ISSUES IN URBAN SEWERAGE&WASTE WATER TREATMENT IN
VIETNAM

Tran Thi Ngoc Linh
Project Coordinator
Administration of Infrastructure
Vietnam Ministry of Construction
1Jakarta, November 2013

STATUS OF THE SEWERAGE AND WW
TREATMENT IN URBAN AREAS OF VIETNAM

1. Sewerage services, WW treatment and reuse:
Is a public service with following tasks: Rain water collection and drainage; Waste water collection and sewerage;
 Waste water treatment and reuse.
 The sewerage service, the WW treatment and reuse

are attaching with the environmental protection,
particularly the water environment.
2

STATUS OF THE SEWERAGE AND WW
TREATMENT IN URBAN AREAS OF VIETNAM

2. Status (1)Sewerage & WW treatment systems
 Majorityof the drainage and sewerage are thecombined systems which have been constructed in different
development stages  they are not consistent, synchronouswith deteriorating facilities causing incapacity.
 Rapid urbanization, with 756 urban by 2012 and 32.2%
urbanization ratio  causes the uncontrolled waste water
volume which directly pour into the incapacity drainage
system without treatment. (currently only 7 urban areasapply the centralized WW treatment 3 facilities with 143treatment stations)

STATUS OF THE SEWERAGE AND WW TREATMENT
IN URBAN AREAS OF VIETNAM

2. Status (2) Calculationand forecast for future sewerage systemwere not accurate  drainage incapacity.
 The regular flood caused by heavy rain in HCM city and inHanoi. Other urban areas, which were not suffer fromflood in the past such as Can Tho, Da Nang, Quy Nhon.
Hai Phong and Nha Trang etc, are now regularly facing
heavy flood.

4

STATUS OF THE SEWERAGE AND WW TREATMENT
IN URBAN AREAS OF VIETNAM

3. Investments for sewerage and WW treatment (1) Investments for newly built and expansion of thesewerage facilities
 T WW collection and treatment
 T O&M of the drainage system.
250 million USD has been invested each year in the past
10 years 18 urban waste water treatment plants are on operation
 31 urban waste water treatment plants are underconstruction/or in the pre-construction period.
5

STATUS OF THE SEWERAGE AND WW TREATMENT
IN URBAN AREAS OF VIETNAM

3. Investments for sewerage and WW treatment (2) Shortcomings:

80% of the investments for urban
WW projects and WW treatment plants projects
relies on ODA source. However, the access to ODA
is reducing. The fee collection from users isdifficult. The sewerage tariff is only partly cover thecosts for de-sludge and maintenance, etc.

6

STATUS OF THE SEWERAGE AND WW TREATMENT
IN URBAN AREAS OF VIETNAM

4. Ratio of connection and service access
The ratio of households who connect to the urban
drainage system is low in many places.
 94% urban population use only household’s toilet
 90% households use septic tanks
 4% sludge is appropriately treated 60% households connect to the centralized drainage
systems
 10% collected waste water is treated in the WW treatment
plants7

STATUS OF THE SEWERAGE AND WW TREATMENT
IN URBAN AREAS OF VIETNAM

5. Sewerage tariff (1) Two types of tariffs are currently applied: sewerage tariff(Decree No 88/2007); and environmental protection tariff(Decree No 25/2013). Please don’t confuse these twotypes of tariffs.
 The direct tariff collection from beneficiaries andpollution-caused subjects (except for plants) is complexand costly (due to the method for measurement of the WW
volume and the determination of the pollutants) -) theabove tariffs are added into the clean water price8

STATUS OF THE SEWERAGE AND WW TREATMENT
IN URBAN AREAS OF VIETNAM

5. Sewerage tariff (2) In localities: currently only 10% - 20% of sewerage tariff

is collected. The ratio of sewerage tariff takes maximum
40% of the clean water price.
 The level of the cost recovery against the O&M
expenses (management network, exclusion of thetreatment plants):- Hanoi 35%- Hai Phong 90%- Ho Chi Minh 50%- Lam Dong 40% (Danida)- Vung Tau 40%- Bac Ninh 50% (KfW)- Da Nang 30% (WB)
- Soc Trang 96% (KfW)

