827AAL 85 Distr.

RESTRICTEDLC/R.44U17 June 1S85ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

E C L A C

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean

DRINKING WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION FOP. THE DISPERSEDRURAL POPULATION IN LATIN AMERICA *

AAL

* This document was prepared by the Water Resources Unit of theNatural Resources and Energy Division for the National Water Congress,, Mendoza,Argentina, 27-31 May 1985.

85-6-831

- J.11 -

CONTENTS

Page

Suiraary ................................................................. v

Introduction ............................................................ 1

The Rural Dispersed Population .......................................... 1

The Present Supply of Drinking Water and Sanitation Services to theRural Dispersed Population .............................................. 2

Current Policies towards the Provision of Rural Water Supply andSanitation .............................................................. 7

Options in Providing Water Supply and Sanitation to the RuralDispersed Population .................................................... 9

Possible Policy Alternatives ............................................ 15

Conclusions ............................................................. 19

Annex 1 ................................................................. 21

TABLES

1 Latin America: Percentage distribution of the population in ruralareas by type of settlement .......................................... 3

2 Latin America, selected countries, drinking •••ater supply ............. '"'>

3 Latin America, selected countries, sanitation ........................ >.i

U Latin America: Investment needed to meet Decade targets .............. 11

5 Descriptive comparison of sanitation suitable for rural dispersedpopulation ........................................................... 12

6 Summary of annual economic costs per household ....................... 14

/SUMMARY

- V -

SUMMARY

Economic growth in Latin America has been accompanied by increasing urbanizationof the population. One repercussion of this has been the neglect of the needsof the rural population, including effective policies for the provision ofprotected sources of drinking water supply and adequate sanitation. This problemis particularly acute for the dispersed population.

This paper is directed towards specific proposals for development ofeffective policies. A description of the contemporary situation is provided andof the magnitude of the demand for better services. The proposals for improvedpolicies are placed within the context of the International Drinking WaterSupply and Sanitation Decade.

/Introduction

Introduction

Economic growth in Latin America, as elsewhere., has been accompanied by thesteadily increasing urbanization of the populatign. This increasing urbanizationengendered by rural emigration has led among other effects to the relative neglectof the needs of the remaining rural population, even where it is still a largeproportion of the total population. One aspect of this neglect has been ,the absenceof policies directed towards the effective provision of protected sources ofdrinking water supply and adequate sanitation. Recently, particularly in somecountries, efforts have been made to remedy this situation but the problem remainsacute at the regional level, especially for the dispersed population...

This paper is directed towards a consideration of specific proposals fordeveloping effective policies upon which successful programmes for the provisionof services could be built. A description is given of the contemporary state of

' - • ' • • ; * . ' • ' ' • ' 't • ' * ' . ' • ' ' - ' . ' .'• - • ' " , . - . " - • . •the provision of drinking water and sanitation services to the rural dispersedpopulation in Latin America and of the magnitude of the demand for better services.The proposals for improved policies are placed within th&r content qf theobjectives of the International Drinking. Water Supply and Sanitation Decade .andthe development of technology that has accompanied the initiation, of the Decade.

In some aspects,:.although the. relative neglect 'of the rural dispersedpopulation can be seen as a logical, if negative, consequence of the direjction ofeconomic and social development in the region, it is somewhat contradictory whenthe low cost of providing adequate services is considered. The persistence of thefailure is a vivid illustration of the political arid social isolation whichaccompanies the spatial isolation of the dispersed rural population. Thepossibility of resolving the problem of this section of the rural population doesnot appear to have been seriously considered at any level of government withinthe region.

The Rural Dispersed Population •; : • • - • . - - . . . .

No direct estimate of the size of the rural population living dispersed throughthe countryside is possible for Latin America, as a whole. The normal concept ofthe rural population,, for which population estimates are readily available includesboth those living in nucleated settlements and the dispersed population. It hasbeen estimated, however, that some 85% of the rural population live in settlements

/of less

— 2 —

of less than 500 inhabitants (see table !).!/ This would mean that in 1980 some110 millions of people lived in such settlements and that some 130 million will doby the year 2010 (see annex 1, table 1). It can be expected that with the tendencyof the rural population to decline relatively, and even absolutely in some countriesof the region, the proportion of that population living in dispersed as opposedto nucleated settlements will also decline. There is no direct evidence to supportthis assertion although the larger rural settlements, those defined as 'mixedrural-urban' by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC),do appear to act "as bridge between the rural areas and the urban system".2/ Thisbridge function will undeniably continue and possibly increase in significance overthe next twenty to thirty years so that it can be anticipated that many of therural dispersed population will move to nucleated rural or even urban settlements.

Whatever the degree of raigration.of the rural dispersed population it willundeniably continue to form a significant part of total population of the regionfor the foreseeable future. There are .variations in the proportion of the populationliving in dispersed settlements from country to country but in the region as a wholeapproximately one-third of the total population lived in settlements of less than500 inhabitants in 1970. A recent ECLAC study concluded that,

"the rural population will retain a system of settlement in which dispersedand the small rural villages will have equal or greater relative weight inthe distribution of the rural population, without.any significant changein their present living conditions". /

The Present Supply of Drinking Water and Sanitation Servicesto the Rural Dispersed Population

The lack of direct information on the characteristics of the population living in ™dispersed hamlets extends to the provision of water and sanitation. Directstatistics are not generally available and the state of services has to be inferred

I/ See Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, Latin AmericanConference on Human Settlements, Population, Urbanization and Human Settlementsin Latin America. Present Situation and Future Trends (1950-2000), E/CEPAL/CONF.70/L.4, 10 October 1979.

