Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Lao PDR National Rural Sanitation Products Supply Chain Study

399 views

Published on

  • There is a useful site for you that will help you to write a perfect and valuable essay and so on. Check out, please ⇒ www.WritePaper.info ⇐
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

Lao PDR National Rural Sanitation Products Supply Chain Study

  1. 1. Supply Chain Analysis for Rural Sanitation Products and Services in Lao PDR Final Report July 2014 Prepared by
  2. 2. FINAL REPORT Contents Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................................... 6 Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................... 2 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 25 2 Methodology................................................................................................................................................ 33 3 Possible limitations of the data.................................................................................................................... 36 4 The Sanitation Supply Chain......................................................................................................................... 37 5 The Latrine.................................................................................................................................................... 52 6 The Consumer .............................................................................................................................................. 63 7 Market structure, environment and reach .................................................................................................. 65 8 Government and Development Partners are part of the chain................................................................... 76 9 Finance ......................................................................................................................................................... 79 10 Business constraints................................................................................................................................... 82 11 Summary of Findings.................................................................................................................................. 86 12 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................... 87 Appendix 1: Selected Sanitation Data from Lao Social Indicator Survey........................................................ 98 Appendix 2: Material Suppliers Questionnaire............................................................................................... 99 Appendix 3: Concrete Producers Questionnaire........................................................................................... 120 Appendix 4: Masons Questionnaire.............................................................................................................. 138 Appendix 5: Microfinance Questionnaire ..................................................................................................... 156 Appendix 6: Focus Group discussion Guidelines........................................................................................... 160 References..................................................................................................................................................... 165
  3. 3. FINAL REPORT List of Figures Figure 1: GDP per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP), 2012.................................................................. 25 Figure 2: Households Using Improved Sanitation Facilities, by Wealth Quintile, 2012.................................. 26 Figure 3: The impact of improved sanitation.................................................................................................. 27 Figure 4: Seven provinces for field work......................................................................................................... 31 Figure 5: Supply chain flow for building materials – Northern Provinces (n=20)........................................... 41 Figure 6 Supply chain flow for building materials – Central Provinces (n=19) ............................................... 41 Figure 7 Supply chain flow for building materials– Southern Provinces (n=29)............................................. 42 Figure 8: Average percentage of concrete producers’ business related to latrine construction (n=37)........ 43 Figure 9: Masons who have received training (% of total per region/province) (n=71)................................. 46 Figure 10: Supply Chain Map (conceptual) ..................................................................................................... 49 Figure 11: Do you know about these different latrine options? (n=71) ......................................................... 52 Figure 12: Cost drivers for commonly-built latrine (LAK and cumulative % of total costs)............................ 55 Figure 13: Cost drivers for core structure (LAK and cumulative % of total costs) .......................................... 55 Figure 14: Poor rural households’ stated monthly income, by region ........................................................... 62 Figure 15: How much are you willing to pay for a latrine? (rural poor, non-latrine owners)......................... 63 Figure 16: Comparing costs with consumer expectations and willingness to pay (LAK) ................................ 63 Figure 17: Proportion of actors reporting no competitors in latrine products/services ................................ 65 Figure 18: Construction material shops reporting more than one main upstream supplier (n=68) .............. 67 Figure 19: Percent of actors offering credit (delayed payment) to customers .............................................. 73 Figure 20: Percent that have worked for Government or Development Partner project.............................. 76 Figure 21: Estimated sanitation and hygiene financing, 2008-09................................................................... 78 Figure 22: ACLEDA Bank – Credit conditions................................................................................................... 81 Figure 23: Business constraints (percent of actors reporting each as a main constraint).............................. 82 Figure 24: Potential rural latrine market size (number of latrines) ................................................................ 87
  4. 4. FINAL REPORT List of Tables Table 1: Lao PDR sanitation coverage............................................................................................................. 26 Table 2: Characteristics of the research districts............................................................................................ 32 Table 3: Field work methodology overview.................................................................................................... 33 Table 4: In-depth Interviews – Total Sample .................................................................................................. 34 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)................................................................ 40 Table 9: Gender of the person who manages the business’s accounts/finances (% of total) (n=68)............. 40 Table 10: Owner and Self Employed Concrete Producers – Distribution by Gender (n=37).......................... 43 Table 11: Types of other businesses activities by concrete producers (n=37) ............................................... 44 Table 12: Source of capital – concrete producers (% of total) (n=37) ............................................................ 44 Table 13: Customers of concrete producers (average of reported %) (n=37)................................................ 45 Table 14: Concrete producers who have received training (n=37)................................................................. 45 Table 15: Pit lining options (% of total) (n=71) ............................................................................................... 47 Table 16: Type of latrines masons able to build (% of total) (n=71)............................................................... 48 Table 17: Ability of masons to repair and upgrade a latrine and average per year (n=71)........................... 48 Table 18: Most common improvements made (% of total, multiple choice allowed) (n=71)........................ 49 Table 19: Construction materials – Country of origin..................................................................................... 50 Table 20: Type of latrines owned by the rural poor........................................................................................ 52 Table 21: Latrine superstructures of the rural poor ....................................................................................... 