Water supply and sanitation in Peru

From Perupedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Peru: Water and Sanitation
Flag of Peru.svg
Data
Water coverage (broad definition) 83%
Sanitation coverage (broad definition) 63%
Continuity of supply (%) 71%[1]
Average urban water use (l/c/d) 259
Average urban water tariff (US$/m3) 0.38
Share of household metering 50%
Share of collected wastewater treated 22% (2004)
Annual investment in WSS US$6/capita
Share of self-financing by utilities very low
Share of tax-financing n/a
Share of external financing n/a
Institutions
Decentralization to municipalities Full, since 1990
National water and sanitation company None
Water and sanitation regulator Yes
Responsibility for policy setting Ministry of Housing, Construction and Sanitation
Sector law Yes (1994 and amended subsequently)
Number of urban service providers 50 companies and 490 municipalities
Number of rural service providers 11,800

The water and sanitation sector in Peru has made important advances in the last two decades, including the increase of water access from 30% to 62% between 1980 and 2004. Sanitation access has also increased from 9% to 30% from 1985 to 2004 in rural areas.[2] Advances have also been achieved concerning the disinfection of drinking water and in sewage treatment. Nevertheless, many challenges remain, such as:

Contents

Access

In 2004, out of 27.5 million Peruvians, 74% resided in urban areas and 26% lived in rural areas. The coverage of drinking water service was 83% and 63% had access to sanitation. Urban coverage was 89% for water and 74% for sanitation. In rural areas coverage of drinking water was 65% and sanitation 32%.

Urban (74% of the population) Rural (26% of the population) Total
Water Broad definition 89% 65% 83%
Household connections 82% 39% 71%
Sanitation Broad definition 74% 32% 63%
Sewerage 67% 7% 52%

Source: WHO/UNICEF (JMP/2006). Date for water and sanitation based on Inequalities in Water Access, Use, and Expenditures in Potable Water in Latin America and the Caribbean: Peru (Desigualdades en el acceso, uso y gasto con el agua potable en América Latina y el Caribe: Perú) (PAHO February 2001, based on the ENNIV (1997)) and Demographic and Health Survey (1996).

Service quality

In a national survey conducted in 2008, 64% of respondentes indicated that they were satisfied with the quality of the water they received. Those who were not satisfied complained about turbidity, high levels of chlorine, bad taste and bad smell. This figure apparently does not include the level of satisfaction related to the continuity or pressure of water supply.

Continuity of water service

Urban areas received water service for an average of 17 hours per day in 2005.[1] Only one Peruvian service company has continuous service, the company EMSAP in the Amazon region.[3]

Back in 1997, the total continuity average was at 12 hours per day, 5 hours less than in 2005. Rural areas averaged 18 hours, while in urban areas, service was provided on average for 12 hours. Service averaged 8 hours on the coast, 18 hours in forestal and mountainous regions, and 10 hours in metropolitan Lima.[4]

Disinfection

In 2000, 80% of urban water supply systems used disinfection measures.[5] In urban areas, 43 companies that provided information to the regulator complied with the norms for residual chlorine in the network.

In rural areas, however, in a sample consisting of 1,630 analyzed systems, 59% do not disinfect the water because of lacking the necessary facilities or the lack of chlorine. Considering that locations with less than 2,000 inhabitants have around 11,800 systems, it can be estimated that around 7,000 rural water systems provide water without disinfection.[6]

Wastewater treatment

The share of treated wastewater in 2004 was estimated at 22%. This is to say that more than three fourths of the wastewater generated did not receive any type of treatment prior to its final discharge, which poses a serious threat to the environment.[7] Back in 1997, the coverage of wastewater treatment had only been 13%.[8] In 2005, only two companies treated all of their sewage, one of them being from the Provincia de Marañón.[3]

The great majority of sewage of the Lima-Callao metropolitan area is discharged without treatment into the ocean, resulting in serious contamination of the surrounding beaches. The Japanese Bank of International Cooperation (JBIC) provided a loan for the sanitation of the Lima-Callao area in 1997.[9] However, the project has not been implemented to date.