2/ Ibid., p . 1 7 . - . : . . -_3/ Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, Dynamics and

Structure of the Human Settlement Process in Latin America and the Caribbean. TheMain Critical Areas, E/CEPAL/G.1282, 1984, p. 65. . . . ' ' -

/Table 1

- 3 -

Table 1

LATIN AMERICA: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION;r.-vt -: If.: IN RURAL AREAS BY TYPE OF SETTLEMENT

Country Year

Rural•'settlements T:

of dispersed,population(up to 500

inhabitants)(A)

Rural

1 'Rural.settlements

of' ' , .- . - r .... , ... populationconcentrated ,i ^ - by censuspopulation , ... ...X560 to 1 999 definitlon•inhabitants) ' • • • ' - • •. ... .(B) (A+B)

Mixed"rural-urbansettlements(2 000 to19 999

inhabitants)(C)

Bolivia1 HondurasCosta RicaPeruColombiaPanamaBrazilCubaMexicoVenezuela

197619741973197219b419701970'197019701971

51.851.030.7

*••"> 36.3 '2.737.7Al.5

••

18.7

5 7• •-• .•••'•6*3--'' • -- . - : • . • • 22.3 '- —

'• •'••••• lb.2 •'5.78v7a/

...... 3;2 ........• • .':" «• ''..

• • ' - : '8.2c/

57 557*3

: :53^052.548.446.444.742.046. Oc/26. 9c/

10.212.214.0

,•:•• _.;

15.416. bV15.715-016.813.8

Source: National censuses, Population Distribution by Size of Locality.a/ Population in settlements of up to 1 000 inhabitants. •b/ Population in settlements of 1 000 to 25 000 inhabitants,c/ Population in settlements of up to 2 500 inhabitants.

/from the

from the information available on the rural population as a whole. This situationis not as serious as it might be given that the dispersed population form theoverwhelming majority of the rural population in most countries of the region.

In 1980, the last year for which region-wide information is available, inall countries of the region the provision of water and sanitation facilities tothe rural population was notably inferior to that of the urban population (seetable 2, annex 1). This is particularly the case with sanitation and, as might beanticipated,, with house connections to centralized piped systems. In fact, thereis only a vague definition of what supply of water services to the rural populationconstitutes. The terms used are "adequate" and "reasonable access" which, even ifdefined, are less concrete than the existence of house connections used as thecommon definition in urban areas. In sanitation, the statistical basis is asclearer as adequate sanitation does imply the existence of some facility for excretadisposal other than the open ground.

The general regional picture can be clarified, and the conclusions drawn,reinforced, by examining the situation shown by recent censuses in the differentcountries of the region. Unfortunately, this information is only available for afew countries. Even with the census information, it is not possible to establishthe specific characteristics of service to the dispersed population as separatetabulations are normally not provided in the published census volumes.

In the four countries, for which information is available, the same patternis repeated although the level of service does vary. In each country, however,there is a notable lower level of service for the rural population (tables 2 and 3).This is particularly marked in Peru, although the complete absence of water andsanitation perhaps reflects a problem of definition rather than the real situation.In the other three countries, the proportion of rural houses without access to aprotected water source, the "other" category in the table, varies from over half inBolivia to a fifth in Panama. In sanitation the rural houses with no sanitationvaries much more from over 95% in Bolivia to 12% in Panama but is always far greaterthan the proportion of the urban houses reported as having no sanitation facilities.The proportion of houses sharing facilities is much lower in rural areas, Panamais an exception to this probably reflecting the weight of the dispersed populationin the rural total.

/Table 2

Table 2

LATIN AMERICA, SELECTED COUNTRIES, DRINKING WATER SUPPLY

Country

Bolivia /Census, 197o7UrbanRural

Brazil V /Census, 1980/UrbanRural

Panama ^/Census, 1980/UrbanRural

Peru /Census, 1980/UrbanRural

H O U 8Piped supply

In housetor

107 4768 300

12 774 99b1 344 065

141 835183 750

1

%

25.51.3

72.018.1

71.050.4

253 2480

24746

1 78382

4991

e sWell Other */

In lotNO

019Ib7

511189

230045

bO.

%

58.67.5

10.01.1

24.625.0

80

31215

1 8t>43 740

115

NQ

473375

622134

833465

8091 240

%

7.534.8

10.550.3

0.94.2

568510

35349

1 3242 259

674

NO

217674

213079

850Ob5

39.100.

%

8.456.4

7.530.4

3.420.3

20

River, lake ,spring, canal, tank truck, etc.Excluding houses not reporting.

