Financing Rural WSS in Tajikistan/the state of the water sector

From WaterWiki.net

Jump to: navigation, search
Toolkit Water Supply and Sanitation in Central Asia (FAQ:WSS in Central Asia) edit
Financing Rural WSS in Tajikistan (Country background / Socio-Economic context / Water-Policy context / The State of the Water-Sector / Applying the FEASIBLE-model / Bibliography) | Kyrgyzstan WSS Financing NPD (First Steering Group Report / ...) | NEXT TITLE | ...
Related WaterWiki-materials: ... | ...
Selected external resources: ... | ...

Contents

Water Indicators Methodology

The Joint Monitoring Programme of WHO and UNICEF defines the following water indicators for their assessments: The “total access” takes into account all improved water supply sources be they privately or publicaly owned The “house connections” only take into account piped water that is distributed in the house or just outside (yard) and can be considered as used privately. “Reasonable access” was broadly defined as the availability of at least 20 litres per person per day from a source within one kilometre of the user’s dwelling. Types of source that did not give reasonable and ready access to water for domestic hygiene purposes, such as tanker trucks and bottled water, were not included. Sanitation was defined to include connection to a sewer or septic tank system, pour-flush latrine, simple pit or ventilated improved pit latrine, again with allowance for acceptable local technologies. The excreta disposal system was considered adequate if it was private or shared (but not public) and if it hygienically separated human excreta from human contact. Access to water and sanitation does not imply that the level of service or quality of water is “adequate” or “safe”. Piped systems should not be considered “functioning” unless they were operating at over 50% capacity on a daily basis; and that handpumps should not be considered “functioning” unless they were operating for at least 70% of the time with a lag between breakdown and repair not exceeding two weeks. These aspects were taken into consideration when estimating coverage for countries for which national surveys had not been conducted. However, they were not taken into consideration when estimating national coverage using survey data, on which the report is primarily based. The table below gives an overview on which water supply and sanitation technologies are classified as “improved” and not improved

The World Health Organisation works with the indicators depicted in the table below:

Indicator Water Supply Sanitation
Improved Household connection. Public standpipe. Borehole. Protected dug well. Protected spring. Rainwater collection Connection to a public sewer. Connection to septic sewer. Pour flush latrine. Simple pit latrine.Ventilated Improved Latrine
Non Improved Unprotected well. Unprotected spring. Vendor provided water. Bottled water. Tanker truck-provided water Service (or bucker) latrines. Public latrines. Open/uncovered latrines (referring to the hole not a lack of superstructure)


In several additional indicators have been introduced. These are not meant to substitute for the “official” indicators, but to be used together with them to paint a more realistic and comprehensive picture of safety and sustainability of WSS services in ECA. These indicators were developed by consultants (Institute of Urban Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation) through local data collection, desk studies of available literature, and through a consultative process involving the World Bank and local stakeholders in Albania, Georgia, and Tajikistan. These proposed complementary indicators provide measures of sustainability of access to water supply and water quality. For sanitation services, the complementary indicators characterize functionality, availability, and maintenance of sanitation facilities. Moreover, complementary indicators capture explicitly the affordability of water supply and sanitation services, which may be a constraint to access. The following table summarizes these complementary indicators (World Bank, 2006, pp. 20 – 21):


Indicator Rural Water
Centralized Water Coverage Rural population provided with access to centralized water supply dived by total rural population
Centralized sanitation services coverage Rural population provided with centralized sanitation services divided by total rural population
Weighted average duration of scheduled water supply (hrs/day) Daily hours of water supply forseen by schedule multiplied by the proportion of rural population served by schedule
Number of waterborne diseases per unit of population (diarrhea, hepatitis A, typhoid fever, cholera). Proportion of untreated wastewater (%) Incidence of diseases officially registered in rural areas divided by total rural population
Number of urban/rural sanitation service failures per 1 km of sanitation network Number of sanitation pipe breaks plus blockages in sanitation network divided by total length of rural sanitation network
Proportion of urban/rural population who pay for water more than 3% of total disposable income (2nd best alternative: average water and sanitation bill as a % of average disposable income or expenditures) Number of connected households where share of water bill in household average expenses exceeds 3% divided by total number of connected rural households