Water resources and impact of climate change

On average, surface water in Peru is abundant. Nevertheless, it is unequally distributed in space and time. Especially the coastal area, where the country's major cities are located and two thirds of the population live, is very dry. Lima, with 8m people, is the world's second largest city located in a desert, after Cairo.

The peaks of the Andes are the source of many Peruvian rivers.

The flow of many rivers supplying water to many Peruvian cities depends on glaciers that are rapidly melting as a result of climate change, making the flow of rivers more irregular, leading to more droughts and floods. A report by a team from the World Bank published in June 2007 in the bulletin of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) predicts that many of the lower glaciers in the Andes will be gone in the next decade or so, and that glacial runoff may dry up altogether within 20 years. The last comprehensive satellite survey by Peru's National Environmental Council, carried out in 1997, found that the area covered by glaciers had shrunk by 22% since the early 1960s. Partial surveys by geologists suggest that the rate at which the glaciers are melting has speeded up over the past decade.[10]

For example, the Quelccaya Glacier, the largest ice cap in the Peruvian Andes, has shrunk by 30% in the last 33 years. The streams fed by the glacier provide water to irrigation canals built by the Incas and, further downstream, for the city of Lima.[11]

Water use

Urban areas In 2005, an average of 259 liters/person/day of water were produced in urban areas. Actual water consumption is much lower than this level due to distribution losses estimated around 45%. Per capita water production has decreased by 26% since 1997 when production was at 352 liters/person/day. This decrease may be partly due to an increase in the share of metered users from 24% to 47% (1997-2005). According to the National Sanitation Plan, it is inadmissible that with such high levels of production water supply remains intermittent in many cities.[1] In rural areas, water use is much lower than in urban areas.

According to a 2008 national survey by the Radio station RPP and the World Bank's Water and Sanitation Program (WSP), 38% of respondents indicate that they "take great care" of water in the household. 89% of respondents indicate that they treat tap water before drinking it, primarily by boiling it, and 48% store water in their house because of intermittent supply or because they have no access to piped drinking water.[12]

History and recent developments

The institutional framework for the water and sanitation sector has suffered from many successive changes during the last decades consisting of centralization and decentralization cycles, without achieving an improvement in service quality.

The 1960s: Municipal service provision

In the beginning of the 1960s, the municipalities had the responsibility of providing water and sanitation service. However, this responsibility was transferred to the Ministry of Housing in most cities by the later part of the decade.

In rural areas, investments were realized through the Ministry of Public Health and its Directorate for Basic Rural Sanitation – DISABAR. The systems, once built, were handed over to community-based organizations operation, and maintenance.[13]

The 1970s: A more centralized dual structure

In the 1970s, the large cities of (Lima, Arequipa and Trujillo) created their own Water and Sanitation Companies. In the country’s other urban areas, water and sanitation services were provided by the General Directorate of Sanitation Works (DGOS) of the Ministry of Housing and Construction (MVCC).[14].

The 1980s: Centralization and SENAPA

In 1981, the government of Fernando Belaúnde Terry merged the three Sanitation Companies of Lima, Arequipa, and Trujillo and the DGOS in a single state holding company, the National Service of Water and Sewage Supply (SENAPA). SENAPA was composed of 15 constituent companies and 10 operational units distributed around the country. SEDAPAL in Lima was the largest of these. However, 200 cities (20%) were left out of SENAPA and administered their own services. The Ministry of Health continued to support the service in the rural areas.

