1
Supply Chain Analysis for Rural Sanitation Products and Services in Lao PDR 1
July 2014 1
List of Figures 6
List of Tables 7
Acronyms & Abbreviations 9
Acknowledgements 10
ບົດສະແດງຄວາມຮູ້ບຸນຄຸນ 1
Executive Summary 2
ບົດສະເໜີໂດຍສັງເຂບ 12
1Introduction 22
2Methodology 31
3Possible limitations of the data 35
4The Sanitation Supply Chain 37
5The Latrine 55
Commonly Built Latrine 57
Item/Material 57
Quantity (#) 57
Unit of Measure 57
Area 57
Region – Province 68
Materials cost (LAK) 68
Labor cost (LAK) 68
Total cost (LAK) 68
Total cost (US$) 68
Northern 68
2,512,720 68
3,783,333 68
6,296,053 68
787 68
Bokeo 68
2,394,768 68
2,150,000 68
4,544,768 68
568 68
Luangnamtha 68
2,630,673 68
5,416,667 68
8,047,340 68
1,006 68
Central 68
2,819,177 68
3,397,000 68
6,216,177 68
777 68
Borikhamxay 68
2,649,631 68
4,242,000 68
6,891,631 68
861 68
Savannakhet 68
2,988,722 68
2,552,000 68
5,540,722 68
693 68
Southern 68
3,033,852 68
3,242,611 68
6,276,463 68
785 68
Attapeu 68
2,882,181 68
3,460,000 68
6,342,181 68
793 68
Salavan 68
3,013,458 68
3,090,909 68
6,104,367 68
763 68
Sekong 68
3,205,917 68
3,176,923 68
6,382,840 68
798 68
Total sample 68
2,813,110 68
3,451,144 68
6,264,254 68
6The Consumer 70
7Market structure, environment and reach 72
8Government and Development Partners are part of the chain 86
9Finance 90
10Business constraints 94
11Summary of Findings 99
12Recommendations 101
Appendix 1: Selected Sanitation Data from Lao Social Indicator Survey 115
Appendix 2: Material Suppliers Questionnaire 117
Appendix 3: Concrete Producers Questionnaire 139
Appendix 4: Masons Questionnaire 152
Appendix 5: Microfinance Questionnaire 173
Appendix 6: Focus Group discussion Guidelines 179
184
References 185
List of Figures
Figure 1: GDP per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP), 2012 22
Figure 2: Households Using Improved Sanitation Facilities, by Wealth Quintile, 2012 23
Figure 3: The impact of improved sanitation 25
Figure 4: Seven provinces for field work 29
Figure 5: Supply chain flow for building materials – Northern Provinces (n=20) 42
Figure 6 Supply chain flow for building materials – Central Provinces (n=19) 42
Figure 7 Supply chain flow for building materials– Southern Provinces (n=29) 43
Figure 8: Average percentage of concrete producers’ business related to latrine construction (n=37) 45
Figure 9: Masons who have received training (% of total per region/province) (n=71) 49
Figure 10: Supply Chain Map (conceptual) 53
Figure 11: Do you know about these different latrine options? (n=71) 56
Figure 12: Cost drivers for commonly-built latrine (LAK and cumulative % of total costs) 59
Figure 13: Cost drivers for core structure (LAK and cumulative % of total costs) 60
Figure 14: Poor rural households’ stated monthly income, by region 68
Figure 15: How much are you willing to pay for a latrine? (Rural poor, non-latrine owners) 69
Figure 16: Comparing costs with consumer expectations and willingness to pay (LAK) 70
Figure 17: Proportion of actors reporting no competitors in latrine products/services 72
Figure 18: Construction material shops reporting more than one main upstream supplier (n=68) 74
Figure 19: Percent of actors offering credit (delayed payment) to customers 82
Figure 20: Percent that have worked for Government or Development Partner project 87
Figure 21: Estimated sanitation and hygiene financing, 2008-09 88
Figure 22: ACLEDA Bank – Credit conditions 92
Figure 23: Business constraints (percent of actors reporting each as a main constraint) 94
Figure 24: Potential rural latrine market size (number of latrines) 101
Table 1: Lao PDR sanitation coverage 23
Table 2: Characteristics of the research districts 30
Table 3: Field work methodology overview 31
Table 4: In-depth Interviews – Total Sample 33
Table 5: Owner and Self Employed Material Suppliers – Distribution by gender (n=68) 38
Table 6: Other business activities – material suppliers (n=68) 39
Table 7: Types of other businesses owned by material suppliers (n=68) 39
Table 8: Source of capital – material suppliers (% of total) (n=68) 41
Table 9: Gender of the person who manages the business’s accounts/finances (% of total) (n=68) 41
Table 10: Owner and Self Employed Concrete Producers – Distribution by Gender (n=37) 44