9STATUS OF THE SEWERAGE AND WW TREATMENT
IN URBAN AREAS OF VIETNAM

6. Sewerage service provision enterprises (1)Currently there are 3 types:
 Sewerage service provision enterprise who specialized in this area
 Enterprise who provides both water supply and sewerageservice
 Sewerage service provision enterprises who are urban multifunctions enterprises providing infrastructure development andservices
Forms of enterprises: One-Member Co.Ltd: 20 companies
 JSC: 4 companies
10 One-Member Urban Sewerage and Development Co.Ltd: BR-VT,Thai Nguyen, Hanoi, HCMC, etc.

STATUS OF THE SEWERAGE AND WW TREATMENT
IN URBAN AREAS OF VIETNAM

6. Sewerage service provision enterprises (2)Financial features: main revenue is from the statebudget, with small part from the sewerage tariff  meet
only part of the expenses (without the basis depreciationcost).
Shortcomings:
 Inconsistent model Low effectiveness (except for BR-VT, Hanoi and HCMC)
 Low competitive capacity; not yet access to the innovativetechnologies
 Limited resources (capital, operational budget, humanresource, etc.)

11

STATUS OF THE SEWERAGE AND WW TREATMENT
IN URBAN AREAS OF VIETNAM

7. Owner of the sewerage systems
a. People committees of the urban areas are the owners ofthe sewerage systems:
 Invested by the state budget; Received from the enterprises, new residential areas; Received from organizations, individual who invested
their capitals in sewerage facilities in certain limitedperiods.
b. Organizations and individuals can be the owners of thesewerage facilities which they invested in until the timethey have to transfer the ownership to the provincial
people committees (in compliance to the Decree 88/2007)

12

STATUS OF THE SEWERAGE AND WW TREATMENT
IN URBAN AREAS OF VIETNAM

8. Participation of the private sector
Promotion and encouragement have been made to attract
private sector’s participation in: Management and de-sludge of the sewerage networks
 O&M of the WW treatment stations
 Investment in construction and operation in two types:
PPP or bidder selection (create the competition in priceand service quality).

13

STATUS OF THE SEWERAGE AND WW TREATMENT
IN URBAN AREAS OF VIETNAM

9. State management in water drainage
a. Sector’s management
 Vertical sector’s management MOC/DOCs (particularlythe DOT is applied in HCMC)
 General management: MPI, MOF (sector’s developmentand finance)b. Geographical territorial management
 People committees of provinces and cities
 People committees of urban areas under provinces andcities (Local authorities are responsible for both statemanAgement and management of state own enterprisesoperating sewerage service)14

ASSESSEMENT & DISCUSSION
1. The centralized sewerage systems were operated ineffectively
in the collection of pollutants (low BOD level input intotreatment stations):- The centralized sewerage in reality will be applied in the highpopulated urban such as Hanoi and HCMC
- Staging the investments for construction of WW treatment plants
shall increase the effectiveness in condition of limited capitals.
2. Connection at household level gain inadequate consideration- Connection at household level is not a mandatory requirement for
the general sewerage systems.
- The financial supports (projects in Buon Ma Thuot and Da Lat)significantly contributed to the Enhancement of the connection
15ratio.

ASSESSEMENT & DISCUSSION
3. Operational cost is not recovered- Local authorities have troubles in implementation of thecurrent regulations on tariff collection (25/88)- The commitments from the local governments isessential to ensure the long term investment.
4. Limited capacity:- Local manager are incapable in O&M, in selection ofappropriate technology option causing high cost inoperation and ineffective investment decision.
- Inadequate public awareness.
16

ASSESSEMENT & DISCUSSION
5. Lack of financial incentives and policies forpromotion of private investment- Private sector face risks and low cost recovery. The
method “trade off the land use right for
infrastructure” is facing many problems.
6. There is no effective sludge decentralized system
in Vietnam. Efforts made by projects haven’t existed
long enough, or only have been types ofdemonstration.
17