The Government of Alan García (1985-1990) passed the "Organization and Functions of the Ministry of Health Law" of 1990 (Legislative Decree N. 584) which eliminated the DISABAR, transferring to the regional governments the functions related to rural water and sanitation construction and technical assistance. With the change in government in 1990, these changes did not materialize, as the regionalization stalled.[14]

The 1990s: Decentralization and commercialization

During the 1990s, the water and sanitation sector was decentralized again. In May 1990, the outgoing government of Alan García decided to transfer all SENAPA constituent companies and operational units to the municipalities. SENAPA was to be converted into a company in charge of only giving technical assistance to the municipalities, a decision that was never implemented.[13]

The Government of Alberto Fujimori (1990-2000) initiated another restructuring of the sector with the objectives of commercializing and privatizing the service providers.[15]. In 1991, the government enacted the Private Investment Promotion Law for water and sanitation. In 1992, the National Water and Sewage Program (PRONAP) was created. SENAPA and SEDAPAL were placed under the direct authority of the President. In 1994, the General Services and Sanitation Law was passed. It designated the Ministry of the President to be the water sector governing body. It confirmed the role of the municipalities as specified by the Ley Orgánica de Municipalidades and it also created the legal figure of the Municipal Service Providers (EPS) to appoint the municipal companies that would be in charge of providing urban water and sewage services.

The General Law of the National Superintendence of Sanitation Services (SUNASS) was passed in 1994.[13] A tariff restructuring with the objective of achieving financial viability of the EPS was carried out in parallel. According to the national campaign for the human right to water, the contrary effect occurred and the average tariff dropped from US$ 0.82/m3 in 1996 to US$0.56/m3 in 1999.[16]In fact, despite the government’s expectations, no single public-private partnership in water supply and sanitation was put in place during the Fujimori government and all service providers remained public.

The General Law of Sanitation Services states that the Ministry of Health will participate in policies relating to environmental sanitation and to water quality, through its General Directorate of Environmental Health (DIGESA). However, certain key functions - such as the support of community-based water service providers and hygiene promotion - were, according to the law, transferred to the Municipal Service Providers (EPS). Nevertheless, these companies are mainly dedicated to the urban water and sewage services. As a result, very few EPS actually support rural water committees.[13]

Currently, beyond DIGESA’s role in formulating policies and sanitation and environmental projection quality norms, it also lends limited support in the construction of water and sanitation systems in rural areas, work that supposed to be coordinated with the Board of Health (DISA) in each of the country’s departments.[13]

2001-2006: New administrative models – A silent reform?

In 2002 during the Toledo administration (2001-2006), the Ministry of Housing, Construction, and Sanitation was created as governing entity of the sector.

In 2004 the PRONASAR (National Rural Water and Sanitation Project) was approved, to be executed by the Ministry of Housing, Construction, and Sanitation with the support from the World Bank.[17] The project aims at shifting the government's emphasis in rural areas as well as in the small cities away from pure construction to institutional strengthening aimed at better sustainability. In small towns, it supports new administrative models for water and sanitation service provision through specialized operators and the strengthening of municipal capacities.[18]

In October 2005, the first water and sanitation concession contract in Peru was signed with a private company in the province of Tumbes. The 30-year concession was awarded after open bidding to a Peruvian-Argentine consortium, Latinaguas-Concyssa.[19] The interventions under the concession will be financed with the support of a loan and grant from the German development bank KfW to the Government of Peru.[20] A second concession is at the point of being awarded in the Piura region (EPS GRAU) and concessions are in the preparation process for four other companies in Huancayo, the Libertad region, the Ucayali region, and the Lambayeque region with IDB financing,[21] as well as with financial support from the German KfW and from the Government of Canada.

The Water and Sanitation Program of the World Bank has called this private participation process in the interior of the country a “silent reform in the sector”, which works in conjunction with the PRONASAR in rural areas.[22]

"Water for everyone" – 2006 and beyond

In September 2006, the new President Alan García announced an ambitious investment plan for the water and sanitation sector called “Water for everyone” (Agua para todos), promising water access to all Peruvians – mainly to the poorest – by the end of his mandate. The program counts 270 projects, starting in the Carabayllo district of Lima.[23] Detailed advances of the program in each department can be followed on the Ministry of Housing, Construction, and Sanitation website. The program was initially criticized for several reasons, including, its over-emphasis on the Lima water distribution without sufficiently addressing the low levels of water production[24] as well as due to making promises that are hard to keep. “The problem is that this program has begun with high goals without a clear strategy of how to reach them however with an abundance of public interest.”[25]

In January 2007, during a visit to Colombia, the Minister of Housing, Hernán Garrido-Lecca[26] announced that the Empresas Públicas de Medellín cooperated with SEDAPAL in water and sanitation system operation investments in northern Lima. Furthermore, the Colombian water company Triple A has shown interest in participating in the process of private operators in Peru.