53 Table 22: List of materials to build a typical latrine........................................................................................ 53 Table 23: Latrine core and superstructure costs for a commonly-built latrine (LAK)..................................... 54 Table 24: Materials prices in different provinces (average of suppliers’ selling price), LAK .......................... 56 Table 25: Price paid by concrete producers for cement (LAK per ton)........................................................... 56 Table 26: Price of concrete rings in different provinces (average of producers’ selling price) ...................... 57 Table 27: Labor required to build the “most commonly built” latrine, as quoted by masons (n=71)............ 57 Table 28: Average daily cost per person for latrine construction (n=71) ....................................................... 58 Table 29: Transport costs for large loads between major centers ................................................................. 59 Table 30: Examples of local transportation costs ........................................................................................... 60 Table 31: Commonly-built latrine total costs (materials + labor) ................................................................... 61 Table 32: Relationship between masons and other stakeholders (% of total)............................................... 68 Table 33: Suppliers’ gross margins on selected materials (n=68)................................................................... 68 Table 34: Availability of skilled and knowledgeable masons in poor rural villages ........................................ 70 Table 35: Business or Marketing Plan – Positive Respondents (% of total) (n=68 and 37) ............................ 74 Table 36: Branches interviewed that have lent to households for toilet construction and to supply chain) 80 Table 37: Plans to expand operation in the district (% of total) ..................................................................... 80 Table 38: Current Import Tariff and VAT Rates in Lao PDR (%)....................................................................... 85 Table 39: Potential finance approaches for onsite sanitation ........................................................................ 92
  5. 5. FINAL REPORT 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)
  6. 6. FINAL REPORT 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
  7. 7. FINAL REPORT 1 ບົດສະແດງຄວາມຮູ້ບຸນຄຸນ ຂໍຂອບໃຈເປັນພິເສດມາຍັງຜູ້ມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມ, ອົງການພັດທະນາ ແລະ ສະມາຄົມທ້ອງຖິ່ນກໍຄືເຈົ້າໜ້າທີ່ລັດຖະບານ ທັງສູນກາງ ແລະ ທ້ອງຖິ່ນທີ່ໄດ້ສະຫຼະເວລາອັນມີຄ່າປະກອບສ່ວນ ຕະຫຼອດໄລຍະໂຄງການ. ທີມງານການຄົ້ນຄ້ວາຍັງຂໍຂອບໃຈພາກສ່ວນຫຼັກຂອງຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງທີ່ ສະຫຼະເວລາ ແລະ ໃຫ້ການຮ່ວມມື ເຂົ້າຮ່ວມໃນການສຶກສາຄົ້ນຄວ້າຄັ້ງນີ້. ພວກເຮົາຍັງຂໍສະແດງຄວາມຮູ້ບຸນຄຸນຄູ່ຮ່ວມໂຄງການທັງໝົດລວມທັງແຕ່ບໍ່ ຈຳກັດສະເພາະ: ກົມສົ່ງເສີມສຸຂະພາບ-ສຸຂະສຶກສາ, ກະຊວງສາທາລະນະສຸກ, ທ່ານດຣ. ພັດ; ສູນນ້ຳສະອາດ ແລະ ສິ່ງແວດລ້ອມແຫ່ງຊາດ , ທ່ານດຣ. ສຸດສາຄອນ; ອົງການ UNICEF, Bishnu Timilsina, ຫົວໜ້າວຽກງານຮັກສາ ຄວາມສະອາດປະຈຳ UNICEF; ອົງການ Plan International, John McGown, ຜູ້ຈັດການວຽກ ງານຮັກສາ ຄວາມສະອາດ; SNV, Thea Bongertman, ຫົວໜ້າທີມຂະແໜງຮັກສາຄວາມສະອາດ. ມີບຸກຄົນຈຳນວນໜຶ່ງທີ່ໄດ້ປະກອບ ຄຳເຫັນໃນການນຳສະເໜີຕ່າງໆຕະຫຼອດໄລຍະໂຄງການ ແລະ ໃນການຮ່າງບົດລາຍງານສະ ບັບນີ້. ພວກເຮົາຂໍຂອບໃຈໂດຍສະເພາະ Susanna Smets ຈາກອົງການ WSP. ສຸດທ້າຍນີ້, ພວກເຮົາຂໍຂອບໃຈມາຍັງ ທ່ານ ວຽງສະໄໝ ວົງຄຳຊາວ, ຜູ້ປະສານງານອົງການ WSP ປະຈຳລາວ ແລະ ທ່ານ ບຸນທະວົງ ສຸຣິສັກ, ຊ່ຽວຊານດ້ານການພັດທະນາສັງຄົມອົງການ WSP. ທີມງານວິເຄາະຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງຂອງບໍລິສັດທີ່ປຶກສາ Emerging Markets Consulting
  8. 8. FINAL REPORT 2 Executive Summary Background 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. Supply chain study This supply chain study is a diagnostic of the rural sanitation supply and value chain in distinct physical and market environments. It focuses on the commonly found or most preferred products and services for improved sanitation in rural Lao PDR. Two hundred structured interviews were conducted with supply chain actors in seven provinces, including construction material suppliers, producers of prefabricated concrete products and masons. Local finance organizations were also interviewed. Also, over 100 people participated in 17 focus group discussions. The supply chain Supply Chain Map (conceptual) Different regions and districts have different supply chains, with different sources of products. The supply chain for sanitation is influenced by the nearest neighboring countries as well as by the presence of international check points. Raw materials (e.g. latrine pan, cement, steel and zinc sheets) often begin in Thailand, but China and Vietnam play an important role as well. Many construction material suppliers act as importers, wholesalers and retailers (some are just importer and retailer). Importers WholesalersRetailers Retailers Retailers Supply Chain Actors Location • Provincial capital city • Provincial district • Remote district Concreteproducer Masons • In remote districts, masons and concrete producers are often not available/work only on request base
  9. 9. FINAL REPORT 3 Construction materials – Country of origin Region – Province Latrine Pan Cement Steel PVC pipe Zinc sheet Northern Thailand (100%) China (16%), Thailand (84%) China (67%), Thailand (33%) China (8%), Thailand (92%) China (9%), Thailand (91%) Bokeo Thailand (100%) Thailand (100%) Thailand (100%) Thailand (100%) Thailand (100%) Luangnamtha Thailand (100%) China (25%), Thailand (75%) China (100%) China (11%), Thailand (89%) China (16%), Thailand (84%) Central Thailand (64%), Vietnam (36%) Laos (44%), Vietnam (56%) Thailand (67%), Vietnam (33%) Thailand (71%), Vietnam (39%) Thailand (47%), Vietnam (53%) Bolikhamxay Thailand (8%), Vietnam (92%) Vietnam (100%) Vietnam (100%) Thailand (63%), Vietnam (37%) Vietnam (100%) Savannakhet Thailand (100%) Laos (78%), Vietnam (22%) Thailand (100%) Thailand (78%), Vietnam (22%) Thailand (88%), Vietnam (12%) Southern Thailand (98%), Vietnam (2%) Laos (76%), Thailand (14%), Vietnam (10%) Thailand (47%), Vietnam (53%) Thailand (83%), Vietnam (17%) Thailand (63%), Vietnam (37%) Attapeu Thailand (100%) Laos (88%), Thailand (12%) Thailand (43%), Vietnam (57%) Thailand (100%) Thailand (83%), Vietnam (17%) Salavan Thailand (95%), Vietnam (5%) Laos (57%), Thailand (14%), Vietnam (29%) Thailand (8%), Vietnam (92%) Thailand (65%), Vietnam (35%) Thailand (28%), Vietnam (72%) Sekong Thailand (100%) Laos (83%), Thailand (17%) Thailand (100%) Thailand (100%) Thailand (86%), Vietnam (14%) Note: other products such as tiles have a similar source as zinc sheet Margins are higher on some products and in some areas than others but they range from 3% up to 45% on certain products. These margins are not unreasonable given the high costs of distribution in rural areas. Gross margins of 25% to 35% are not unusual for products successfully reaching the bottom of the pyramid. In the focus groups, supply chain actors indicated that margins for latrine products and services are less than their other activities. For all building material suppliers interviewed, latrines are a small part of their overall business – but estimating how small is not possible. Many of them do not know how important latrines are to their business (since they do not always know for what purpose materials are bought). Latrine pans alone are likely to account for less than 5% of revenues for most suppliers. Concrete producers estimate that the percentage of their businesses related to latrines (for example, concrete rings for the pit) is on average 36% but there is wide variation across the provinces The masons interviewed estimate that they built 6.4 latrines per mason during last year. On average, masons stated that 69% of the latrines they build are as part of a new house. Around 43% of the concrete producers surveyed have other business activities; along with 52% of material suppliers outside district and provincial capitals (and 39% of those in the capitals). Construction materials suppliers and concrete producers on average employ 4 staff. Overall, there appears to be more competition among material suppliers than concrete producers and masons. One-third of material suppliers (33.8%) reported facing no competition, compared with more than half of concrete producers (about 60%) and masons (52%). The majority of the owners and the sole traders of material supply businesses were female, 57% and 67% respectively, and women tend to manage the finances of most material supply businesses (58%). Concrete producers are much more likely to be men (70%), and all masons interviewed were men.
