| Dominican Republic: Water and Sanitation | ||
|---|---|---|
| Data | ||
| Water coverage (broad definition) | 95% | |
| Sanitation coverage (broad definition) | 78% | |
| Continuity of supply (%) | 10% | |
| Average urban water use (l/c/d) | 450 | |
| Average urban water and sewer bill for 20m3 | US$5/month (1990–1998) | |
| Share of household metering | low | |
| Share of collected wastewater treated | 49% (2000) | |
| Annual investment in WSS | US$14/capita (1991-1998 average) | |
| Share of self-financing by utilities | very low | |
| Share of tax-financing | n/a | |
| Share of external financing | n/a | |
| Institutions | ||
| Decentralization to municipalities | Partial | |
| National water and sanitation company | Yes, but limited to small towns | |
| Water and sanitation regulator | No | |
| Responsibility for policy setting | Presidency of the Republic | |
| Sector law | No | |
| Number of urban service providers | 6 | |
| Number of rural service providers | n/a | |
The Dominican Republic has achieved impressive increases in access to water supply and sanitation over the past two decades. However, the quality of water supply and sanitation services remains poor, despite the country's high economic growth during the 1990s.
Contents |
The Dominican Republic, with a population of 8.8 million, of which about 60% are located in urban areas, has a high level of water services in urban areas with 97% coverage and 92% of the urban population with household connections (as compared to an average of 90% in the LAC region).
| Urban (60% of the population) | Rural (40% of the population) | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Water | Broad definition | 97% | 91% | 95% |
| House connections | 92% | 62% | 80% | |
| Sanitation | Broad definition | 81% | 73% | 78% |
| Sewerage | 65% | 27% | 50% |
Source: WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program (2006). Water and sanitation based on Dominican Republic Demographic and Health Survey (2002).[1]
There are substantial regional differences in coverage. For example, in nine provinces located in the Central, Northeastern and Eastern part of the country less than 70% of the population had access to an improved source of water supply according to the 2002 census.[2]
Poor households exhibit lower levels of access: only 56% of poor households are connected to water house connections as opposed to 80% of non-poor households. Just 20% of poor households have access to sewers, as opposed to 50% for the non-poor.[3]
Despite decentralization efforts and continued government support, quality and continuity of service are inadequate in the Dominican Republic. Water scarcity is increasing mainly due to excessive consumption in urban areas, a lack of demand management (low tariffs, low share of metering, limited environmental consciousness) and watershed degradation. Watershed degradation occurs mainly in the lower sections of most coastal basins and is a result of unplanned settlements and activities and lack of sanitation services.
Only 10.5% of the population connected to water systems receives water on a continuous basis.
Continuity of services (%)[4]
| By system | By serviced population | |
|---|---|---|
| Continuous service | 40% | 10.5% |
| Intermittent service | 60% | 89.5% |
Various factors affect the water quality in the Dominican Republic, including: poor condition of purification systems, minimal operational controls, low level of maintenance of treatment plants, and mostly intermittent systems.[5]
38.4% of water systems have no chlorination system installed. These are mostly smaller systems in rural areas. The fact that a chlorination system exists is not a guarantee that water is actually properly disinfected.
National chlorination coverage [6]
| Urban | Rural | National | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Water systems with chlorination systems | 87.3% | 57.4% | 61.4% |
| Water systems without chlorination systems | 12.7% | 42.6% | 38.4% |
According to 2002 figures by the service providers only 73.6% of drinking water quality samples showed satisfactory drinking water quality (as measured by the absence of total coliforms), while the international norm is 95%.[7] It should be noted that the presence of coliforms as such is not a health hazard, but that the presence of coliforms is an indicator of the potential presence of pathogens.
In 2000 the WHO estimated that 49% of collected wastewater in the Dominican Republic received some kind of treatment.[8] This percentage, while much higher than the average for Latin America and the Caribbean at that time (15%), is still considered insufficient.
The depletion of groundwater and the unregulated disposal of wastewater and solid waste are creating problems that might become irreversible. The numerous new communities around urban areas and large hotels usually do not have adequate sanitation.
During the 1950s and 1960s the water and sanitation sector in the Dominican Republic experienced an abrupt decentralization and subsequent re-centralization. Since 1962, the institutional framework has remained relatively stable, with a gradual process of regionalization to the provinces with the largest cities of the country. Over the last three decades, which were characterized by economic growth fueled primarily by a massive inflow of tourists, substantial investments were made and service coverage increased significantly.
Under the government of Rafael Trujillo (1930–1961) water service provision was first provided centrally and then decentralized. Until 1955 the national government provided services through the General Directorate of Water Systems (Dirección General de Acueductos) in the Ministry of Public Works and Irrigation (Secretaría de Fomento, Obras Públicas y Riego). All responsibilities and assets were transferred by the government in 1955 to the local city councils (Ayundamientos), a model which failed by 1962. The government of President Joaquín Balaguer thus created INAPA through Law 5994 on July 30, 1962, again administering all water systems centrally.
In 1973, under the second Presidency of Joaquín Balaguer (1966–1978), CAASD was set up in the capital Santo Domingo as the first regional water and sewer company, followed by the creation of CORAASAN in the second largest city of the country, Santiago, in 1977.
The 1990s under the third Presidency of Joaquín Balaguer (1986–1996) and the first Presidency of Leonel Fernández (1996–2000) witnessed substantial investments in water and sanitation and an important increase in coverage. For example, access to water house connections in rural areas increased from 35% in 1990 to 62% in 2004. Access to sewer connections in urban areas increased from 47% in 1990 to 65% in 2004.[9] These increases are among the highest in Latin America and the Caribbean during that period.