•-301cr

Table 3

LATIN AMERICA. SELECTED COUNTRIES, SANITATION

H o u sCountry

e s.With sanitation

Exclusive a/NQ % NQ

Sharedi%

No

NQ

sanitation

%

Bolivia /Census, 19767

Brazil

Panama

UrbanRural

. V~ /Census, 198CUrbanRural

Census, 19807UrbanRural

11321

714 2482 942

156267

139490

312857

525765

26.93.5

81.940.0

78.473-6

845

1 874183

3649

709103

456777

55480

200

102

1813

.1•8

.8

.5

.3

.6

223592

1 2844 225

647

340923

676223

770080

56.095.7

7.457.5

12.9

Peru /(Tensus, 198o7UrbanRural

954 1780 0

.3

.01 1081 240

638510

53.70.0

_a/ In house or lotb/ Excluding houses not reporting.

icr>

•no

0)NH-

- 7 -

For Brazil more detailed data are available on ;;both water supply'and sanitation.These data confirm the' lower levels of service" available to; the•rrur'al; population^(annex 1, table ;3)V:6nly 3% of rural houses1 'had ihternarpipe'd'supplies of'drinkingwater compared; with: 66% of'urban'houses, but" also demonstrate" thfe' possibilities -for upgrading service/ The technologies 'available are already -widely 'diffused ifBrazilian data carirbe said to reflect the prbbable1 situation :irirthe region as awhole. For example, of the rural houses with sanitation, exclusively or shared,more than two-thirds"had latrine's. ' ' :: r" ""•' v " -

Current Policies towards the Provision of Rural Water Supplyand Sanitation ^ .•

It is puzzling, at least on the surface, that the provision of clean water andsanitation to the rural dispersed population, has not become a more central part ofthe IDWSSD programmes in most of the countries of the region. The provision ofservice to the rural dispersed population uses relatively simple technology, wellwithin the technical capability of all the countries of the region. Theexplanation cannot be sought in the direct opposition of any particular interestgroup, or in the lack of the appreciation of the benefits to be obtained, nor inany change in the level of external assistance. The explanation appears ratherto be in a particular combination of internal and external factors which haveinfluenced the development of policy towards water supply and sanitation in theregion.

The internal influences of most significance appear to be the strong urban; ... ' . '. ^ •••-.-ov..-. 7 • • ' • •••• ...-.'.•' -•••••.• •:-'?•" ;..;.•: r-rrr "•. \ r.-.- ' • • , - . :bias of water supply and sanitation institutions coupled with an absence ofspecific institution for the provision of water supply and sanitation to the ruraldispersed population. In general, this has led to the adoption of what could bedescribed as high technology solutions hostile to the handpump and the latrine.

The creation of uniform national services to replace or supplement existingmunicipal or state water supply and sanitation companies has been a central part

. : '' .*"'.• •.';-'i: . .'.:'''• . ' *

of the policies adopted towards the sector in almost all countries of Latin America.The particular form has varied but the reform has possessed a common set ofcharacteristics, the amalgamation of the provision of water supply and sewerageservices under the responsibility of one institution, and the adoption of morerigorous management criteria with an emphasis on self-financing. The policy has led

/to an

- 8 -

to an increase in both the quantity and quality of services and in many countriesled to the creation, for the'first time, of continuing efficient institutions.It isv/true that these institutions in many countries are organized at the nationallevel, rather than on a municipal basis, but most are only concerned with urbanservices. On occasion,-these institutions also provide services for the nucleatedrural population or a separate institution exists for this purpose. The dispersedrural population however, is not included and normally falls under theresponsibility of rural development institutions or the ministry of healthwhere water supply and sanitation must compete for funds with many other programmesin the same institution. The result of this competition is not always favourableand in few countries of the region are there vibrant water supply and sanitationprogrammes directed towards satisfying the needs of the rural dispersed population.

In fact, in few countries are there programmes of any kind.As a corollary, the policy has led, also, to an emphasis on centralized

piped water supply systems and waterborne sewerage systems of the traditionalwestern type with individual house connections. This policy has much to recommendit for the large, relatively high income, metropolitan areas, makes sense even inprovincial towns and in some countries can even be successful in villages. Nowhere,however, can it be extended to the dispersed rural population., and the policytoo often excludes the very poor due to their inability to pay for even a minimumservice.

Current preoccupation with sector, policy focuses, therefore, primarily onperfecting the superstructure necessary to support these relatively large scalecentralized systems. Emphasis is placed on the.necessity to generate sufficientfinance, followed by the need to improve .levels of operational efficiency,particularly through better maintenance of the installed infrastructure, and withthe need to increase the supply of skilled staff at all levels. The technplogyapplied is very conservative, and is identical to that used traditionally in NorthAmerica and Europe. In consequence, there is little local innovation in technologyor even managerial practice; exactly the areas where emphasis is required for the

provision of service to the rural dispersed population.Externally, the urban focus has been encouraged by strong emphasis in the

policies of international agencies on sector policies directed towards the .development of water supply and sewerage systems so managed as to generate

/revenues in

revenues in sufficient quantities to cover both operating and maintenance costsand to finance new capital investments. These concerns .have, overshadowed otheractivities of international organizations directed .to'-ards rural problems.Moreover, globally there has been a tendency to neglect the rural water supplyand sanitation problems of "middle-income" countrjies :to concentrate on the problems

• . . . - . ' ' .;" *T" I . - . . - . ' • • *.' . . — '-'

of the poorest countries which has weakened, th.e. impact of the rural directedprogrammes of the international agencies ip Latin. America. ; .

The sum of current policy is, in many if not.all countries of the region,the absence of policy for the supply of the rural dispersed population.. Thesemillions of Latin Americans are left to find,.for themselves. This is despite thesuggestion that to achieve the objectives ofrthe.IDWSSD, that governments shouldemphasize service to the unserved low-income rural and urban populations.