Table 11: Types of other businesses activities by concrete producers (n=37) 46
Table 12: Source of capital – concrete producers (% of total) (n=37) 46
Table 13: Customers of concrete producers (average of reported %) (n=37) 47
Table 14: Concrete producers who have received training (n=37) 47
Table 15: Pit lining options (% of total) (n=71) 50
Table 16: Type of latrines masons able to build (% of total) (n=71) 51
Table 17: Ability of masons to repair and upgrade a latrine and average per year (n=71) 51
Table 18: Most common improvements made (% of total, multiple choice allowed) (n=71) 52
Table 19: Construction materials – Country of origin 53
Table 20: Type of latrines owned by the rural poor 56
Table 21: Latrine superstructures of the rural poor 57
Table 22: List of materials to build a typical latrine 57
Table 23: Latrine core and superstructure costs for a commonly-built latrine (LAK) 58
Table 24: Materials prices in different provinces (average of suppliers’ selling price), LAK 61
Table 25: Price paid by concrete producers for cement (LAK per ton) 61
Table 26: Price of concrete rings in different provinces (average of producers’ selling price) 62
Table 27: Labor required to build the “most commonly built” latrine, as quoted by masons (n=71) 62
Table 28: Average daily cost per person for latrine construction (n=71) 64
Table 29: Transport costs for large loads between major centers 65
Table 30: Examples of local transportation costs 66
Table 31: Commonly-built latrine total costs (materials + labor) 68
Table 32: Relationship between masons and other supply chain actors (% of total) 76
Table 33: Suppliers’ gross margins on selected materials (n=68) 76
Table 34: Availability of skilled and knowledgeable masons in poor rural villages 79
Table 35: Business or Marketing Plan – Positive Respondents (% of total) (n=68 and 37) 84
Table 36: Branches interviewed that have lent to households for toilet construction and to supply chain) 91
Table 37: Plans to expand operation in the district (% of total) 91
Table 38: Current Import Tariff and VAT Rates in Lao PDR (%) 97
Table 39: Potential finance approaches for onsite sanitation 108
Acronyms & Abbreviations
ADB
ASEAN
BCC
CLTS
|
Asian Development Bank
Association of South-East Asian Nations
Behavior Change Communication
Community-Led Total Sanitation
|
DHS
DP
EMC
|
Demographic and Health Survey
Development Partner
Emerging Markets Consulting
|
GoL
|
Government of Lao PDR
|
FGD
IMF
JMP
Laos /Lao PDR
LECS
LRC
LSIS
MDG
|
Focus Group Discussion
International Monetary Fund
Joint Monitoring Programme
Lao People’s Democratic Republic
Lao Expenditure and Consumption Survey
Lao Red Cross
Lao Social Indicator Survey
Millennium Development Goal
|
MICS
MFI
MoH
MoIC
Nam Saat
|
Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey
Micro-finance Institution
Ministry of Health
Ministry of Industry and Commerce
Center for Environmental Health and Water Supply, Department of Hygiene, Lao Ministry of Health (literally “clean water”)
|
NSC
NGO
OD
ODF
SRF
|
National Statistics Center
Non-Government Organization
Open defecation
Open-Defecation Free
Sanitation Revolving Fund
|
UNDP
UNICEF
|
United Nations Development Program
United Nations Children’s Fund
|
WASH
WHO
|
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
World Health Organization
|
WSP
|
Water and Sanitation Program (World Bank)
|
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to all the stakeholders, development agencies and local associations, and local and national government officials for their time and invaluable support during the project.
The research teams would especially like to thank all the supply chain actors for their time and cooperation in participating in this study.
We also extend our sincere gratitude to all the project’s partners including, but not limited to: for Hygiene-Health Promotion Department, Ministry of Health, Dr. Phat; for National Center for Environmental Health and Water Supply (Nam Saat), Dr. Soutsakhone; for UNICEF, Bishnu Timilsina, Chief WASH Section of UNICEF; for Plan International, John McGown, WASH Manager; for SNV, Thea Bongertman, WASH Sector Leader. A number of other people provided comments on presentations during the project and on a draft of this report. We particularly thank Susanna Smets from WSP.