Coverage Estimates Rural Water Supply and Sanitation

In its 2006 estimates, the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme assessed the total improved rural water supply to account for 48 percent coverage of total rural population. Household connections in rural Tajikistan only accounted for 20%, whereas 45 % of rural population where connected to the sanitation system. These estimates are coherent with other assessments undertaken by OECD EAP Task Force and EUWI. Overall Tajikistan faces a structural gap between rural and urban water supply and sanitation. This becomes clear when looking at the coverage numbers between bigger and smaller Tajik cities. According to data the population of Dushanbe is fully covered by water supply services; in 2001-2005, in towns with 50,000–150,000 population water supply services were provided to 92% of the residents; however, in towns with population less than 50,000 people the coverage by water supply services was very low. While by the results of 2001 the water supply services were provided to 59% of enterprises living in these towns, then by the end of the period of analysis this percent went down to 57% (OECD and EUWI, 2007, p.10). The main part of the population, receiving water supply services, has access through points of connection to the centralized water supply network, located in their living facilities. By the results of 2005, out of 93% of population, receiving water supply services, 82% had access to these services through points of connection to water supply network in their houses, and only 11% used water through common water supply points. In towns with less than 50,000 population, the coverage by sewerage services in 2001-2004 was even lower, at the level of 27%-28%, however, by the results of 2005 the value of this indicator went up to 39%, thus surpassing the value of the indicator in larger towns. A rapid growth of the indicator for this group is related to a growth of population which has access to sewerage services in the town of Tursunzade, where, according to information provided by managers of the local water supply and wastewater enterprise, over one year the number of people who received water supply services increased from 8 580 to 23 325 people (OECD and EUWI, 2007, p.11). Over the last 6 years provision of housing facilities of all forms of property with water supply and wastewater collection services increased in the Republic of Tajikistan. In rural areas it went up 2.2 times. Special attention should be paid to a very low level of provision of housing facilities with centralized water supply and wastewater collection services in rural areas, where the value of the relevant indicator does not exceed 3%. By the results of selective surveys, the level of population coverage by wastewater collection services was much lower, compared to the water supply services. Generally for the Republic of Tajikistan, centralized water supply services were provided to not more than 16% of population; while in urban population centres almost half of the population had access to centralized water supply services, then only 2% of rural population had access to centralized water supply services (OECD and EUWI, 2007, p. 14).


Image:Tajikistan access WS rural.JPG

Source: WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme, June 2006

Image:Tajikistan access San rural.JPG

Source: WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme, June 2006

Water Quality and Water Borne Diseases

For enterprises, providing services to towns with population up to 50,000 people the value of tests corresponding to the residual chlorine indicator in 2003–2005 was always above 99%. Currently, only some information is available that makes it possible to estimate the compliance of the laboratory tests of water with the national standards on water supply service quality. In particular, such information for the entire country and for its administrative areas was provided by the centres of state sanitation and epidemiological surveillance. This information covers the period of 1996–2004. According to this centre, the results of microbiological surveys in 1996 and 2004 showed that about 30% of samples did not meet the national standard. In 2000, this indicator was over 40%. In 1996, in Kurgan-Tube, Kulyab and Khatlon regions, the number 40 of samples not compliant with the national standard, exceeded 57%. As regards sanitary and chemical indicators, 42.6% of taken samples in 1996 and 30.2% in 2004 did not comply with the national standard. In Kulyab area, in 86.5% of samples taken in 1996 did not comply with the national standard by their sanitary and chemical indicators (World Bank, 2007, pp. 39 -40).

Practically every report of international organizations pays attention to a very high level of diseases, directly related to low quality of water used by population. In particular, as noted bin the report of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, in 2001 only in one region, Khatlon Oblast of the Republic of Tajikistan, recorded 1,331 cases of typhoid fever and 26,284 cases of diarrhoea; it is specially stressed that there is a direct relation between the number of the above cases and the level of people’s access to good potable water (OECD and EUWI, 2007, p.41).