  10. 10. FINAL REPORT 4 Latrine models and costs In general, the supply chain actors present a latrine that is beyond the means of most rural target households. However, there is no “typical” or common latrine. A wide variety of options, sizes and materials were suggested by interviewees. Generally, most said it was a pour-flush squat latrine with ceramic pan and offset pit. The cost of materials varies considerably (depending on size as well as location). Based on estimated prices and designs provided by supply chain actors, the commonly built latrine costs around 2.8 million LAK (US$3501 ). This is the cost for materials only (including superstructure) but excludes labor and any transport charges (though some transport cost is already embedded in materials prices). Such a latrine includes: a ceramic pan, basic slab, three 1m rings and lid, 250 concrete blocks, 1m3 sand, 1m3 gravel, 10 bags cement, 2 PVC pipes (1 large, 1 small), zinc sheeting, and wood door. The superstructure is estimated to account for 69% of the total cost of materials. The cost of materials for a commonly built latrine, as conceived by supply chain actors Region – Province Core Superstructure Total materials cost (LAK) Superstructure % of total cost Northern 815,389 1,697,331 2,512,720 68% Bokeo 788,023 1,606,745 2,394,768 67% Luangnamtha 842,756 1,787,917 2,630,673 68% Central 869,642 1,949,535 2,819,177 69% Borikhamxay 898,714 1,750,917 2,649,631 66% Savannakhet 840,569 2,148,153 2,988,722 72% Southern 968,382 2,060,500 3,028,882 68% Attapeu 981,109 1,901,071 2,882,181 66% Salavan 913,992 2,099,467 3,013,458 70% Sekong 959,833 2,246,083 3,205,917 70% Total sample 889,285 1,934,336 2,823,621 69% Excludes labor and transportation fees. Cement and bricks contribute the most to the materials cost of such a latrine. The door, wood and concrete rings are also significant. Cost drivers for commonly built latrine (LAK and cumulative % of total costs) WSP (2012a) found that, of 10,360 households surveyed in Oudomxay and Savannakhet, three-quarters built latrines costing an average of 2.3 million LAK (US$287), and one-quarter spent an average of 5.5 million LAK (US$687) on “high-cost prestige latrines”. The WSP - Sanitation Consumer Behavior Study 1 Throughout this report, US$1 = 8,000 kip. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 Cement Concrete Bricks Wood door Wood pieces (#10) Concrete Rings (#3) Gravel PVC Pipes (#2) Sand Zinc sheet Lid Ceramic Pan Other
  11. 11. FINAL REPORT 5 found that more than 75% of those rural households who were able to state an estimated latrine cost gauged that they need to spend over 1 million LAK (US$125). Around 29% of households without a latrine state that they are prepared to pay 200,001 to 700,000 LAK for one, while 29% are willing to pay more than 700,000 LAK. Comparing costs with consumer expectations and willingness to pay (LAK) Note: Excludes labor and transport costs. SS = superstructure. Low-cost design with SS: assumes 635,000 LAK (US$80) superstructure. Consumer perceived cost: more than 75% of poor rural households without a latrine, who knew the amount one would cost and the days required to build, believed that it will cost at least 1 million LAK. Consumer willingness to pay: 40% of poor households are willing to pay at least this much. Masons report that it takes two to three workers almost two weeks to build a latrine, with a total labor cost of around 3 million LAK (US$375) — an average daily labor rate of 134,000 LAK per person (US$17). Hence using masons can double the total price of a latrine. The superstructure takes the longest, reflecting that masons are used to building substantial structures (hence the high cost of latrines above). Lining a pit with bricks (which actors report is becoming more common) requires more labor than using concrete rings, partly because such pits are usually larger, adding to the total cost of the latrine. Transport cost in the sanitation supply chain take two forms: as explicit prices for the delivery of products, and as an embedded cost in the price of products and services. Unit transport costs between major centres are lower than local transportation costs. Transporting large loads between major centers costs around 400 LAK per ton per km where the road conditions are good and the area is not mountainous and 750 LAK per ton per km where roads are bad and the terrain is mountainous. However, distributing from major towns to smaller towns and villages, particularly those that are more remote or are in mountainous areas, significantly increases transport costs. Reaching towns with smaller trucks can cost as much as 5,500 LAK per ton per kilometer. Given that only 3 to 4 basic latrines can fit on a truck capable of reaching some remote areas, transport can add around an additional 136,000 (US$17) per latrine (34% of the cost of a basic latrine core), depending on geography and distance. Affordability Poor rural households cannot afford a latrine that costs 2.8 million LAK. For households at the official rural poverty line (180,000 LAK (US$22.50) per person per month, which equates to 900,000 LAK (US$112.50) for the typical five-person household), the commonly-built latrine would cost at least three months’ income. Many target households earn even less: 85% of poor rural households surveyed in the South have a monthly income of less than 500,000 LAK (US$63); and transport costs make the latrine even more expensive. The commonly-built latrine would cost these households more than six months’ income. The potential market for a lower-cost latrine is around 150,000 to 200,000 latrines, depending on the latrine price and assuming there were no problems in distribution to households. The basis for this estimate is that 414,000 rural households in Lao do not use an improved facility and 46% of rural 2,823,621 1,035,000 1,000,000 878,892 500,000 400,000 Actor's estimate - total Low-cost design with SS Consumer perceived cost Actor's estimate -core Consumer willingness to pay Low-cost design, no SS
  12. 12. FINAL REPORT 6 households without a latrine are willing to pay 500,000 kip (US$62.50) to obtain one (WSP – Sanitation Consumer Behaviour Study), which is 190,500 households. Finance Many supply chain actors are able to obtain formal credit. Around 50% of material suppliers interviewed have had a bank or MFI loan. The average interest rate is around 13% per year (ranging from 6% to 15%) and the term is 1 or 3 years. About 22% of concrete producers interviewed have had a bank loan, typically paying 14% interest for a term of 1 year. Masons do not access formal credit, perhaps because they need it less but also because they may not be able to provide collateral. If masons borrow, it is likely to be from informal money lenders. Constraints Material suppliers cited bad roads as a constraint more often than any other (31% of suppliers reported this was a main constraint). It was also a significant issue for concrete producers (19%). Problems with labor availability and quality are particularly acute for concrete producers and masons because their business is more labour-intensive than material supply: Nearly 40% of concrete producers and masons face problems with labour availability. Also, 21% of masons cited staff and training problems (many also citing absenteeism and wage costs as issues). Labor constraints are not a problem unique to the sanitation supply chain problem. It is not unusual for businesses in Lao to face labor constraints. For example, in 2011 18% of businesses in Lao PDR reported inadequate skills as a primary constraint (World Bank 2011). Customers not paying (30% of materials suppliers) and insufficient demand (35% of concrete producers and 41% of masons) are important constraints limiting the financial attractiveness of the sanitation businesses. Access to finance is reported as a problem by 28% of material suppliers and 38% of concrete producers. It is quite common for small businesses to cite access to finance as a constraint. In 2011, 20% of all Lao companies reported access to finance as a primary constraint (World Bank 2011), and 57% of micro businesses and 45% of small businesses said that lack of capital is a “big” or “very big” constraint (GIZ 2012). Summary of Findings The actors 1 No actor sells a complete latrine (except in some pilot programs such as PSI/WSP) – the chain is fragmented. 2 Businesses rely on other sources of income – they don’t view themselves as part of the sanitation supply chain. 3 Female ownership rates for material suppliers appears high (62%) but is consistent with other micro businesses. 4 Most businesses are small and unregistered (and much less likely to be registered outside of capital districts). 5 One-quarter of concrete producers report having a marketing plan, which appears high. 6 Masons can be transient, travelling far to work for extended periods. 7 Concrete producers are busier in wet season, the opposite of masons and material suppliers. 8 Businesses do very little marketing (and there is almost no use of sales agents). The consumer 9 Masons are better informed about household requirements. 10 Households prefer to use their own labor. 11 Consumers (83% of non-owners) are happy to pay more for brick superstructure. 12 Most (82%) non-latrine owners do not want to borrow to obtain a latrine. 13 68% of households travel to buy materials for a latrine (to a district capital or bigger cities). Latrine options and costs 14 Latrines most commonly built by the supply chain are very expensive – costing six months’ income for poor households. 15 Labor can double the cost of a latrine.