Last but not least, we thank Viengsamay Vongkhamsao, WSP Country Coordinator, and Bounthavong Sourisak, WSP Social Development Specialist.
Emerging Markets Consulting supply chain analysis team
ບົດສະແດງຄວາມຮູ້ບຸນຄຸນ
ຂໍຂອບໃຈເປັນພິເສດມາຍັງຜູ້ມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມ, ອົງການພັດທະນາ ແລະ ສະມາຄົມທ້ອງຖິ່ນກໍຄືເຈົ້າໜ້າທີ່ລັດຖະບານ
ທັງສູນກາງ ແລະ ທ້ອງຖິ່ນທີ່ໄດ້ສະຫຼະເວລາອັນມີຄ່າປະກອບສ່ວນຕະຫຼອດໄລຍະໂຄງການ.
ທີມງານການຄົ້ນຄ້ວາຍັງຂໍຂອບໃຈພາກສ່ວນຫຼັກຂອງຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງທີ່ສະຫຼະເວລາ ແລະ ໃຫ້ການຮ່ວມມື
ເຂົ້າຮ່ວມໃນການສຶກສາຄົ້ນຄວ້າຄັ້ງນີ້.
ພວກເຮົາຍັງຂໍສະແດງຄວາມຮູ້ບຸນຄຸນຄູ່ຮ່ວມໂຄງການທັງໝົດລວມທັງແຕ່ບໍ່ຈຳກັດສະເພາະ: ກົມສົ່ງເສີມສຸຂະພາບ-ສຸຂະສຶກສາ, ກະຊວງສາທາລະນະສຸກ, ທ່ານດຣ. ພັດ; ສູນນ້ຳສະອາດ ແລະ ສິ່ງແວດລ້ອມແຫ່ງຊາດ , ທ່ານດຣ. ສຸດສາຄອນ; ອົງການ UNICEF, Bishnu Timilsina, ຫົວໜ້າວຽກງານຮັກສາ
ຄວາມສະອາດປະຈຳ UNICEF; ອົງການ Plan International, John McGown, ຜູ້ຈັດການວຽກງານຮັກສາ
ຄວາມສະອາດ; SNV, Thea Bongertman, ຫົວໜ້າທີມຂະແໜງຮັກສາຄວາມສະອາດ. ມີບຸກຄົນຈຳນວນໜຶ່ງທີ່ໄດ້ປະກອບຄຳເຫັນໃນການນຳສະເໜີຕ່າງໆຕະຫຼອດໄລຍະໂຄງການ ແລະ ໃນການຮ່າງບົດລາຍງານສະບັບນີ້. ພວກເຮົາຂໍຂອບໃຈໂດຍສະເພາະ Susanna Smets ຈາກອົງການ WSP.
ສຸດທ້າຍນີ້, ພວກເຮົາຂໍຂອບໃຈມາຍັງ ທ່ານ ວຽງສະໄໝ ວົງຄຳຊາວ, ຜູ້ປະສານງານອົງການ WSP ປະຈຳລາວ ແລະ ທ່ານ ບຸນທະວົງ ສຸຣິສັກ, ຊ່ຽວຊານດ້ານການພັດທະນາສັງຄົມອົງການ WSP.
ທີມງານວິເຄາະຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງຂອງບໍລິສັດທີ່ປຶກສາ Emerging Markets Consulting
Executive Summary
Around 42% of those in rural communities in Lao PDR practice open-defecation (OD), compared to only 4% in urban areas. However, there has been significant improvement in rural communities – 73% of rural households practiced OD as recently as 2000 (WHO-UNICEF 2014).
Lao PDR sanitation coverage estimates
|
Urban (%)
|
|
Rural (%)
|
|
Total (%)
|
|
1995
|
2012
|
|
1995
|
2012
|
|
1995
|
2012
|
Improved facilities
|
62
|
90
|
|
12
|
50
|
|
20
|
65
|
Shared facilities
|
3
|
4
|
|
0
|
1
|
|
1
|
2
|
Other unimproved
|
9
|
2
|
|
10
|
7
|
|
10
|
4
|
Open defecation
|
26
|
4
|
|
78
|
42
|
|
69
|
29
|
Source: WHO-UNICEF JMP 2014.
Share with your friends: |