Options in Prov.lcUng -rfat,erSupply arid Sanitation to the"ural Dispersed .Population . :

The major technical options for providing .drinking water supply and sanitation tothe rural dispersed population-lie.with non-central'piped systems. It is possiblethat in the larger and denser populated rural areas piped: water supply could beprovided. The cost of any conventional sewerage system would certainly prohibitits use even in areas of densest population-. .'-In'general the technological'optionswhich could be applied are adaptations or improvements'to better the present sourcesof water or means of excreta disposal used by the rural dispersed population in theregion, the protected well and the latrine. • :;

The improvement of technology appropriate for the dispersed population hasnot been a central part of the activity undertaken in relation to the Decade todevelop alternatives to centrar-piped systems of the traditional western type.The work undertaken by the World. Bank, UNICEF and other organizations has beendirected towards the village-populations of the least developed or poorest countries,particularly in Africa and Asia.I/ This work is of value for some of the poor

M/ There has developed a very large literature on this subject of whichunfortunately very little is available in Spanish. Due to the abundance of .••• .literature it seems redundant to make extensive general reference. Perhaps the bestintroduction both to the work that has been done and the related literature is thefollowing World Bank publication, John M. Kalbermatten, De.Anne S. Julius, D. DuncanKara, and Charles G. Gurrasen, Appropriate Technology for Water Supply andSanitation - A Planners Guide, World Bank, Washington, December 1980.

' • /countries of

- 10 -

countries of Latin America with large rural populations but has not, in general,been undertaken with the situation of the rural dispersed population in mind.

It is true that many of the technological options that have been includedin the efforts to identify the most appropriate water supply and waste disposaltechnology are applicable to dispersed as well as concentrated populations. Theparticular demands on technology of the two populations are not however the same.For example, the need to reduce costs is important to both cases but for individualsupplies is of greater significance than for even the poorest communities. Equally,much stress has been placed on the development of handpurnps which can withstandconstant heavy use but this is not a serious problem for installation for individualor small group use. Many existing models of'handpurups could probably be usedwithout modification.

An important restriction on the use of sanitation technologies in individualrural households is the unlikely provision of a large enough supply of water topermit the use of technologies requiring piped water supplies. Given thisrestriction, the technological alternatives must.be chosen from those needing noor very small amounts of water (see table 5). Other factors such as ease ofconstruction, potential for self-help, the need for. little or no maintenance andthe absence of any requirement for. complementary .off-site investments would limitthe selection of appropriate technologies, to the first two technologies listed intable 5.

These two technologies, ventilated improved pit latrines and Reed OdorlessEarth Closets (ROEC) and Pour flush toilets, are technologies closest to thelatrine commonly used in rural Latin America. In terms, however, of sanitaryresults, these are undeniably superior to conventional pit latrines. The conventionalsimple pit latrine has two major disadvantages; they smell and are attractive toflies and mosquitoes for breeding. Both these negative factors are countered byventilated improved pit latrines and ROECs.

The following description is provided by the World Bank,;VIP latrines are a hygienic., low-cost, and indeed sophisticated form of

sanitation, have minimal fly and mosquito nuisance, and have only a minimal

requirements for user care and municipal involvement. The pit is slightly offsetto make room for an external vent pipe. The vent pipe should be at least 75

millimeters in diameter (ranging up to 200 millimeters); it should be painted black

/ Table 4

Table 4

LATIN AMERICA: INVESTMENT NEEDED TO MEET DECADE TARGETS

(Millions of US'dollars, 1981)

Country

ArgentinaBoliviaBrazilChileColombiaCosta Rica a/Dominican RepublicEcuadorEl SalvadorGuatemalaHondurasMexicoNicaraguaPanama TO/PeruTrinidad and TobagoUruguay a/

Total

4 456130

10 300444

1 612184620

1 536712621364

11 500236138

1 4841 055246

RuralWater Supply

56160200485812853165771120

2 2305613n/a2100

%1,2

21.91.9

10.83.66.513-720.68.0

11.433-019.423.79.4-

19.90

RuralSanitation

072100n/a10021n/a3272015191

1 67000n/a00

*09,91.0_6.6

11.4-

21.32.82.4

52.514.500-00

Source; PAHO, Sector Digests.

a/ 1981-1985.b/ 1981-1986.

DJtr

Table 5DESCRIPTIVE COMPARISON OF SANITATION' SUITABLE FOS RURAL DISPERSED POPULATION

-\QJDCLt-1OOQJrt(DCL

~c.«i tat iontechnology

I . V e n : i 1 8 1 9 dimproved pit Clatrines andReed Odorlc-ssEarth Closets( HOECs )

2. Pour-flush (FFt o i 1 e 1 5

5 . Double- vaul tcomposing(DVC)toilets

<*. Self-toppingaquaprivy

p. Three stageseptictank

6.Se-tic c/to.-.ks

-Source: ••• o r 1 da/ Or. or of£/ -f £rou:ic/ i-ui'-asiie

Construction Operating ~ase of £^lf-r.eipcost cost construction potential

Low Low Very easy HighVIr) except in

wet or rockyground

) Low Low Easy High

Moderate Low Requires Highsomeskilledlabor

Moderate Low Requires Highsomeskilledlabor

Moderate Low Requires Highsomeskilledlabor

High High Requires Lowsomeskilledlabor

Bank .f-sit-- ;;;;lLage disposal facilities are required for nondwater u- less than 1 meter beiow ground, a p l i n t h can conly for institution or high income household;.

iV a t ~ r i-i e q u i r 6require--:;: soil

conditions

r.'one Stable permeablesoil, groundwaterat least 1 meterbeiow surface b/

Water Stable permeablenear soil, groundwatertoilet at least 1 meter

below surface V"

None None (can bebuilt aboveground j

Water Permeable soil;near groundwater attoilet least 1 meter

below ground• surface b/

Water Permeable soil;near groundwater attoilet least 1 meter

below groundsurface JD/

vj'ater Permeable soil;pipe-i to groundwater athouse least 1 T.eterand below groundtoilet surface _b/

seweroc ". chnolcgie? .i built .

