å Ò Å Ä Ô Ã È × Æ Ç É Æ Å Æ Ä Ë È Ñ Ë Ë Ñ Ì È Ì Ï Ô Ü Ë Ï Õ Ê Ì Ô Ï Ë È Ä Ñ Ö Ë Ã Ä Å Ì È ÜÅ Ï Õ Ö Ì Ò Ë × Â Ë Ã Ê Ä Â Ã È × Ö Ë × Ç Ñ Ë × Ë È Ò Å Ö Ì È Ï Ë È Ä Ã Ê Ö Å Æ Ù Æ Úò Ú ñ Ì Ñ Å Ì ê Ñ Ç Ê Ä Ç Ö Ã Ê Ã È × Å È Æ Ä Å Ä Ç Ä Å Ì È Ã Ê Ã Æ Õ Ë Ñ Ä Æ à Ä Â Ë Ñ Ö Å Ä Ë Ö Å Ã Å È Ä Â Å Æ Ñ Ã Ä Ë Ø Ì Ö Ô Ö Ë Ó Ë Ö Ä Ì Ä Â ËÆ Ì Ñ Å Ì ê Ñ Ç Ê Ä Ç Ö Ã Ê Ã Ñ Ñ Ë Õ Ä Ã È Ñ Ë Ã È × Ã Õ Õ Ö Ì Õ Ö Å Ã Ä Ë È Ë Æ Æ Ì Ó Ä Â Ë Æ Ô Æ Ä Ë Ï Ü Ñ Ì È Ò Ë È Å Ë È Ñ Ë Ü Æ Ô Æ Ä Ë ÏÕ Ë Ö Ñ Ë Õ Ä Å Ì È Æ Ü Ø Ë È × Ë Ö Å Æ Æ Ç Ë Æ Ã È × Å Ï Õ Ã Ñ Ä Æ Ì È Â Ç Ï Ã È × Å Ø È Å Ä Ô Ü Ä Â Ë Ñ Ì È Ä Ö Å É Ç Ä Å Ì È Ä Ì Ó Ì Ì ×Æ Ë Ñ Ç Ö Å Ä Ô Ü Ñ Ì Ï Õ Ê Å Ã È Ñ Ë ß Å Ä Â Ä Â Ë Ê Ë Ø Ã Ê Ó Ö Ã Ï Ë ß Ì Ö Ù Ã È × Æ Ä Ã É Ê Ë Ã È × Ë Ó ì Ñ Å Ë È Ä Å È Æ Ä Å Ä Ç Ä Å Ì È Ã ÊÆ Ë Ä Ä Å È Ø Æ Ú
ó ô õ ö õ ÷ ÷ õ ø ù ú û ü ý þ õ ø þ ÿ ö ù ú þ ø õ ý þ ý õ � ø � � þ � � þ ÷125
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ! � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � " � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � # � � � � �� � � � # � � � � � � � � � � � � � " � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � # � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � " � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � $ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � % � � � � � � � � � � � % � � � � � � � � � & ' � � � � � �( � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � & � � � � � � ) � � * � � � � � + � � � � � � � � � � , - - - ./ � 0 � � � � � � � 1 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �, � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � # � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � # � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �2 � $ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 3 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �4 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � # � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 5 � 6 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � 7 �6 � � � � � � . � � � � . 8 8 � � � � � � � � � � � � � 8 � � � � 8 � � � 8 / ) 9 � � � 8 ) 2 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 7
126 : ; < = < > > < ? @ A B C D E < ? E F = @ A E ? < D E D < G ? H G E I J E >
Sustainability Criteria Scorecard
Sanitation system to be evaluated: __________________________
Criteria Indicators Rating (Passed/Failed) Remarks
Health 1. Protection from pathogens
2. Protection from chemicals
3. Compliance to DOH standards
Environment 1. Compliance to DENR
standards
2. Potential reuse of treated
wastewater
3. Potential reuse of treated
sludge
Economy 1. User’s capacity to pay for cost-
recovery
2. User’s capacity to pay for O &
M
3. Potential for income generation
Technology 1. Durability
2. Simple construction and O &
M
3. Adaptability to local context
Socio-cultural 1. Convenience
2. Safety
3. Appropriateness to local
cultural context
K L M N M O O M P Q R S T U V M P V W N Q R V P M U V U M X P Y X V Z [ V O127
REFERENCESPublications
Biosphere Environment and Health Systems Series Volume 2. Policies and Guidelines on Wastewater
Disposal Systems. Compiled by Bonifacio Magtibay. 1999. Quezon City: PCWS, ITN Foundation
Center for Advanced Philippine Studies. SEI-ESR2 Knowledge Node in the Philippines: A Project Docu-
ment. 2009. Quezon City.
Discussion Note: Dignity, Disease and Dollars: Asia’s Urgent Sanitation Challenge. 2007. Stockholm:
ADB
DOH National Epidemiology Center, Field Heath Service Information System (FHSIS) Annual Report
2008
EASAN, Universal Sanitation in East Asia: Mission Possible? 2007, WHO, WSP, UNICEF
Engaging Sanitation Entrepreneurs: Supporting private entrepreneurs to deliver public goods. 2008.
Building Partnerships for Development.
Environmental Health Project Strategic Report 2: Guidelines for the Assessment of National Sanitation
Policies. 2002, Washington: USAID
Institutional Changes for Sanitation: Discussion Paper. 2009, Bangkok: UN ESCAP
International Year of Sanitation 2008 Kit. UN WATER.