Image:Water_Borne_Diseases_Tajikistan.JPG

Source: OECD and EUWI, 2007, p.41

From the diagram above can be seen that the level of diseases, directly related to bad quality of water, was always at an unacceptably high level during all post-Soviet period. Despite some improvement of the situation, compared to the most critical year of 2000, in the following years, the number of diseases related to quality of water still exceeded, by the results of 2003, the level of diseases observed in 1990, i.e., during the period of existence of Tajikistan as one of the USSR republics (OECD and EUWI, 2007, p. 41). In Tajikistan all received wastewater is sent for treatment. Primary treatment was made for 84% of received waste water, however, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact the level of the indicator for all enterprises, taking part in the monitoring, was ensured, basically, by the water supply and wastewater enterprise in the city of Dushanbe, where all received wastewater was treated. The situation is more acceptable at enterprises, providing services to towns with population up to 50,000 people: by the results of 2001–2002, all received wastewater was not treated by primary treatment systems, and only in the following years the level of primary treatment of received wastewater made 11%-15% (OECD and EUWI, 2007, p. 42). In towns with population up to 50,000 people, all received wastewater was also subjected to biological treatment (OECD and EUWI, 2007, p.43).

Infrastructure Condition

The consequence of a very high depreciation of fixed assets of the water supply and wastewater enterprises in Tajikistan is the unacceptably high level of accident rates in water supply and sewerage networks. The indicator characterizing the number of accidents per km of the water supply network, was persistently at the level of 3.4 accident/km for the entire sample of enterprises. For comparison, it should be noted that in the Russian Federation the value of this indicator was almost 10-fold lower (0.38 accident/km by the results of 2005) (OECD and EUWI, 2007, p.26). The highest level can be found in the group of enterprises, providing services to towns with population up to 50,000 people: already in 2001 its value was 4.3 accident/km of the network, and after its decrease in 2002-2003 to 3.7 accident/km, in the next 2 years this indicator for this group of enterprises rapidly increased to 4.7 accident/km of the network. The situation is even more critical in the sewerage networks of the Republic of Tajikistan. Enterprises, providing services to towns with population up to 50,000 people, had the accident rate 10 times higher than the accident rate in the Russian Federation (2.50 and 0.22 accident/km of the network, respectively) (OECD and EUWI, 2007, p.27). The volume of water that gives no income, calculated for the water supply and wastewater enterprises of the Republic of Tajikistan, included into the sample, was stably at a very high level: 52%-53% of the total amount of water supplied to the network (OECD and EUWI, 2007, p.23). For enterprises, providing services to towns with population up to 50,000 people, the share of water giving no income remained at a higher level: while in 2001-2004 the value of the indicator 6.1 was 14%- 16%, then by the results of 2005 it went up to 23% of the total amount of water supplied to the network. The volume of water that gives no income, calculated per km of the water supply network, by the results of 2005 made 280 m3 per day for the entire sample of enterprises, thus, going up by 17% compared to the results of 2003 (OECD and EUWI, 2007, p.24).

Financial and Billing Situation

Incomes of water supply and wastewater enterprises of the Republic of Tajikistan, increased from 1.2 to 4.3 US cents per m3 of water between 2001 and 2005. The maximum level of incomes throughout the period of analysis was reported among enterprises, providing services to towns with population up to 50,000 people (4.3 US cents in 2001 and 6.1 US cents by the results of 2005). The main part of incomes of enterprises, providing services to towns with population up to 50,000 people, was obtained by provision of wastewater collection services. The share of population in the incomes from water supply over the period of analysis decreased from 31% in 2003 to 23.3% by the results of 2005, whereas the share of commercial users as a whole for all enterprises, taking part in the monitoring, increased to 38.1%. In general over the period of analysis, the ratio between tariffs for commercial enterprises and population had an obvious trend towards increase. While in 2001 the tariffs for commercial users exceeded tariffs for population 3.3 times for the whole of Tajikistan, then by the results of 2005 this ratio increased to 4.2. As regards enterprises, providing services to towns with population up to 50,000 people, the value of this indicator decreased from 5.0 by the results of 2001 to 3.2 in 2004; however by the results of 2005 it again increased to the level of 3.4.