  13. 13. FINAL REPORT 7 16 Pit lining with bricks instead of rings is becoming more common. 17 The potential rural market for low-cost options is 150,000 to 200,000 latrines. Competition and margins 18 Actors have multiple upstream sources, and face local and foreign competition. 19 Gross margins of 15% to 40% are not excessive for such products in rural markets. 20 Some actors think latrine product margins are less than those for other activities. Transport costs 21 Roads are a major constraint 22 Many villages are very difficult to access, and large numbers are not accessible for deliveries in wet season. 23 Suppliers provide delivery for larger orders but not smaller orders. 24 Transport costs – for multiple orders to remote areas – can add up to 34% to cost of a latrine 25 Mason report that concrete producers that can deliver are preferred Finance 26 Actors report access to finance reported as a constraint, but no more than elsewhere, plus many have loans. 27 Businesses have concerns about customers’ late or non-payment. Labor 28 Labor availability is a constraint, consistent with businesses throughout the Lao economy. Government 29 Government and NGO programs are part of the chain. 30 Government officials may view all rural latrine supply as part of government programs (when only 24% is). 31 No actors suggested the government could improve the business or investment environment. In addition to the above overall findings, the following region-specific findings were identified: The supply chain in the north 32 Some evidence of collusion among two material suppliers in Phaoudom. 33 Import tariffs and fees, as well as VAT, appear to be a bigger concern in the North. The supply chain in the center 34 Concrete producers and masons have less training than the North and South. 35 Daily labor costs for masons are higher than in the North and South The supply chain in the south 36 Concrete producers in the South report much lower sales of products for latrines than in the north and center 37 Businesses in south much more likely to rely on other business activities 38 Businesses in the south are less likely to have business plans Recommendations Market intelligence dissemination The potential rural market for a lower-cost latrine (below 700,000 LAK) is around 150,000 to 200,000 latrines, assuming there were no problems in distributing the latrines. The fact that entrepreneurs are not taking steps to serve this demand suggests that it is either not profitable or there is some form of market failure, such as information asymmetries. Government and its development partners should seek to overcome any such information gaps by publishing market information (potential size, etc) to encourage more investment or the entry of new actors, as well as informing the market that demand-side interventions are being undertaken in order to encourage actors about the possibility for demand growth. Information should be disseminated about the types of latrine options that can satisfy currently unmet demand. These more affordable designs should also be quicker and easier to install. More affordable designs already exist such as the low-cost latrine (costing around US$50 excluding superstructure) that WSP, through its implementing partner PSI, is attempting to scale in Champasak and Sekong provinces. Financing arrangements Direct subsidy should be discouraged but other financing arrangements are possible such as instalment schemes with MFI and/or other financial institutions.
  14. 14. FINAL REPORT 8 Being able to pay in instalments makes latrines more affordable for many. However, the businesses in the supply chain are unlikely to be able to manage instalment schemes themselves. By partnering with a bank or MFI, actors are able to supply latrines on formal credit with the payments spread over time (which is attractive to consumers) and do no bear credit risk from non-payment (attractive to the businesses). Households agree to buy a latrine and apply for a loan at the same time, the MFI approves the loan and pays the business, and the household repays the MFI over time. This tactic would have to overcome the hesitancy of consumers to incur debt for latrines, and lenders to take on potential non-performing loans. This resistance can be addressed by a combination of stakeholders, the Government, donor partners, and NGOs who all have an interest and participated in the supply chain study. In particular, the involvement of village chiefs (see below) can help limit loan default. Village chiefs as champions and coordinators Village chiefs should have a role as local sanitation champions. They can play a role in coordinating bulk orders. Bulk purchases can increase the size of the market and take advantage of any scale benefits. This helps reduce the problem of high transport costs – although transport costs are still significant for bulk orders. Direct bulk purchases by government or donor partners are discouraged however, because they create distortions and remove the relationship between the supplier and the consumer. Bulk purchasing might also enable on-site casting. On-site casting of bulk orders helps reduce transport costs (and breakage). Marketing and sales Supply chain actors do very little, or no, marketing of their products and services — not only sanitation marketing but any kind of marketing. By making village chiefs champions of sanitation, they can take on some of the role of promoting latrine products, and recommending suppliers. One option is to work with businesses so that they become comfortable with paying village chiefs a commission for the sale of latrine products. Village chiefs would then be incentivised to promote latrine use. Capacity Building There could be a role for capacity building through business mentoring to help rural businesses with planning and financial management. Improving the efficiency of businesses in the supply chain could help lower their production costs, allowing cheaper latrines to be produced while maintaining margins. Furthermore, workshops hosted and/or sponsored by large private sector providers (such as Lao Cement), or visits to other businesses can increase market and technical knowledge while also fosterer links through the supply chain. Closer links to larger actors could also result in agency, distribution or sub-contracting networks, helping address some capacity and commercial challenges. The complete latrine Latrine costs are dominated by material costs and transport. Bundling (having all materials available as a package from a single location) may be one way to lower the cost of a latrine. This reduces transaction costs for households (who currently often have to visit at least two actors to obtain necessary materials). It reduces the fragmentation of the supply chain by providing a single-priced final latrine product, rather than a collection of materials. When combined with a cheaper latrine design (provided it is a design that is still appealing to consumers), this model can provide a product that satisfies more of the potential market. Reinventing supply chain businesses such that selling a bundled latrine becomes their primary (or only) activity may address some of the supply chain problems. However, the main problem is not the businesses themselves. Changes to businesses (such as changing their product offering to include a complete latrine, or changing their sales approach to include marketing or sales agents) may achieve incremental
  15. 15. FINAL REPORT 9 improvements in the supply chain, but some major issues will not be resolved. For example, delivery of latrines to some areas will still be difficult and expensive. How can businesses do better with a product (latrines) that is a slow-moving consumer durable (i.e. low- frequency, lumpy sales) in an environment with high transport costs? There is no simple solution. Change will take time. Letting businesses grow organically – in response to demand-side initiatives – may not deliver large immediate results, but will be more sustainable and will involve much lower per-latrine government and DP program costs.