The Vice-Minister of Housing, Jesús Vidalón, in charge of water and sanitation within the Ministry, formerly headed the program of private participation in the sector in the ProInversión Fund.

Responsibility for water supply and sanitation

Policy

File:Casadepizarrolima.jpg
Casa de Pizarro, official residence of the President.

The Ministry of Housing, Construction, and Sanitation is the sector governing entity through the Vice Ministry of Construction and Sanitation (VMCS) and the National Sanitation Board (DNS).[27] The Ministry formulates, approves, executes and supervises the application of the national water and sanitation policies. The Ministry was created on June 11, 2002, through the Organic Law #27779.[28]

Various drafts of a General Water Law for water resources management have been in discussion for two decades. Nevertheless, no law has been approved up to now.

Regulation

The sector regulating entity is the National Sanitation Services Supervisory (SUNASS), created by law in 1992. Its functions are to regulate and supervise service providers, approve tariffs, establish norms, impose sanctions for violations of the law, and resolve user controversies and complaints. As part of its supervision activities SUNASS has established a benchmarking system to monitor the performance of service providers.

SUNASS is funded through a 2% surcharge on water bills with an annual budget of approximately US$4 million. According to the law, it enjoys administrative and financial autonomy.[29] Its Board consists of five members nominated as follows:

Provision of services

The Peruvian Constitution of 1993 establishes the responsibility of public service provision onto the city councils. The Ley Orgánica de Municipalidades (Law Nº 27972) signals that the function of the provincial municipalities is to directly or by concession administer and regulate the water service, sewage, and drainage. Peru has 194 provincial city councils.[30]

The service providers in the country are:

The changes in municipal authority generated modifications in the directing committees of the EPS or municipal administrations including within the same municipal management. In 1999 it was estimated that the EPS changed general managers on the average every 17 months.[33] This happens despite that the majority of the EPS are made up of several provincial municipalities, which in theory should decrease the influence of city governments and reduce the political interference in the administration of companies.

Nearly all of the country’s service providers become weakened in financial and institutional aspects, as well as in human resources, despite the attempts to strengthen them.

Support to Communal Organizations

A key function in the water and sanitation sector that is frequently neglected is the support to communal organizations that provide services, mainly in rural areas. This function can be assigned to municipalities, EPS, or to national entities with departmental filiations.

The WHO observed that in 2000 the municipal participation in assistance to rural services was insufficient to different extents, ranging from its total exclusion to the need for support in the preparation of the technical records and the complete integration in the planning, financing, and construction supervision processes.[5]

The regional governments have technical and financial supporting functions (also see Peru Regulation).[34] The 24 separate Regional Boards of Housing, Construction, and Sanitation – one in each department – support them in this role.[35]

Many interventions in rural areas during the 1990s were made without verifying the community demand and without their contributions to the execution of the projects. This resulted in overly designed systems that the communities did not maintain thus leading to loss of public funds.[36]

Since 2002, the PRONASAR project supports the Administrative Assemblies of Sanitation Services (JASS) directly and through NGOs as well as municipalities.[37]

Other functions

The Ministry of Health (MINSA) is also participating in the sector through the General Director’s Office of Environmental Health (DIGESA) and the Executive Director’s Office on Basic Sanitation (DESAB), entities which exert functions in the aspects pertaining to sanitary and water quality for human consumption and the protection of a healthy environment.

Other institutions which act and participate in the sector are the Ministry of Economy and Finances (MEF) that specifically interferes in the aspects of economic sectoral and normative planning related to finances; several NGOs and the private sector, among others.