Complementary Reuse Health Institutionaloff-site potential benefits requirements

Investments a_/

None Low Good Lew

[lone Low very Lowgood

None High Good Low

Treatment or Moderate very Lowdisposal good |facilitiesfor sludge j

1Treatment or Moderate very Lowdisposal goodfacilitiesfor sludge

Off-site Moderate very Lowtreatment or gooddisposalfacilitiesfor sludge

- 13 -

and located on the sunny side.of the latrine updraft. with a correspondingdowndraft through the squatting, plate. Thus any odors emanating from the pitcontents are expelled via the •• vent pipe, leaving the superstructure odor free.The pit may be provided .with .removable cover sections to allow deslidging. :,

Recent work has indicated that pit ventilation may also have an importantrole in reducing fly and mosquito breeding. The draft discourages adult fliesand mosquitoes from entering and laying eggs-..; Nevertheless, some eggs will be laidand eventually adults will emerge. If .the vent pipe .is large enough to let lightinto the pit, and if the superstructure is sufficiently dark, the adults will tryto escape up the vent pipe. The vent pipe, however, is covered by a gauze screenso that the flies are prevented from escaping and they eventually fall back to .die in the pit''._5/

The design can be improved by constructing a double pit so as to eliminatethe need to move the latrine once the pit is full or by displacing the pit toone side, on ROEC. All designs can be easily; upgraded to pour-flush toilets.

The difference between pour-flush toilets and dry latrines is the use ofwater seals beneath the squatter plate or pedestal seat and.the,:use of limitedamounts of flushing water, 1 to 2 litres. The•advantage of • the pour-flush toiletis that as it is completely free from both odours and flies and nos.qiuitoes it canbe installed in the house. The pits for pour-flush toilets can be smaller thanthose of dry latrines because the digestion of excreta solids proceeds morerapidly in wet than in dry conditions.

Both the latrines and ROECs and ;the pour-flush toilets seem good technologicaloptions for the up.^radinp or new provision of sanitary facilities to the ruraldispersed population of Latin America. They offer a combination of characteristicssuited to the particular conditions of the rural areas of the region superior tothe other alternatives identified.

Due to the recent nature of the economic and technical analysis ofsanitation technologies good data are available oh the costs of the differentalternatives. Again the World Bank has obtained some information on costs both onthe initial capital costs of construction and on annual •economic costs of the

5/ World Bank, p. 79. , • ' . . ./different options.

- I n -

different options. The alternatives, suggested here are by far the cheapest withinstallation costs ranging from US$ 50 to US$ 225 per latrine unit depending onthe particular technology, the terrain and the superstructure materials employed.Similarly the annual economic costs are the lowest of the options included in theWorld Bank study (table 6).

Table 6 '

SUMMARY OF ANNUAL ECONOMIC 'COSTS PER HOUSEHOLD

(U.S. dollars, 1973)

Sanitation technology

Pit latrines, poured-f lush toilets, and ROECsD V C toilets • • . - • •Vault and vacuum collectionSewered aquaprivy or poured-flush toiletsFlush toilets with septic tanksConventional sewerage

Mean

: ,. .28 •

• •••• -46.104

159

233

400

Cost £/

Highest

5675210

191• 390

641

Lowest

8

2926

12535142

Source: World Bank.a/ Costs include annuitized capital and annual operating costs of on-site,

collection and treatment facilities, shadow priced as appropriate.Sewerage costs are average incremental costs. The figures given in thistable are taken from a limited number of observations only (particularlyin the cases of DVC toilets and sewered aquaprivies and PF); they shouldtherefore be used as an indication of relative :costs rather than for theirabsolute value. .

For water supply there are far fewer technical options than .for sanitation.The only possible options are handpumps or gravity fed piped systems from aprotected source. As this latter alternative can only be used under specialphysical conditions, it will not be discussed in any detail.6/ With the advent

6/ Except for high income rural residents or institutions where mechanicalpumps can be used but this is not significant for the establishment of pol.icytowards supply to the rural dispersed population as a whole.

/of the

- 15 -

of the. IDWSSD much effort has been placed on the development of handpump technologywhich previously had not changed, in any significant way.for the last century.Efforts have been made to incorporate new materials into the traditional cast ironand bronze pump, as well as to develop pumps .entirely^constructed of ,steel andplastics. At the same time much emphasis has been placed on producing morereliable pumps particularly under conditions of heavy: use ,7/:: .

The most elaborate of these efforts has been- the joint-World Bank-United ;

Nations Development Programme project on "Manual Purjiping Devices'for.: Rural WaterSupply" which aims to reduce the costs and improve.! the reliability; of rural/watersupply schemes through technological- improvements of ••handpurops. • The projectincludes^both laboratory and field .testing of/alternative pump designs in .largenumbers -around the world. It is hoped by testing^a. large number of pumps, some6 000 in total, to> develop, in co-ordination' with manufactures, improved designsfor differing conditions of use.8/ • Other, more limited efforts have been made,however, by other agencies.9_/ '. . ,-.