The period of fees collection 2001 – 2005 remained at a very high level for all enterprises. In 2001–2002 as well as in 2004–2005, the period of fees collection was 260–280 days on the average, while by the results of 2003 its value increased to 326 days; thus on the average the users paid for communal services and resources bills 9-11 months later. As regards enterprises, providing services to towns with population up to 50,000 people, the situation with payment of fees for the services, compared to other enterprises can be considered as quite satisfactory (of course, it is possible at all to call satisfactory the period of fees collection making 5-6 months). It should be noted that from 2003 to 2005 the value of period of collection fees for this group of enterprises decreased almost by 20%, making 151 days by the results of 2005. It is quite clear that such long period of fees collection, reported for all water supply and wastewater enterprises in the Republic of Tajikistan, included points to a very low level of fees collection. As regards enterprises, providing services to towns with population up to 50,000 people, the fees collection can be called relatively satisfactory: the value of always exceeded 80% and by the results of 2005 it reached 87%. The ratio between billed amounts and operational costs related to production and provision of water supply and wastewater collection services, both for all enterprises sampled and by different groups of enterprises, providing services to towns with different numbers of population, was persistently above 100% during 2001 and 2005. However, it does not follow from the above that water supply and wastewater enterprises of the Republic of Tajikistan were able to fully cover their operational costs. As stated above, the collection of fees from water supply and wastewater enterprises of the Republic of Tajikistan was at an unacceptably low level; as a result, on the average, these enterprises received only half of the amount which they should have received from users of communal resources and services according to the bills. When determining the value of the additional indicator, characterizing the ratio between the actually received incomes and the operational costs, then on the average for all enterprises the value of this indicator over the period of analysis decreased from 71% in 2001 to 60% by the results of 2005. The gross value of the fixes assets of water supply and wastewater enterprise in the Republic of Tajikistan, included into the sample, decreased over the period of analysis from $11.1 to $8.5 per employee. As regards enterprises, providing services to towns with population up to 50,000 people, the value of fixed assets decreased from $3 to $2.7 per employee. The decreased value of fixed assets was reported also by different types of services: the cost of fixed assets pertaining to water supply decreased from $9.1 in 2001 to $7.7 in 2005, while the cost of fixed assets pertaining to sewerage services decreased from $13.3 to $9.0.

Operational Costs

Between 2001 and 2005 the expenditures of the enterprises, included into the monitoring, increased from 0.9 cents to 3.1 cents per m3 of water; the highest level of operational costs was always for the enterprises, providing services to towns with population up to 50,000 people (3.7–5.6 cents per cubic metre of supplied). In general, for all water supply and wastewater enterprises of the Republic of Tajikistan, covered by the monitoring, the structure of operational costs changed insignificantly. The salary share increased from с 32% to 36.9%, the electricity share increased from 12.5% to 14.6%, and the share of operational costs related to subcontracts increased from 19.5% to 23.0%. Over the period of analysis, the number of staff employed by the water supply and wastewater enterprises, calculated per 1000 persons receiving services, persistently remained at the level of 1.6 employees, which is one-third below the similar indicator for the Russian Federation. For enterprises outside Dushanbe included this indicator was 2.2-2.7 employees per 1000 persons receiving services, on the average. In general, in 2001-2005, the number of employees at the water supply and wastewater enterprises remained at the level of 1.2-1.3 employees per 1000 persons receiving water supply and wastewater collection services. In the total number of employees, over three fourths included employees of the water supply sector; this ratio is typical of all water supply and wastewater enterprises, taking part in the monitoring.

References

See also

External Resources

Attachments

2839 Rating: 2.1/5 (27 votes cast)