The National Cooperation Fund for Social Development (FONCODES), created in 1991, channels resources to investing in marginalized rural and urban areas in various sectors including potable water and sanitation. Within the framework of the state decentralization process, since October 2003, FONCODES transfers resources to the district city councils verified for social infrastructure projects, offering technical assistance and contributes to the capacity building for the responsible handling of social investments. The FONCODES depends on the Ministry of Women and Social Development (MIMDES). Since the beginning of PRONASAR, FONCODES has retired from water and sanitation activities in rural areas.

Some 46 service providers have formed the National Peruvian Association of Sanitation Service Providers (ANEPPSA) to “promote the excellence in sanitation services management” through training and exchange of experiences.

Economic efficiency

It is estimated that 45% of the water produced is not counted due to physical and commercial losses, which is higher than the other 40% average of Water and sanitation in Latin America. This coefficient has not change a lot during the last 10 years.[38] The highest levels are detected in the provinces of Marañón and Barranca (greater than 70%). Some companies had water levels not accounted for at less than 10%, however, these values do not seem viable given the low level of household metering (50%).[39]

Financial aspects

Water tariffs in Peru are somewhat low compared to other Latin American countries and water bills are often not paid. As a result, according to an estimate, 95% of the country's urban service providers can be considered bankrupt. In many urban areas it is common to spend significant sums to water tanker operators, which are prevalent because of intermittent supply and deficient coverage. In rural areas, tariffs are even lower than the already low tariffs in urban areas, making it impossible to properly maintain water systems.

Urban areas

Tariffs In 2004, water tariffs in Peru were on average Sol 1.29/m3 (US$ 0.38/m3) in urban areas.[40] Average urban tariffs increased slightly from Sol 1.04/m3 in 1997 (US$ 0.40/m3 with 1997 monetary values) to Sol 1.45/m3 in 2000 (US$ 0.42/m3), however dropped in real terms thereafter.[8] Each provider has its own tariffs, with significant differences between them, ranging from Sol 0.45/m3 in Valle del Mantaro (US$0.14/m3) to Sol 2.60/m3 in Ilo (US$ 0.79/m3) in 2005.[39]

Users in urban areas that do not have access to piped water pay much higher prices for water from water tankers.

According to a 2008 national survey by Radio RPP, respondents indicated that, on average, they paid 44 Soles (close to US$ 15) per month and per household for water.[41] 44% of respondents said that they paid "much or too much" for water.[42]

Cost recovery In 1999, water companies billed only 55% of the produced water and of this value only 50% was actually paid. Payment arrears were equivalent to 140 days of billed revenues.[33]

There are significant differences in levels of cost recovery among service providers. For example, SEDAPAL had an operating margin of 35% in 2000, while the EPS had an average operating margin of only 16%. 6 out of 46 EPS had a negative operating margin.[43]

Only five years later in 2005, according to the World Bank's Water and Sanitation Program, no more than 5% of the EPS and of the municipalities had the financial capacity to carry out their functions. The rest are considered financially bankrupt.[22] In the same year, the government decided to apply a new tariff regulation model.[44] The government contracted studies for the elaboration of this model with the support from the Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF), a World Bank trust fund, and later from the IDB.

Rural areas

In rural areas, the water committees apply fixed monthly tariffs independently of use as the use of water meters is not common in these areas. The tariff is estimated to be the equivalent of US$0.50/month and household.[45] At a consumption of 20 cubic meter per month and household this corresponds to US$ 0.025 per cubic meter, or about 15 times less than the average tariff in urban areas. Needless to say, the revenues generated are insufficient for the operation and maintenance of the systems.