  16. 16. FINAL REPORT 10 ບົດສະເໜີໂດຍສັງເຂບ ຄວາມເປັນມາ ປະມານ 42% ຂອງຊຸມຊົນຊົນນະບົດໃນ ສ.ປ.ປ ລາວ ມີການຖ່າຍຊະຊາຍບໍ່ເປັນລະບຽບ (open-defecation ຫຼື OD) ເມື່ອສົມທຽບກັບ 4% ເທົ່ານັ້ນໃນເມືອງ. ແນວໃດກໍຕາມ, ກໍເຫັນວ່າໄດ້ມີການປັບປຸງຢ່າງພົ້ນເດັ່ນໃນຊຸມຊົນ ຊົນນະບົດຄື – 73% ຂອງຄົວເຮືອນຊົນນະບົດແມ່ນມີການຖ່າຍເທຊະຊາຍໃນໄລຍະປີ 2000 (WHO-UNICEF 2014). ຄຳນວນການປົກຄຸມດ້ານສຸຂະອານະໄມໃນ ສ.ປ.ປ ລາວ ໃນເມືອງ (%) ໃນຊົນນະບົດ (%) ລວມ (%) 1995 2012 1995 2012 199 5 201 2 ສິ່ງອຳນວຍຄວາມສະດວກທີ່ໄດ້ຮັບການປັບ ປຸງ 62 90 12 50 20 65 ສິ່ງອຳນວຍຄວາມສະດວກທີ່ໃຊ້ຮ່ວມກັນ 3 4 0 1 1 2 ອື່ນໆທີ່ຍັງບໍ່ໄດ້ຮັບການປັບປຸງ 9 2 10 7 10 4 ການຖ່າຍຊະຊາຍ 26 4 78 42 69 29 ແຫຼ່ງຂໍ້ມູນ: WHO-UNICEF JMP 2014. ການສຶກສາລະບົບຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງ ການສຶກສາລະບົບຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງແມ່ນເພື່ອສຶກສາລະບົບຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງ ແລະ ຄຸນຄ່າຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະ ໜອງໃນສະພາບແວດລ້ອມຕົວຈິງ ແລະ ຕະຫຼາດທີ່ແຕກຕ່າງກັນ. ການສຶກສາເນັ້ນໃສ່ຜະລິດຕະພັນ ແລະ ການບໍລິ ການທີ່ເຫັນໄດ້ທົ່ວໄປ ຫຼື ເປັນທີ່ຕ້ອງການທີ່ສຸດເພື່ອປັບປຸງສຸຂະ ອານະໄມຢູ່ເຂດຊົນນະບົດໃນ ສ.ປ.ປ ລາວ ໃຫ້ດີຂຶ້ນ. ໄດ້ດຳເນີນການສຳພາດກັບພາກສ່ວນຫຼັກໃນຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງສອງ ຮ້ອຍລາຍຢູ່ເຈັດແຂວງ, ລວມທັງຜູ້ສະໜອງ ວັດສະດຸກໍ່ສ້າງ, ຜູ້ຜະລິດຜະລິດຕະພັນສີມັງສຳເລັດຮູບ ແລະ ຊ່າງກໍ່. ອົງການການເງິນທ້ອງຖິ່ນກໍ່ໄດ້ໃຫ້ການ ສຳພາດ. ພ້ອມກັນນັ້ນ, ມີ 100 ກວ່າຄົນທີ່ໄດ້ເຂົ້າຮ່ວມການ ສົນນທະນາປຶກສາຫາລືເປັນກຸ່ມ, ໃນນັ້ນແບ່ງເປັນ 17 ກຸ່ມ.
  17. 17. FINAL REPORT 11 ລະບົບຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງ ແຜນວາດ (ແນວຄວາມຄິດ) ຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງ ເມືອງ ແລະ ພາກພື້ນທີ່ຕ່າງໆມີລະບົບຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງທີ່ແຕກຕ່າງກັນ, ພ້ອມດ້ວຍແຫຼ່ງຜະລິດຕະພັນທີ່ ແຕກຕ່າງກັນ. ລະບົບຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງແມ່ນໄດ້ຮັບອິດທິພົນຈາກບັນດາປະເທດເພື່ອບ້ານທີ ່ໃກ້ທີ່ສຸດກໍ່ຄືການ ຈຸດກວດກາລະຫວ່າງປະເທດທີ່ມີຢູ່. ວັດຖຸດິບ (ເຊັ່ນ: ຫົວວິດ, ສີມັງ, ແຜ່ນເຫຼັກ ແລະ ແຜ່ນສັງກະສີ) ສ່ວນໃຫຍ່ ແມ່ນມາຈາກປະເທດໄທ, ແຕ່ຈີນ ແລະ ຫວຽດນາມກໍ່ມີບົດບາດສຳຄັນຄືກັນ. ຜູ້ສະໜອງວັດສະດຸກໍ່ສ້າງຫຼາຍລາຍເປັນຜູ້ນຳເຂົ້າ, ຜູ້ຂາຍສົ່ງ ແລະ ຜູ້ຂາຍຍ່ອຍເອງ (ບາງລາຍກໍເປັນພຽງຜູ້ນຳເຂົ້າ ແລະ ຜູ້ຂາຍຍ່ອຍ). ວັດສະດຸກໍ່ສ້າງ – ປະເທດຕົ້ນກຳເນີດ ພາກພື້ນ – ແຂວງ ຫົວວິດ ສີມັງ ເຫຼັກ ທໍ່ PVC ແຜ່ນສັງກະ ສີ ພາກເໜືອ ໄທ (100%) ຈີນ (16%), ໄທ (84%) ຈີນ (67%), ໄທ (33%) ຈີນ (8%), ໄທ (92%) ຈີນ (9%), ໄທ (91%) ບໍ່ແກ້ວ ໄທ (100%) ໄທ (100%) ໄທ (100%) ໄທ (100%) ໄທ (100%) ຫຼວງນ້ຳທາ ໄທ (100%) ຈີນ (25%), ໄທ (75%) ຈີນ (100%) ຈີນ (11%), ໄທ (89%) ຈີນ (16%), ໄທ (84%) ພາກກາງ ໄທ (64%), ຫວຽດນາມ (36%) ລາວ (44%), ຫວຽດນາມ (56%) ໄທ (67%), ຫວຽດນາມ (33%) ໄທ (71%), ຫວຽດນາມ (39%) ໄທ (47%), ຫວຽດນາມ (53%) ບໍລິຄຳໄຊ ໄທ (8%), ຫວຽດນາ (92%) ຫວຽດນາມ(10 0%) ຫວຽດນາມ (100%) ໄທ (63%), ຫວຽດນາມ (37%) ຫວຽດນາມ (100%)