RECOMMENDATIONS – CENTRAL LEVEL
1. Financial mechanisms for urban WWmanagement
 Development of national comprehensive strategies
 Effective management and use of capital resources
2. Development of the National Target Program for
Urban Sanitation
 Set priorities.
 Coordinate andallocate appropriately the availableresources.
 Study andadjust the orientations for urban andindustrial drainage up to 2025.
18

RECOMMENDATIONS – CENTRAL LEVEL
3. Legal document system
 Study, replace the Decree No 88/2007 towards the“Decree on sewerage and WW management”. The scope
shall cover the urban areas, rural residential areas andindustrial areas.
 Replace the Decree No 31/2005 regarding the production
and provision of public products/services.
 Enable the flexible application of the Decree No 25/88 inorder to collect the tariffs of: sewerage service,environmental protection, WW treatment service.
4. Appropriate water discharge standards/regulations
with specific norm and unit price for each locality

19

RECOMMENDATIONS – CENTRAL LEVEL
5. Socialize the sewerage service: promote the participation ofthe private sector via PPP and PSP approaches.
6. Enterprise models: study and complete the organizationalmodel of the sewerage service provision enterprises in the typesof One-member Co,.Ltd, JSC, privatization, etc.
7. Capacity enhancement for central agencies- Development of strategy, upgrading the quality of planning andforecast- Information and experience collection and sharing- Preparation of technical manuals, training courses, guiding
handbooks- Provision of capacity building in all levels to improve theproject management

20

RECOMMENDATIONS – CENTRAL LEVEL
Regulationon ownership: regulates for peoplecommittees at provincial and city level. The adjustment
direction: provincial committees
shall mainly be theowner but can decentralize/authorize to the peoplecommittees of the belonging urban areas?
9. Investment owner of the project: who shall be the real
investment owner of the sewerage project– the sewerage
service provision agency and the WW treatment plants
should be assigned to manage the ODA capital, toimplement and to manage the project, to conduct theO&M and to be responsible for cost recovery, etc.
8.

21

RECOMMENDATIONS – LOCAL LEVEL
1. WW management regulations in local areas: below
points should be focused:- Clearly identify the owners of the sewerage works,
attaching with their duties and power;- Select the O&M agencies with their duties and power;- Identify the right andduties of the discharge
households;- Develop the related regulations for connection, discharge
at the connection point;- Develop related regulations for sewerage tariff, …
- Identify the responsibilities of related stakeholders.

22

RECOMMENDATIONS – LOCAL LEVEL
2. Enhance the capacity for local authorities and related
stakeholders
3. Innovate, reform and apply the comprehensive
approach- Balance, prioritize the investment between the collectionand treatment- Re-use the WW and treated sludge4. Decentralized sewerage and WW treatment model –the replaced option for the centralized sewerage andWW treatment model- Bottom up approach- Combination of the decentralized/centralized seweragesystems

23

RECOMMENDATIONS – LOCAL LEVEL
5. Separate and combined sewerage systems- Issues on cost and feasibility- Advantages of the separate sewerage system,
including the elimination of the households’ septic tanks
6. Connection at household level
7. Design of appropriate WW treatment station
8. Septic tank sludge management- Components of the combined sewerage system- Strictly manage
the de-sludge, thesludge
collection and treatment
24

RECOMMENDATIONS – LOCAL LEVEL
9. Reasonable O&M cost
- Based on appropriate design- Decrease the O&M cost via application of appropriatetechnology option with the local condition
10. Enhancement of cost recovery- Adequate and accurate estimation of the drainage
tariff/price for WW treatment- Willingness of tariffcollection and payment (in anappropriate roadmap)
11. Awareness raising for communities via information
campaigns, communication, education, in cooperation
with social organizations.

25

CONCLUSION
 Currently,

despite the encouraging achievements, many
shortcomings in the water drainage sector have been seen inVietnam.
 The sector shall make much better efforts in order toimprove the status and investment effectiveness; to welloperate and manage the systems.
 Sector’s institution and management capacity need to bestrengthened.
 The limited resources shall be appropriately exploited.
 Hopefully the discussions shall gain reasonable andinnovative orientations in the coming time.

26

THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

27