Ability to Pay

In 1997, the average the Peruvian household spent 1.8% of their total expenses in water, including water bought from carro-tanques, but without spending in sanitation. In urban areas they spent 1.9% of the expenses for water and only 0.8% in rural areas. The poorest (first decil) spent 2.4% in urban areas and 1.7% in rural areas.[46]

Investments and financing

As shown in the bar chart below, investment levels increased substantially during much of the 1990s, from US$ 39m in 1990 to a peak of US$ 422m in 1997. Since then investments have declined again to US$ 106m in 2004 and US$ 190m in 2005. Total investment between 1990 and 2005 was at US43.3 billion, the average being at US$205m p.a.[47] Investments are financed through a variety of programs providing subsidies to municipal utilities, as well as to a limited extent by internal cash generation and debt. <timeline> ImageSize = width:auto height:240 barincrement:40 PlotArea = left:40 right:900 height:200 bottom:20 AlignBars = late

DateFormat = x.y Period = from:0 till:450.0 TimeAxis = orientation:vertical ScaleMajor = gridcolor:tan1 increment:100 start:0

PlotData=

 color:blue width:15
 bar:1990 from:start till:39.0
 bar:1991 from:start till:79.9
 bar:1992 from:start till:109.3
 bar:1993 from:start till:182.1
 bar:1994 from:start till:243.1
 bar:1995 from:start till:257.7
 bar:1996 from:start till:378.6
 bar:1997 from:start till:421.8
 bar:1998 from:start till:370.5
 bar:1999 from:start till:361.5
 bar:2000 from:start till:192.4
 bar:2001 from:start till:115.7
 bar:2002 from:start till:119.5
 bar:2003 from:start till:109.6         
 bar:2004 from:start till:105.8
 bar:2005 from:start till:190.2

TextData=

 pos:(60,220) fontsize:M text: Annual investment in water supply and sanitation in million US$

</timeline>

In the 1990s Between 1990 and 1998, an annual average of US$228.9 million has been invested for water and sanitation infrastructure, equivalent to 0.5% of the GDP. In this period the investments in the sector increased from US$1.1/per capita in 1990 to US$15/per capita in 1998, the latter being an unusually high investment level compared to other Latin American countries.[5][22] These investments were financed as follows:

In 2000 total debt contracted by service providers stood at US$ 1.15 billion, equivalent to the operating margin of all service providers over 9 years. 46% of this debt contributed to reimbursable contributions by the National Housing Fund FONAVI.[49]

From 2000-2005 The period between 2000-2005 witnessed investments of US$833.1 million (US$166.6 million/year) in the sector, carried out by the following entities:[50]

Program Share of investment
SEDAPAL 45%
PARSSA 14%
MESIAS 12%
EPS 10%
Municipipalities 7%
FONCODES 7%
Others 5%
Total 100%
File:Piura Plaza de Armas.jpg
Plaza de Armas in the city of Piura

Future Investments The Government's draft National Sanitation Plan considers that investments of US$4,789 million would be needed in the period of 2005-2015 (US$497 million/year) to achieve the Millennium Development Goals in the sector.[51]

However, billions more would be needed to divert water along tunnels beneath the Andes if glacial melting accelerates.[10]

External cooperation

Multilateral financial institutions - including, the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the Andean Development Corporation (CAF) - as well as bilateral cooperation agencies (the German KfW and GTZ, the Canadian CIDA, and the Japanese JBIC, among others) play an important role in investment financing and in technical assistance in the sector.

Assistance to different segments of the sector, differentiated by the size of localities, is provided by different donors:

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 (Spanish) National Housing and Water Plan 2006-2015, p. 73
  2. WHO/UNICEF JMP WaterSanitation
  3. 3.0 3.1 (Spanish) SUNASS gráficos promedio 1
  4. (Spanish) OMS/OPS 2001, p. 15, based on a National life survey
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 (Spanish) WHO/PAHO 2000
  6. (Spanish) National Housing and Water Plan 2006-2015, p. 76
  7. (Spanish) National Housing and Water Plan 2006-2015, p. 89
  8. 8.0 8.1 (Spanish) SUNASS: evolution of indicators, 2005
  9. Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) - List of projects
  10. 10.0 10.1 "When Ice turns to water", The Economist, July 12, 2007
  11. "Warming may exacerbate global water conflicts" by Doug Struck, Washington Post, September 20, 2007, p. A23. The estimate of the rate of meltdown of the glacier is based on research by Lonnie Thompson from Ohio State University.
  12. Ministerio de Vivienda/JICA/JBIC/Grupo RPP/RPP Noticias/WSP:Construyendo una cultura del agua en el Perú.Estudio de perecepción sobre el agua y hábitos de consumo en la población, 2008, p. 10
  13. 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 (Spanish) WHO/PAHO 2000
  14. 14.0 14.1 (Spanish) PIDHDD 2006, p. 1
  15. (Spanish) PIDHDD 2006, p. 2
  16. (Spanish) PIDHDD 2006, p. 3; These numbers are different from those of SUNASS cited below for unclear reasons.
  17. World Bank: Natural Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project
  18. (Spanish) National Housing and Water Plan 2006-2015, p. 106
  19. (Spanish) SODEPAZ
  20. (Spanish) TUMBES: primera concesión de una Empresa de Agua en el Perú
  21. (Spanish) IDB Peru
  22. 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 (Spanish)WSP Revista Agua No. 19 Junio 2005, p. 4-5
  23. (Spanish) Water for all
  24. (Spanish) J. Francisco Canaza: Agua para muy pocos, 2006
  25. (Spanish) Raúl Wiener: Agua para todos, ganancia para algunos, 2006
  26. for the service record of Hernán Garrido-Lecca also see (Spanish) [1]
  27. In Peru the term “sanitation” also encompasses water provision, sewage systems, and raw sewage.
  28. (Spanish) National Housing and Water Plan 2006-2015, p. 34
  29. (Spanish) National Housing and Water Plan 2006-2015, p. 69-71
  30. Furthermore, there are 1831 district municipalities.
  31. (Spanish) National Housing and Water Plan 2006-2015, p. 72
  32. (Spanish) SUNASS technical report, p. 1-2
  33. 33.0 33.1 (Spanish) WHO/PAHO 2000, fortalezas y aspectos críticos del sector
  34. According to the Ley Orgánica of Regional Governments, Law Nº 27867
  35. "Plan 69-71" see also list of regional boards (Spanish)
  36. Cockburn 2004
  37. World Bank: PRONASAR
  38. (Spanish) SUNASS: evolution od indicators, 2005 The 1997 value is probably not reliable due to micromeasurements
  39. 39.0 39.1 (Spanish) SUNASS gráficos promedio 2
  40. (Spanish) National Housing and Water Plan 2006-2015, p. 79
  41. using the August, 29, 2008 exchange rate of US$ 1=Sol 2.97, see www.oanda.com. It is not clear if this amount includes payments for water from vendors.
  42. Ministerio de Vivienda/JICA/JBIC/Grupo RPP/RPP Noticias/WSP:Construyendo una cultura del agua en el Perú.Estudio de perecepción sobre el agua y hábitos de consumo en la población, 2008, p. 19-20
  43. USAID/EHP/WSP/OPS 2004, p. 16
  44. (Spanish) IDB: Desarrollo del marco tarifario de los servicios de agua potable y saneamiento básico del Perú, p. 3
  45. WSP 2005
  46. (Spanish) OMS/OPS 2001, p. 17-20
  47. Sources: 1990-1997: Ministry of urban development and housing; 1997-2005: Ministry of Economy and finance; investments at the municipal level are not included.
  48. Calculated based on USAID/EHP/WSP/PAHO 2004, p. 18-19, quoting the 1999 Sanitation Subsector Assessment by the Directorate General of Sanitation
  49. Calculated based on USAID/EHP/WSP/PAHO 2004, p. 17, quoting the Vice-Ministry of Housing and Sanitation
  50. (Spanish) National Housing and Water Plan 2006-2015, p. 79-80
  51. (Spanish) Plan Nacional de Saneamiento

Sources

See also

External links

es:Agua potable y saneamiento en el Perú
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox
Karikuy
Sponsor