  18. 18. FINAL REPORT 12 ສະຫວັນນະເຂດ ໄທ (100%) ລາວ (78%), ຫວຽດນາມ (22%) ໄທ (100%) ໄທ (78%), ຫວຽດນາມ (22%) ໄທ (88%), ຫວຽດນາມ (12%) ພາກໄຕ້ ໄທ (98%), ຫວຽດນາມ (2%) ລາວ (76%), ໄທ (14%), ຫວຽດນາມ (10%) ໄທ (47%), ຫວຽດນາມ (53%) ໄທ (83%), ຫວຽດນາມ (17%) ໄທ (63%), ຫວຽດນາມ (37%) ອັດຕະປື ໄທ (100%) ລາວ (88%), ໄທ (12%) ໄທ (43%), ຫວຽດນາມ (57%) ໄທ (100%) ໄທ (83%), ຫວຽດນາມ (17%) ສາລະວັນ ໄທ (95%), ຫວຽດນາມ (5%) ລາວ (57%), ໄທ (14%), ຫວຽດນາມ (29%) ໄທ (8%), ຫວຽດນາມ (92%) ໄທ (65%), ຫວຽດນາມ (35%) ໄທ (28%), ຫວຽດນາມ (72%) ເຊກອງ ໄທ (100%) ລາວ (83%), ໄທ (17%) ໄທ (100%) ໄທ (100%) ໄທ (86%), ຫວຽດນາມ (14%) ໝາຍເຫດ: ຜະລິດຕະພັນອື່ນໆເຊັ່ນ: ກະເບື້ອງແມ່ນມາຈາກບ່ອນດຽວກັນກັບສັງກະສີ ບາງຜະລິດຕະພັນ ແລະ ໃນເຂດຕ່າງໆແມ່ນມີກຳໄລຫຼາຍກວ່າກັນ ຊຶ່ງເລີ່ມຈາກ 3% ໄປເຖິງ 45% ສຳລັບຜະລິດຕະພັນຈຳນວນໜຶ່ງ. ອັດຕາກຳໄລດັ່ງກ່າວແມ່ນສົມເຫດສົມຜົນຍ້ອນວ່າຄ່າແຈກຢາຍຢູ່ເຂ ດຊົນນະບົດສູງ. ອັດຕາກຳໄລ ລວມຍອດແມ່ນເລີ່ມຈາກ 25% ຫາ 35% ຖືວ່າທຳມະດາສຳລັບຜະລິດຕະພັນທີ່ ໄປເຖິງສ່ວນລຸ່ມສຸດຂອງສາມລ່ຽມຂອງຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງ. ໃນກຸ່ມເປົ້າໝາຍ, ພາກສ່ວນຫຼັງຂອງຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງໄດ້ຊີ້ໃຫ້ເຫັນວ່າອັດຕາກຳໄລ ສຳລັບຜະລິດຕະພັນ ແລະ ການບໍລິການຫ້ອງວິດແມ່ນຕ່ຳ ກວ່າກິດຈະກຳອື່ນໆຂອງພວກເຂົາ. ສຳລັບຜູ້ສະໜອງວັດສະດຸກໍ່ສ້່ງທັງໝົດທີ່ໄດ້ສຳພາດນັ້ນ, ຫ້ອງວິດເປັນພຽງສ່ວນນ້ອຍໆຂອງທຸລະກິດພວກເຂົາ – ແຕ່ ການຄຳນວນວ່ານ້ອຍຂະໜາດໃດນັ້ນແມ່ນເປັນໄປບໍ່ໄດ້. ຫຼາຍ ຄົນບໍ່ຮູ້ວ່າຫ້ອງວິດນັ້ນແມ່ນມີຄວາມສຳຄັນແນວໃດ ຕໍ່ທຸລະກິດຂອງພວກເຂົາ (ເນື່ອງຈາກວ່າພວກເຂົາບໍ່ຮູ້ວ່າຈຸດປະສົງຂອງການ ຊື້ວັດສະດຸຕ່າງໆແມ່ນຫຍັງ). ລາຍຮັບທີ່ໄດ້ຈາກຫົວວິດພຽງຢ່າງດຽວແມ່ນຕ່ຳ ກວ່າ 5% ຂອງລາຍຮັບທັງໝົດສຳລັບຜູ້ສະໜອງສ່ວນຫຼາຍ ຜູ້ຜະລິດສີມັງຄຳນວນວ່າອັດຕາສ່ວນ ທີ່ທຸລະກິດພວກເຂົາກ່ຽວຂ້ອງກັບຫ້ອງວິດນັ້ນ (ຕົວຢ່າງ, ທໍ່ສີ ມັງທີ່ໃຊ້ເຮັດ ຂຸມວິດຖ່າຍ) ສະເລ່ຍປະມານ 36% ແຕ່ກໍ່ແຕກຕ່າງກັນໄປຕາມແຂວງຕ່າງໆ
  19. 19. FINAL REPORT 13 ຊ່າງກໍ່ທີ່ໄດ້ໃຫ້ສຳພາດຄຳນວນວ່າຕົນສາມາດກໍ່ໄດ້ປະມານ 6.4 ຫ້ອງວິດຕໍ່ ຄົນໃນປີທີ່ຜ່ານມາ. ໂດຍສະເລ່ຍ, ນາຍຊ່າງໄດ້ບອກວ່າປະມານ 69% ຂອງຫ້ອງວິດທີ່ພວກເຂົາ ໄດ້ສ້າງນັ້ນແມ່ນເປັນສ່ວນໜຶ່ງຂອງເຮືອນຫຼັງໃໝ່. ປະມານ 43% ຂອງຜູ້ຜະລິດສີ ມັງທີ່ໄດ້ໃຫ້ສຳພາດນັ້ນແມ່ນມີທຸລະກິດປະເພດອື່ນ; ພ້ອມທັງ 52% ຂອງຜູ້ສະໜອງ ວັດສະດຸແມ່ນຢູ່ນອກເທດສະບານເມືອງ ແລະ ແຂວງ (ແລະ ໃນນັ້ນ 39% ແມ່ນຢູ່ໃນເທດສະບານແຂວງ). ຜູ້ສະ ໜອງວັດສະດຸກໍ່ສ້າງ ແລະ ຜູ້ຜະລິດສີ ມັງໂດຍສະເລ່ຍແມ່ນຈ້າງພະນັກງານ 4 ຄົນ. ໂດຍລວມ, ປະກົດວ່າມີການແຂ່ງຂັນກັນລະຫວ່າງຜູ້ສະໜອງວັດສະດຸກໍ່ ສ້າງຫຼາຍກວ່າຜູ້ຜະລິດສີມັງ ແລະ ຊ່າງກໍ່. ໜຶ່ງສ່ວນ ສາມຂອງຜູ້ສະໜອງວັດສະດຸກໍ່ສ້າງ (33.8%) ໄດ້ລາຍງານວ່າ ຕົນບໍ່ໄດ້ປະເຊີນກັບການແຂ່ງຂັນ, ເມື່ອສົມທຽບກັບຫຼາຍກວ່າເຄິ່ງໜຶ່ງ ຂອງຜູ້ຜະລິດສີມັງ (ປະມານ 60%) ແລະຊ່າງກໍ່ (52%). ເຈົ້າຂອງ ແລະ ຜູ້ປະກອບການຄ້າສ່ວນບຸກຄົນໃນການສະໜອງວັດສະດຸກໍ່ສ້າງ ແມ່ນແມ່ຍິງ 57% ແລະ 67% ຕາມລຳດັບ, ແລະ ສ່ວນໃຫຍ່ຜູ້ຍິງຈະເປັນ ຜູ້ຄຸ້ມຄອງດ້ານການເງິນ ສຳລັບທຸລະກິດການສະໜອງວັດສະດຸກໍ່ສ້າງ (58%). ຜູ້ຜະລິດສີມັງສ່ວນຫຼາຍຈະແມ່ນຜູ້ຊາຍ (70%) ແລະ ຊ່າງກໍ່ທີ່ໄດ້ໃຫ້ສຳ ພາດທັງໝົດແມ່ນຜູ້ຊາຍ. ລາຄາ ແລະ ແບບຂອງ ຫ້ອງວິດ ໂດຍທົ່ວໄປ, ພາກສ່ວນຫຼັກຂອງລະບົບຕ່ອງ ໂສ້ການສະໜອງໄດ້ສະເໜີຫ້ອງວິດທີ່ຢູ່ເໜືອຄວາມສາມາດຊື້ຂອງຄົວ ເຮືອນໃນຊົນນະບົດສ່ວນໃຫຍ່ໃນກຸ່ມເປົ້າໝາຍ. ແນວໃດກໍຕາມ, ບໍ່ມີວິດ ທີ່ເປັນ “ແບບຢ່າງ” ຫຼື ຫ້ອງວິດທົ່ວໄປ. ຜູ້ໃຫ້ສຳພາດໄດ້ແນະນຳທາງເລືອກ, ຂະໜາດ ແລະ ວັດສະດຸທີ່ຫຼາກຫຼາຍ. ໂດຍທົ່ວໄປ, ຜູ້ໃຫ້ສຳພາດສ່ວນໃຫຍ່ກ່າວວ່າ ວິດເປັນລັກສະນະຫ້ອງສ້ວມທີ່ໃຊ້ການເທໃຊ້ຫົວວິດເຊລະມິກ ແລະ ຕັ້ງອັດຂຸມ. ຄ່າຂອງວັດສະດຸຕ່າງໆແມ່ນມີຄວາມແຕກຕ່າງກັນຫຼາຍ (ອີງຕາມຂະໜາດ ແລະ ທີ່ຕັ້ງ). ອີງຕາມລາຄາຄາດຄະເນແລະ ການອອກແບບໂດຍພາກສ່ວນຫຼັກຂອງລະບົບຕ່ອງ ໂສ້ໃນການສະໜອງນັ້ນ, ຄ່າຂອງວິດທົ່ວໄປ ແມ່ນປະມານ 2.8 ລ້ານກີບ (ຫຼື 350 ໂດລາສະຫະລັດອາເມລິກາ2). ນີ້ແມ່ນສະເພາະຄ່າວັດສະດຸເທົ່ານັ້ນ (ລວມທັງໂຄງສ້າງ 2 ຕະຫຼອດໄລຍະການລາຍງານນີ້, 1 ໂດລາ = 8,000 ກີບ.
  20. 20. FINAL REPORT 14 ເໜືອຖານ) ແຕ່ວ່າບໍ່ລວມຄ່າແຮງງານ ແລະ ຄ່າຂົນສົ່ງໃດໆ (ເຖິງ ແມ່ນວ່າຄ່າຂົນສົ່ງບາງສ່ວນຈະຖືກລວມເຂົ້າ ໃນລາຄາວັດສະດຸແລ້ວກໍ່ຕາມ). ຕົວຢ່າງວິດດັ່ງກ່າວປະກອບດ້ວຍ: ຫົວວິດ, ຝາອັດປາກຂຸມພື້ນຖານ, ສາມທໍ່ວິດ ແລະ ຝາທີ່ຍາວ 1 ມ , ດິນບັອກ 250 ກ້ອນ, ດິນຊາຍ 1 ແມັດກ້ອນ, ຫີນ 1 ແມັດກ້ອນ, ສີມັງ 10 ເປົ໋າ, ທໍ່ PVC 2 ທໍ່ (ທໍ່ໃຫຍ່ 1 ອັນ, ທໍ່ນ້ອຍ 1 ອັນ), ແຜ່ນສັງກະສີ, ປະຕູໄມ້ໜຶ່ງປ່ອງ. ຄ່າສຳ ລັບໂຄງສ້າງເໜືອຖານແມ່ນປະມານ 69% ຂອງຄ່າລວມຂອງວັດສະດຸ. ຄ່າວັດສະດຸສຳລັບສ້າງວິດທົ່ວໄປ, ຕາມຄວາມຄິດ ຂອງພາກວສ່ວນຫຼັກຂອງລະບົບຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງ ພາກພື້ນ – ແຂວງ ຫຼັກ ໂຄງ ສ້າງເໜືອຖານ ລວມຄ່າວັດສະດູ (ກີບ) ໂຄງ ສ້າງເໜືອຖານ % ຂອງຄ່າລວມ ພາກເໜືອ 815,389 1,697,331 2,512,720 68% ບໍ່ແກ້ວ 788,023 1,606,745 2,394,768 67% ຫຼວງນ້ຳທາ 842,756 1,787,917 2,630,673 68% ພາກກາງ 869,642 1,949,535 2,819,177 69% ບໍລິຄຳໄຊ 898,714 1,750,917 2,649,631 66% ສະຫວັນນະເຂດ 840,569 2,148,153 2,988,722 72% ພາກໄຕ້ 968,382 2,060,500 3,028,882 68% ອັດຕະປື 981,109 1,901,071 2,882,181 66% ສາລະວັນ 913,992 2,099,467 3,013,458 70% ເຊກອງ 959,833 2,246,083 3,205,917 70% ລວມຕົວຢ່າງ 889,285 1,934,336 2,823,621 69% ຍົກເວັ້ນຄ່າແຮງງານ ແລະ ຂົນສົ່ງ.