Lenton, Robert, Wright, Albert M. And Lewis, Kristen. UN Millenium Project Task Force on Water and
Sanitation Health, dignity and Development: what will it take. 2005. Earthscan and UNDP.
Medium Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP) for 2004-2010
Medium Term Public Investment Program (MTPIP) 2005-2010
Model PPTA TOR: Project Preparation Technical Assistance: Terms of Reference for Consulting Ser-
vices, Planning Urban Sanitation and Wastewater Management Improvements.
National Sewerage and Septage Management Program (NSSMP) Full Report. 2009. Manila: DPWH
National Sewerage and Septage Management Program (NSSMP) Full Report. Annexes. 2009. Manila:
DPWH
National Census Report, 2009. National Statistics Offi ce
National Demographic and Health Survey, 2005. National Statistics Offi ce.
National Strategy and Action Plan for the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector. Volume II: Sanitation Sec-
tor Plan Study Report. NEDA.
National Strategy and Action Plan for the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector. Volume III: Policy and
128 \ ] ^ _ ^ ` ` ^ a b c d e f g ^ a g h _ b c g a ^ f g f ^ i a j i g k l g `
Strategy Papers. NEDA
National Strategy and Action Plan for the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector. Volume IV: Sanitation Sec-
tor Plan Case Studies and Models. NEDA
NEDA Board Committee on Infrastructure (INFRACOM), Resolution No. 2, Series of 2008, CREAT-
ING A SUB-COMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES
NEDA Board Resolution No. 12 (s. 1995), APPROVING THE COMMON DEFINITION OF TERMS
RELATIVE TO WATER SUPPLY, SEWERAGE AND SANITATION. Water Supply and Sanitation
Sector Plan Study Review. Volume II: Appendices. 1998. NEDA
NEDA Board Resolution No. 5 series of 1994. Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Plan Study Review.
Volume II: Appendices. 1998. NEDA
ODA Resources for the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector, SEPTEMBER 4, 2008 UPDATE, Prepared
by the Philippine Water Revolving Fund Support Program for the PDF Sub-WG on WSS
Philippine Environment Monitor, 2003. Manila: DENR and the World Bank Group
Philippine Water Supply Sector Roadmap Action Plan. TWG Working Document. 2008.
Philippine Water Supply Sector Roadmap. 2009. Manila: NEDA
Philippines Sanitation Sourcebook and Decision Aid. 2005. Manila, DILG and WSP
Republic Act 9279, Clean Water Act 2004
Sanitation Policy Guidelines, WEDC 2007
Sanitation Technology Information Kit. 2009. Makati: Philippine Sanitation Alliance.
Secretariat’s Report: Philippine Water Supply Sector Roadmap. 2009. Manila: NEDA
Social Marketing of Sanitation. 2006, Nairobi: UN Habitat
Tayler, Kevin and Scott, Rebecca. Application of tools to support national sanitation policies. WEDC,
2005
The Code on Sanitation of the Philippines (Presidential Decree NO. 856). 1976. Manila: DOH
Water and Sanitation Program: Sustainable Sanitation in East Asia (SuSEA) Mid-term Review: Philippines
Component. 2009:
Water for Asian Cities Programme, Strategy and Action Plan: Mainstreaming Gender, Water and Sanita-
tion. 2006, Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Human Settlements Programme, (UN Habitat)
Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Assessments: A Guide For Country-Level Action. WHO, UNICEF.
Wilfredo, Jose. Asian Development Bank. “Wastes treat Wastes.” 2005.
Willetts, Juliet, Wicken, James and Robinson, Andy. Meeting the Sanitation and Water Challenge in South-
East Asia and the Pacifi c. Synthesis Report on the Sanitation and Water Conference. 2008, Melbourne:
International Water Centre
WSP Sanitation and Hygiene Series. From Burden To Communal Responsibility: A Sanitation Success
Story from Southern Region in Ethiopia. 2007. Nairobi, Kenya: Water and Sanitation Program – Africa
m n o p o q q o r s t u v w x o r x y p s t x r o w x w o z r { z x | } x q129
WSP, USAID, Economic Impacts of Sanitation in the Philippines, 2008, Jakarta: World Bank.
WSP-EAC, USAID, Economic Impacts of Sanitation in the Philippines: Summary. 2008, Jakarta: World
Bank East Asia and the Pacifi c Region
WSSCC, Public Funding for Sanitation, The Many faces of Sanitation Subsidies, 2009.
Project Documents
Center for Advanced Philippine Studies, SEI- ESR2 Knowledge Node in the Philippines: A project docu-
ment, January 2009
Streams of Knowledge, Guidelines for Developing Sanitation Policies, 2004
Powerpoint Presentations
Ben Eijbergen, The Forgotten Sector: Sanitation and Sewerage in the Philippines. 2006 Manila, World
Bank Offi ce (powerpoint presentation
Workshop and Meetings
2nd National Sanitation Summit. 2008 July. ADB Headquarters, Manila.
National Workshop on the Philippine Water and Sanitation Sector Assessment Process. 2009, April, San
Mateo Rizal.
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for All – Solutions and Actions, Local and National. 2004. Dakar, Senegal:
WSSCC
Technical Working Group meeting August 14, 2009, Local Government Academy offi ce
Technical Working Group Writeshop October 7-9, 2009 Island Cove, Cavite City
Technical Working Group meeting November 27, 2009, Local Government Academy offi ce
DOH Cluster Meeting, December 3, 2009, DOH Manila
NEDA Infracom Sub-committee on Water Resources, February 7, 2010