It is not clear, however, from the literature whether these efforts todevelop improved pump designs have achieved the degree of success initiallyexpected. The impression gained is that improvement in pump design has provedto be much more difficult than was originally anticipated.10/

Irrespective of the success" of the programmes of the international' agenciesto improve handpumps design, there are available in the handpump a viable andproved technology for providing safe water to populations that cannot be servedby centralized piped systems.

7/ For an account of the recent history of handpump technology developmentsee, WHO, International Reference Centre for Community Water Supply, Hand Pumps,Technical Paper Series 10, July 1977, pp. 131-169. .

8/ A report on this progr<unme including the tests on 18 pumps was issuedby the World Bank in 1984, Consumer Association Testing and Research Laboratories,Rural Water Supply Handpuraps Project, Laboratory Testing of Handpumps forDeveloping Countries: Final Technical Report, World Bank Technical Paper No. 19,June 1984.

9/ See for example, Donald Dharp and Michael Graham (ed.), Village .Handpumps Technology, Research and Evaluation in Asia, International DevelopmentResearch Centre, Ottawa, 1982.

10/ See for example, the discussion on the India Hark 11 pump design inWorld Water, August 1984. •

/There is

- 16 -

There is less information available on the costs of handpumps with theinformation available on alternative 'sanitation technologies. The costs ofinstalling handpumps can vary, however, greatly depending mainly on the costsof well-drilling even if the comparison.is restricted to handpiunps on shallowwells, less than 20 metres deep. In a recent study in Asia, the total averageinstallation costs of handpumps varied fronr US$ 150 in Malaysia to US$ 651 in :

Sri Lanka. The average costs for the four countries included in the study,Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand, were just over -US$ 400 with anaverage well depth of 9 metres,.Id./ :

It is perhaps worth emphasizing that there is little new in thetechnological options for rural water supply and sanitation discussed here. Allthe options have been and are being used in the region. It is not the noveltyof the technology that has prevented its widespread adoption. It remains the case,however, that the region has been largely isolated from-the recent attempts toimprove the technologies and to make them more accessible and useful inapplication. •

Possible Policy Alternatives

It has been recognized for some time that on a world-wide basis institutionalweakness is perhaps the most important difficulty to be overcome for the developmentof effective rural water supply and sanitation programmes,12/ This is certainlythe case for the rural dispersed population in Latin America. The first priroityfor policy, therefore, in this area must be the development of an institutionalbase in each country from which effective programmes can emerge. At the presentsuch an institutional base does not exist in most of the countries of the region.

The present institutional system varies among the different countries butgenerally it can be said that the supply of rural sanitation suffers from a lackof clear definition of institutional responsibility. The clear definition ofresponsibility for the provision of water supply and sanitation to the ruraldispersed world appears to be the first essential step in rescuing this populationfrom its present neglect. The particular institutional form is not significant

11/ IDRC, op. cit. , p. 65.127 See, for example, World Bank, Village Water Supply, Washington, 1976.

/compared with

- 17 -

compared with the need to establish definite institutional responsibility. Thereis, however, a strong argument where national or state centralized water supplyand sanitation institutions exist of giving the responsibility to them rather thancreating a new separate institution which would have to establish an identity incompetition with the longer established institutions in the water supply andsanitation field. : . ; • • -o

Given past experience, there appear to be forceful reasons for maintaining'the institutions independent from other rural development agencies, agrarian reforminstitutions, etc., as to ensure that the institutions' objectives are restrictedto the provision of water supply and sanitation and not widened to include othersas desirable as these may be in themselves. Fundamentally, the argument advancedis that the supply of water and sanitation•to the rural dispersed populationshould be subjected to the same institutional policy as that successfully appliedto the urban and concentrated rural population in so many countries of the region.

It is only with the creation of a suitable institutional base that otherelements within a total policy package can be put into place. The other importantitems for inclusion within the package are the use of appropriate and effectivetechnology acceptable to the rural copulation and the establishment of a soundfinancial base for both the required capital investment arid, equally if not-moreimportantly, for the operation and maintenance'of the facilities once installed.

It is undeniable that the technology exists but its'existence'and''itsapplication are not the same thing. A considerable effort is required to developa technological package that can be applied in actual programmes. The 'handpumpsfor water supply arid the latrines for sanitation must be compatible with local habitand customs of the'potential users, susceptible to local, or at'least national,manufacture, they must be acceptable within the technical environment bf thecountries as well as having the more general characteristics sought of economy,reliability and ease of maintenance. Even the simplest technology requires acertain period for successful adoption.

The final element in this trilogy of policy components is the need to ensurethe sound and continuing financing of the provision of water supply and sanitationto the rural dispersed population. A serious difficulty in the development ofstrong institutions and effective programmes has been the lack of adequate financeand the unreliability of the finances when provided. One of the bases of the

/successful development

- 18 -

successful development of urban water supply and sanitation institutions has beenthe increased importance of direct revenues raised through the.sale of water bythe adoption of universal metering. •

Traditionally., money payment has not been a characteristic of the watersupply and sanitation environment of-the rural dispersed population apart from anycapital payments made for the original installation of facilities. If, however,long term universal programmes for the supply of the rural dispersed populationare to flourish then some form of independent financing'should be found. It wouldseem possible to use some kind of fixed charge system to households suppliedwith improved facilities in addition to any charges made for the originalinstallation. There is no inherent difference in the water supplied from a well, ^even on an individual household basis, and the water supplied through a *r'centralized system, particularly if public resources are used to provide thesupply. A charge can therefore be justified and could be made acceptable by thecontinuing provision of operation and maintenance services by the water supplyand sanitation institution.