At the insistence of Congressmen representing their respective constituencies, the process of regionalization continued and in 1997-98 laws were passed creating three additional regional water and sewer companies in Puerto Plata, Moca and Romana.
In 1999 the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) approved an important US$ 71 million loan to consolidate the reform and modernization of the water and sanitation sector.[10] The loan foresaw the financing of investments by INAPA and regional companies, as well as substantial technical assistance. Specifically, it aimed at transforming the five regional water companies into commercially operated entities with no political interference in day-to-day management and strong representation of municipalities and civil society in their Boards, based on the model of CORAASAN. In the case of CORAAMOCA and COAAROM, management contracts with private operators were to be signed. INAPA was to be gradually decentralized into autonomous regional units, and services in rural areas were to be gradually transferred to users. A condition for the effectiveness of the loan was the passing by Congress of a water and sanitation framework law that would have established a central government agency (ente rector) in charge of the sector as well as a water and sanitation regulatory agency.
Under the Presidency of Hipolito Mejia (2000–2004), the water and sanitation law was debated in Congress in 2002 and again in June 2004, but was ultimately not passed.[11] The IDB loan thus did not become effective.
Nevertheless the government undertook steps to involve the private sector in water and sanitation. In 2001 CAASD signed two service contracts for the installation of meters, meter reading, billing and collection, one for the Eastern and one for the Western part of its service area in Santo Domingo. The contract for the Western part was awarded to the Colombian company AAA, which increased the share of metering from 1% to 25% and increased collected revenues by 128% in less than two years.[12] The second government of President Leonel Fernández (2004–2008) has not taken the initiative to revitalize the stalled reform process in the water and sanitation sector.
Policy and regulatory functions in the water and sanitation sector in the Dominican Republic are highly fragmented:
There is no economic regulatory agency for the sector. The absence of a national strategy for water and sanitation is considered a constraint to sector development. Without a clear strategy, there is a lack of direction and no apparent separation of roles among the active sector agencies. This results in overlapping responsibilities and sometimes conflicting activities.
Water and sewer services are provided by regional companies in the largest cities, the national water and sewerage authority (INAPA) in other cities and towns, as well as by community-based water boards in rural areas.
The regional water and sanitation companies were established over a period of 25 years, each by its own law. Each company covers one Province. Their general directors are appointed by the President of the Republic, thus showing a continuity of centralized decision-making in the presence of regional companies. Besides this similarity, the governance structure (such as the composition and function of their Boards) of each regional company is different. The regional companies are:
About 4.4 million people, or half the population of the country, live in the five provinces and the national district of the capital served by the five regional water and sewer companies.
Non-revenue water has been estimated by various sources at being higher than 40% or higher than 65%.[16] Currently, service providers produce 41,720 liters per second (LPS), which is an average of 907 liters per person and day (LPPD) before losses. Even after taking into account losses, water use is much higher than in Europe (220 LPPD) and the United States (300 LPPD). The tourism industry explains this high consumption to a large extent. The hotel industry uses 280% more than what other Caribbean countries use - 1,483 liters per guest and night.[16]
Cost recovery for water and sanitation is minimal. Average tariffs are moderate at US$ 0.21 per cubic meter for water and US$ 0.07 per cubic meter for sewerage.[17] Collection rates are extremely low at only 28%.[18] As a result of moderate tariffs and very low collection rates, according to a WHO estimate in 1998, households paid on average only US$ 0.50 per month for water and US$ 0.09 per month for sewerage.[19] Electricity bills of the utilities are directly paid for by the central government. The regional water and sewer companies and INAPA rely largely on subsidies from the central goernment using mechanisms that are not transparent and do not promote efficiency.
However, there were some improvements. In 2006 the revenues collected by the regional utility in Puerto Plata was 2.5 times higher than in 2002 due to tariff increases and better bill collection. This allowed the utility to generate a moderate surplus to contribute to the financing of investments. The utility has also signed a performance and financing agreement with the national government, providing more transparency and incentives to improve efficiency.
A total of 84% of investments made between 1990-98 went to urban centers, while only 16% went to the rural zones[20] Average annual investments for potable water supply was US$87.9 million (1990–1998), which is a relatively high level of per capita investments compared to other developing countries. However, investments are not well allocated. For example, investments are biased towards water supply at the expense of improved sanitation and wastewater treatment, which received only 2.3% of total investments.[21]
It has been argued that poor allocation of resources has resulted in lower increases in coverage rates than would be expected, given the levels of investments.[22] Also, little coordination has been carried out by donors.
Investment financing comes mainly from the central government, with some modest contributions by some regional utilities from their own revenues.
The water and sanitation sector receives external support from international financial institutions such as the Inter-American Development Bank, the World Bank, USAID, the European Union, as well as from NGOs such as CARE and the Catholic Relief Services.
The IDB has played an important role in the sector through its reform and modernization program mentioned above. However, the program has been stalled for many years after Congress did not approve the water and sanitation reform law that was a condition for the program's effectiveness.
The IDB is preparing a US$35m loan to support the Decentralization and Strengthening of INAPA.[23]
In 2007/08 the World Bank prepared a Water and Sanitation in Tourism Areas Project. Its main objective is the reduction of the high economic, environmental and social costs caused by wastewater and solid waste deficiencies, especially in tourist areas, and the improvement of the coverage and quality of the provision of water as well as the collection and disposal of wastewater and solid waste in the Dominican Republic. This would be achieved by: (i) supporting the development and implementation of a national water, wastewater and solid waste strategies in a coordinated way among government agencies and donors; (ii) improving water resources management and the quality, efficiency and sustainability of water and solid waste services; and (iii) increasing the coverage of water and solid waste services, especially to poor communities near tourist areas.
|
||||||||||||||||