Thailand: Decentralization and Rural Water Supply

The challenges of improving water quality

at commune and village levels

Muanpong Juntopas Research Fellow

Stockholm Environment Institute

Asia Centre, Bangkok

Thailand background • Size 513,115 sq. km (size of France)

• Mid income country. Ranked 4th in wealth in SE Asia

• Administration: 76 provinces. 7400 communes (Tambon), 75,000 villages

• Population: 66 mil. 31 % urban and increasing.

• Economy: export oriented, 2/3 of GDP.

Industry 45 % , employed 14% labour

Agriculture 11 % GDP, employ~50% labour

World Leading rice exporter.

• GDP per capita THB 136,511 (= USD3,900).

Thailand background 2 • Poverty 57% in 1960s 11.4 % in 1990s 9.8 %

in 2008. Two third the poor are lives in rural, 82% in NE

• HDI: 0.715 in 1990 0.784 in 2004, and ranking as number 74 of 177 countries. Will achieved most of the MDG before 2015.

• Life expectancy is 68 yrs for male & 75 for female ( 2003)

• Aging society: Increasing number senior ~ 16%

Water supply : status

• Nationally, Access to an improved water supply increased 10% in 1970s over 80 % at current time ( 90 + % in urban)

• Water quality problems remain: microbacteria and chemical contamination ( affecting both ground and surface water source)

• Over time, while the quality of urban water supplies developed rapidly, rural areas have lagged behind

Thailand and water supply • Important in national development plans

– water supply & sanitation - high priority in national development plans last 35 yrs – vital links to the prevention of diseases & good health.

– Govt declared 1981 to 1990 as the “Decade of Water Supply and Sanitation in Thailand”.

– Overall ~ 5% of the national budget & 20% of rural development fund ( 1981-1991)

• Many agencies - responsible with overlapping responsibilities, duplication of effort & lack of collaboration.

Water supply: Providers

• Urban : State Enterprises – Bangkok by MWA – City and Town municipality by PWA

• The two models for water supply are in operation side by side 1) Community own supply by rain harvest and storage in family water jar

2) Piped water supply system

Water supply: Urban

• MWA serves Bangkok & its vicinity. Provides about 2 millions connections and serving 10 millions people. The MWA delivers 1.7 billions m3 water in 2008, sale price is 12 THB/ m3 ( 30 cents USD

• PWA serves city, town, and commune municipalities providing 3 millions connections to population living in 647 city, town and

commune municipalities charging fee at . THB 8-12/m3. (20-30 Cents USD

Rural: Piped water supply

Village own system serves population of 65, 000 villages run by 65,000 village committees. Built by various agencies ( 3 ministries & 10+ departments between 1970s- 2002.

– Fee THB 5/ M3

– Recent studies found water from most village water works (50%- 90 % of sampled) is below standard of safe drinking water, with bacterial contamination and 4-8 % with heavy metals. Turbidity and salinity from 20 percent or above

Rural - Rain water harvest

Sources of Drinking Water

Town, municipality (%)

Rural (%)

Average (%)

Rain water 10.7 49.6 37.4

Bottled water 49 20 29

Piped water 36 15.3 21.7

Wells/ underground 3.7 14.2 11

Natural surface water 0.2 0.4 0.2

• Success – well accepted and widely used in rural

• Proportion of households having small water jars (size 2 m3) in use increased from few in 1985 to 8 millions in

Quality of rain water• Rainwater is commonly believed to be pure, and consumable without

treatment. This can be true in unpolluted rural areas.

• A study in 1989 examine bacteria and heavy mental contamination of rainwater found that 40 % of 189 rainwater in jar met WHO drinking standard ( magnesium)

• Despite this, it is concluded that rainwater is potentially the safest & most economical source of water.

• Hygienic practice of collection and handling of storage can improve the quality.

Decentralization &pipe water supply in rural area

• Centralization in mid 1990s devolved responsibility for development and public service to local level to commune – the TAO (Tumbon Administration Organization.

• About 245 public services ( 50 central department) are subject to the decentralization, and 180 functions have been transferred in 2007

• Rural water supply is one among services being transferred

• Moving water delivery from village up to commune level is a positive move in that it presents a good opportunity for service improvement. In reality the transition is difficult!

• Today, clean water delivery is not a “ mandatory service” by TAOs & villages are left to continue operating in existing condition.

• Technical support from old central departments has been long phased out

Challenges improved water delivery and

decentralization 1• Institutional coordination, both vertical & horizontal present a challenge as

development budget is now directly channelled to TAO.

• Decentralization has been accompanied only by fiscal transfer, but not human resources. TAOs has few staff, and limited skills. This leaves the question as to whether it would be more effective that rural water service delivery be moved up to intermediate level to that of PWA.

• Different management models are being tried out by TAOs depending their human resources and financial capacity

Model Strength Weakness Suitable for

Model 1 Village People Water Committee (nominated by users )

- Sense of ownership and responsibility because managed by their representative

- Great flexibility-no need to follow bureaucracy procedure

- Operation can be not in effective, not accountable

- Weak accounting system/ documentations

Problem to find funding support when need to expand or major face with major maintenance cost as not overseen by local authorities

- Low water quality/local water users not sufficiently aware/able to monitor

- Strong community with village leaders very committed and capable

- Village Committee honest and transparent in operation

Model 2 Joint management: Village committee and TAOs

- Good participation- users & local authority

- Better record keeping /financial accountability as Tao must be audited

- TAOs oversight –more efficient problem solving

- Budget from TAOs to service as needed

- Suitable for transitional period- Better water quality assurance

as more officers are involve in management

- More procedure to follow in TAOs process –less flexible in operation than model 1

- Community and TAOs with moderate capacity

- For village with problem in decision making/ problem for enforcing rules

- Village committee busy/cannot fulfill tasks and needing support from TAOs

Model 3: Under TAOs management – including production, staffing, maintenance, sale, accounting/recording

- Systematic, proper documentation, financial management

- Budget support to water service by TAOs

- Better pay for better staff system maintenance/able to compensate with higher salary than village

- Able to control water quality

- Less of direct participation from users/villagers

- might be slow in demand response due to procedure

- Some village not willing to hand over to TAOs as they can operate themselves, make enough money e to sustain service

- Cost get higher for Water delivery service, hence higher water fee

- For community/village not strong in finance / self organizing

- Village with little expertise or time for management

- For organized TAOs with higher capability in management

Model 4: TAOs hire Private company. TAOs oversee, and monitor. delivery

- Efficient/effective in water delivery as business is run by specialized agency.

- TAOs able to plan and control service

- More able to control water quality and quantity

- High cost in hiring company, can result in higher water fee

- Lack participation, sense of ownership from users/villagers

- Village/community not strong in self organize

- Modern TAOs with high competence, and high income & budget, but not enough staff, or unsuitable skills

Challenges 2

• Of greater concern is the dramatic increase in acute diarrhoea over the last 25 years much of which has been attributed to poor water quality

• Despite the increasing coverage, many supplies are contaminated by environmental factors such as toxic chemicals from poor waste management practices, or poor maintenance

• Since 1973, the morbidity rate from acute diarrhoea has risen continuously, and is now ten times higher than it was 30 years ago. Helminthic infections are diseases closely relating to environmental sanitation and personal hygiene.

Challenges 2

Lessons learned

1) While investment in the “Hardware” of water supply is important, the ultimate success in service delivery lies in “software” during and after

2) The scale of delivery must be placed at the level where capacity can support its sustainability, not only finical term, but quality assurance

3) Decentralization of responsibility for public service delivery must be accompanied by both financial transfer and human resources.

4) Greater roles of private sector in service delivery is one promising option as income of the people increase, and thus can afford high quality service efficiently produced by competitive private sector. Government M &E

5) Institutional coordination, both vertical & horizontal. Special budget be allocated to technical department at central level – for training and support

Thank You