The fixed charge made should be quite independent of original installationcharges against which'it might be practicable for households to contribute labouror other resources to reduce the money.component of the charge.. It. would bepossible, however, to reduce the initial size of the installation charge byamortizing the work over a period of years and collecting the payments at the sametime as the charges for use. The amortized capital cost would be better relatedto the type and capacity of facilities than the user charge. The aim inestablishing the charges would not be to relate consumption to price but generate ^an independent source of finance and establish that the provision of water supplyand sanitation services has an economic cost.

It could be objected that the institution of.a system of charges could deterpeople from accepting the improved services. This tendency could be contained,however, by persuasion, sanitary education, and a degree of cumpulsion. It couldbe expected, however, that as in many urban areas amongst low income households ,the actual collection of charges might prove difficult. This should not,however, be used to counter the establishment of the principle of payment forwater supply and sanitation services. The principle of payment would seem to bean essential component of a policy to centralize the supply of services to therural dispersed population, as it has been in urban rareas.

/Conclusions

- 19 -

Conclusions

The programmes in support of the achievement of the goals of the InternationalDrinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade have been affected by the economicrecession which has been felt in all countries of the region. The recession hasmade it difficult to dedicate a higher proportion of public investment to theprovision of water supply and sanitation and has made it more difficult to expandsector activities. The recession cannot be used, however, as an excuse to abandonor scale down the objectives set for the Decade. It certainly cannot be used asthe reason for the continuing abandonment of the supply of sanitary services tothe rural dispersed population.

The financial needs are not that large. Moreover, in rural areas, self-helpis the rule rather than the exception. The supply of services to the ruraldispersed population requires institutional will and imaginative policies ratherthan the dedication of investment financing. Financial support is necessary, andmust be forthcoming but the crucial factors are the focussing of institutionalconcern, the attraction of interested personnel to the problem, and theestablishment of a systematic means of tackling the provision of services. Thisshould be feasible since all the elements are present in most countries of theregion even though in none have they been brought together in a package.

/Annex 1

- 21 -

4t

Annex 1

TAble 1LATIN AMERICA a/ - RURAL POPULATION, 1970 - 2010

1970

Country

ArgentinaBoliviaBrazilChileColombiaCosta RicaCubaDominican RepEcuadorEl SalvadorGuatemalaHaitiHondurasMexicoNicaragua.PanamaParaguayPeruUruguayVenezuela

Latin America

Population'OOO's

..5 HI2 673

1*2 0962 3258 1*761 0603 1*62

. 2 7433 6002 1693 5133 695l 762

21 0561 Ql+l*765

1 1*1*25 6W507

3 059

116 205

%Total

Population

22621*1*251*1611*061606l6680671*15352631*21828

42

1980

Population'OOO's

l» 9703 08145 5292 3628 6861 2023 2163 165i* 1*322 678i* 611i* 1*692 25924 0791 261848

1 9456 448470

3 714

129 423

%Total

Population

185537213<*54335355566377613546<t561371624

37

Av. annualrate ofchange1970-1980

-0.31.40.80.10.21-3

-0.71.42.12.12.81.92.51.41.91.03.01.3-0.82.0

1.1

1990

Population' .000 ' s

4 8143 55047 0632 3908 7751 }142 777J 4035 4373 2935 8715 4712 77026 3181 496886

2 4637 419455

4 321

140 285

*Total

Populat ion

16493118284?2645505161735429403858321520

31

Av. annualrate ofchange1980-1990

-0.31.40.30.10.10.9

-1.50.72.12.12.42.02.10.91.70.42.41.4

-0.31.5

0.8

Populat•000'

4 6364 2224? 21*72 3918 5931 5722 4783 5466 4243 9687 2V?6 7173 27927 4331 754910

2 9998 1*12

1*1*74 736

li*8 811

2000

ion %s Total

Population

14432516231*12138i*<*1*657681*721*343255271317

27

Av. annualrate ofchange1990-2000

-0.41.70.00.0-0.2O.I.-1.10.1*1.71.92.12.11.70.1*1.60.32.01.3

-0.20.9

0.6

2010

Population'OQO'B

4 4625 060

1*7 0232 3638 1*201 3832 1903 6637 269i* 5308 1*008 0873 76627 8052 039

921*3 1*719 355

1*1*05 070

155 569

%Total

Populat ion

12392111*19551732391*052631*020302852241215

23

Av. annii^'rate ofchange2000-2010

-0.1*1.80.0

-0.1-0.20.1

-1.20.31-31.1*1.51.9l.i.0.11.50.11.51. 1

-0.20.7

O.i*

Source: , o e n e g a c , c a a n a rcenaes e acon rana p o r p aEstinates of rural population are not available for the English- speaking Caribbean.

1970, 1985 y 2000, ASo XIV, NQ ?8, julio de 1981.

Table 2LEVEL OF PROVISION OF WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION, DECEMBER, 19oO

AND TARGETS ESTABLISHED FOR THE IDWSSD(Percentages)

Drinking water supplyRural

Country

ArgentinaBoliviaBrazilChileColombiaCosta RicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEl SalvadorGuatemalaGuyanaHondurasMexicoNicaraguaPanamaParaguayPeruTrinidad and TobagoUruguayVenezuela

Houseconnections

(80 )(20 )(n/a)(39 )(60 )(74 )(26 )(50 )(n/a)(50 )(n/a)(n/a)(n/a)(n/a)(n/a)(10 )(n/a)(n/a)( 4 )(n/a)

n/a3

5117n/a681014n/a18n/an/an/an/an/a221n/a2

n/a

Reasonableaccess

(19 )(40 )(n/a)(n/a)(35 )(n/a)(28 )(20 )(58 )(n/a)(95 )(90 )(58 )(80 )(85 )( 8 )(n/a)(98)(n/a)(85 )

1?7n/an/a79n/a23240n/a60464310558

n/a93n/a50

Urban

House Publicconnections tap

(80 )(60 )(90 )(100)(90 )(100)(70 )(85 )(85 )(76 )(100)

(83 )(90 )(100)(70 )(84 )

(95 )(90 )

6124809374956047525190(906267933957(999067

(20 )(31 )(n/a)( - )(10 )( - )(16 )(10 )(n/a)(24 )( - )

) 50(n/a)(10 )( - )(n/a)(11 )

) 100(n/a)( 3 )

445n/a7265253563810

2247n/a11

710

SanitationRural

Adequate

(50 )(SO )(n/a)(n/a)(35 )(90 )( 8 )(60 )(98 )(30 )(95 )(Bo )(26 )(n/a)(90 )(95 )(n/a)(90 )(n/a)(n/a)

324

n/an/a4824142620802612n/a288994886070

UrbanWithsewer

connection

(70 )(40 )(65 )(100)(80 )(70 )(35 )(65 )(n/a)(78 )(22 )

(62 )(50 )(99 )(34 )(78 )(67 )(15 )(99 )

3223326961432536483527(60)5035623055241560

Septictank,etc.

(n/a)(40 )(n/a)( - )(20 )(30 )(n/a)(20 )(n/a)(n/a)(78 )49(n/a)(n/a)( 1 )(n/a)( 6 )(33 )(n/a)(n/a)

5714n/a303950n/a3321073

1n/an/a652714530

Source; PAHO, Sector Digests.

a/ Figures in parenthesis refer to percentage of the population expected to be served at 31 December 1990.(n/a=not available)

b/ Targets for 1985.

I

-p

- 25 -

Table 3

BRAZIL: WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION

Householdcharacteristics

Total o,f households a/Percentages

WATER SUPPLY

total of households b/

Internal piped supplyPercentages

From centralizedpiped system

Percentages

From well or springPercentages

From other sourcesPercentagesWithout internalpiped supply

Percentages

From centralizedpiped system

Percentages

From well or springPercentages

From other sourcesPercentages

SANITATION

Total of households b/Percentages

In house or lotPercentages

Sewerage systemPercentages

Total

25 210 639-

25 172 809

14 114 06156.1

1.1 977 04547.6

1 909 2707.6

232 7460.9

11 053 74843,9

1 865 7007.4

5 604 75622.3

3 583 29214.2

24 759 301-

17 191 16969.4

6 499 63526.3

U,rban

17 770 98170.5

17 747 342

12 774 99672.0

11 739 82766.1

884 9335.0

150 2360.8

4 972 34628.0

1 783 51110.0

1 864 62210.5

1 324 2137.5

17 407 44470.3

14 248 31281.9

6 400 04736.8

Rural

7 439 65829.5

7 125 467

1 344 06518.1

237 2183.2

1 024 33713.8

82 5101.1

6 081 40281.9

82 1891.1

2 740 13450.4

2 259 07930.4

7 351 85729.7

2 942 85740.0

99 5881.4

- 26 -

Table 3 (cont.)

Householdcharacteristics

Septic tankPercentages

LatrinePercentages

OthersPercentages

Shared (.communal)Percentages

Sewerage systemPercentages

Septic tankPercentages

LatrinePercentages

OtherPercentages

Without sanitationPercentages

Total of households a/Percentages

Water supply

Total of households b/Percentages

Internal piped supplyPercentagesWithout internal

piped supplyPercentages

Total

3 484 06814.1

6 283 009.25.4

924 4573.7

2 058 2338.3

490 2812.0

412 2711.7

1 014 6934.1

140 9880.6

5 509 89922.3

25 210 639

25 172 809

14 119 06156.1

11 053 74843.9

Urban

3 053 08417.5

4 211 78424.2

583 3973.4

1 874 45610.8

484 9712.8

393 9472.3

874 0125.0

121 5260.7

1 284 6767.4

17 770 98170.5

17 747 34270.5

12 774 99672.0

4 972 34628.0

Rural

430 9845.9

2 071 22528.2

341 0604.7

183 7772.5

5 3100.1

18 3240.2

140 6811.9

19 4620.3

4 225 22357.5

7 439 65829.5

7 425 46729.5

1 344 06518.1

6 081 40281.9

- 27 -

Table 3 (cone.)

Householdcharacteristics Total Urban Rural

Sanitation

Total of households b/Percentages

In house or lotPercentages

Shared (communal)Percentages

Withoyt sanitationPercentages

24 759 301

17 191 16969.4

2 058 2338.3

5 509 89922.3

17 407 44470.3

14 248 31281.9

1 874 45610.8

1 284 6767.4

7 351 85729.7

2 942 85742.0

183 7772.5

4 225 22357.5

Source;.Brazil, 1980 census.a/Includes households "not declared".b/ Excludes households "not declared".