  21. 21. FINAL REPORT 15 ສີມັງ ແລະ ດິນຈີ່ເປັນສ່ວນປະກອບຫຼັກຄ່າວັດສະດຸກໍ່ສ້າງວິດດັ່ງກ່າວ. ປະຕູ, ໄມ້ ແລະ ທໍ່ສີມັງກໍສຳຄັນເຊັ່ນດຽວກັນ. ສິ່ງຂັບເຂື່ອນຄ່າສຳລັບການສ້າງວິດທົ່ວໄປ (ກີບ ແລະ ເພີ່ມຂຶ້ນ % ຂອງ ຄ່າລວມ) WSP (2012a) ພົບວ່າ, ໃນຄົວເຮືອນ 10,360 ທີ່ໄດ້ສຳຫຼວດໃນແຂວງອຸດົມໄຊ ແລະ ສະຫວັນນະເຂດນັ້ນ, 3/4 ໄດ້ສ້າງວິດທີ່ມີຄ່າໂດຍສະເລ່ຍ 2.3 ລ້ານກີບ (287 ໂດລາສະ ຫະລັດອາເມລິກາ), ແລະ 1/4 ໄດ້ໃຊ້ຈ່າຍໂດຍສະເລ່ຍ 5.5 ລ້ານກີບ (687 ໂດລາສະຫະລັດອາ ເມລິກາ) ໃນການສ້າງ “ວິດທີ່ແພງ ແລະ ຖືເປັນລຸ້ນດີ”. ບົດລາຍງານຂອງ WSP ກ່ຽວ ກັບການສຶກສາພຶດຕິກຳຜູ້ບໍລິໂພກດ້ານສຸຂະພິບານໄດ້ພົບວ່າຫຼາຍກວ່າ 75% ຂອງຄົວເຮືອນຊົນນະບົດທີ່ສາມາດປະເມີນຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍ ສຳລັບວິດນັ້ນໄດ້ກ່າວວ່າຕົນຈຳເປັນຕ້ອງໃຊ້ຫຼາຍກວ່າ 1 ລ້ານກີບ (125 ໂດລາສະ ຫະລັດອາເມລິກາ). ປະມານ 29% ຂອງຄົວເຮືອນທີ່ບໍ່ມີວິດກ່າວວ່າຕົນພ້ອມທີ່ຈະຈ່າຍປະມານ 200,001 ຫາ 700,000 ກີບສຳລັບວິດໜຶ່ງ, ໃນຂະນະທີ່ 29% ພ້ອມທີ່ຈະຈ່າຍຫຼາຍກວ່າ 700,000 ກີບ. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000
  22. 22. FINAL REPORT 16 ເມື່ອສົມທຽບຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍກັບຄວາມຄາດຫວັງຂອງຜູ້ບໍລິໂພກ ແລະ ຄວາມພ້ອມທີ່ຈະຈ່າຍ (ກີບ) ໝາຍເຫດ: ຍົກເວັ້ນຄ່າແຮງງານ ແລະ ຂົນສົ່ງ. SS = ໂຄງສ້າງເໜືອຖານ. ອອກແບບຕົ້ນທຶນຕ່ຳດ້ວຍ SS: ໄດ້ຖືເອົາຄ່າສຳລັບໂຄງສ້າງເໜືອຖານແມ່ນ 635,000 ກີບ (80 ໂດລາສະຫະລັດອາເມລິ ກາ). ຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍຄາດຄະເນຂອງຜູ້ບໍລິໂພກ: ຫຼາຍກວ່າ 75% ຂອງຄົວເຮືອນຊົນນະບົດທີ່ທຸກຍາກແມ່ນບໍ່ມີຫ້ອງ ຖ່າຍຜູ້ທີ່ຮູ້ວ່າຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍທີ່ກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ ແລະ ຈໍານວນວັນທີ່ໃຊ້ໃນການກໍ່ສ້າງຫ້ອງໜຶ່ງນັ້ນເທົ່າ ໃດ, ເຊື່ອວ່າຈະໃຊ້ຈ່າຍບໍ່ຕ່ຳກວ່າ 1 ລ້ານກີບ. ຄວາມພ້ອມທີ່ຈະຈ່າຍຂອງຜູ້ບໍລິໂພກ: 40% ຂອງຄົວເຮືອນຜູ້ທຸກຍາກແມ່ນພ້ອມທີ່ຈະຈ່າຍຢ່າງໜ້ອຍຕາມ ຄ່າດັ່ງກ່າວ. ຊ່າງກໍ່ກ່າວວ່າຕ້ອງໃຊ້ກຳມະກອນ 2 ເຖິງ 3 ຄົນໂດຍໃຊ້ເວລາເກືອບສອງອາທິດໃນ ການສ້າງຫ້ອງວິດໃຫ້ສຳເລັດ, ແລະ ຄ່າແຮງງານລວມແມ່ນປະມານ 3 ລ້ານກີບ (375 ໂດລາ) — ສະເລ່ຍອັດຕາແຮງງານລາຍວັນປະມານ 134,000 ກີບຕໍ່ຄົນ (17 ໂດລາ). ດັ່ງນັ້ນ, ການ ໃຊ້ຊ່າງກໍ່ສາມາດເພີ່ມລາຄາຫ້ອງວິດຂຶ້ນເປັນສອງເທົ່າຕົວ. ໂຄງ ສ້າງເໜືອຖານໃຊ້ເວລາຍາວທີ່ສຸດ, ຊຶ່ງສະທ້ອນໃຫ້ເຫັນວ່າຊ່າງກໍ່ລຶ້ງເຄີຍໃນການສ້າງໂຄງສ້າງທີ່ໃຫຍ່ (ດ້ວຍເຫດນີ້ຄ່າຂອງການສ້າງຫ້ອງສ້ວມຂ້າງເທິງຈຶ່ງສູງ). ການກໍ່ຂຸມຫ້ອງສ້ວມໂດຍໃຊ້ດິນຈີ່ (ເຊິ່ງຜູ້ດຳເນີນການ ລາຍງານວ່າເປັນວິທີທີ່ປະຕິບັດທົ່ວໄປ) ຈຳເປັນຕ້ອງໃຊ້ແຮງງານຫຼາຍກວ່າການໃຊ້ທໍ່ສີມັງ ຊຶ່ງເຫດຜົນສ່ວນໜຶ່ງ ແມ່ນວ່າຂຸມດັ່ງກ່າວມີຂະ ໜາດໃຫຍ່ ກວ່າຈຶ່ງເພີ່ມຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍລວມຂອງຫ້ອງສ້ວມ. ຄ່າຂົນສົ່ງໃນລະບົບຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງສຸຂະອານະໄມມີຢູ່ສອງຮູບແບບຄື: ເປັນລາຄາທີ່ຊັດເຈນສຳລັບນຳສົ່ງ 2,823,621 1,035,000 1,000,000 878,892 500,000 400,000
  23. 23. FINAL REPORT 17 ຜະລິດຕະພັນ ແລະ ລາຄາບົ່ມຊ້ອນທີ່ລວມຢູ່ໃນລາຄາຂອງຜະລິດຕະພັນ ແລະ ການບໍລິການ. ຫົວໜ່ວຍຄ່າຂົນ ສົ່ງລະຫວ່າງຢູ່ສູນກາງແມ່ນຕ່ຳກວ່າຄ່າຂົນສົ່ງຂອງທ້ອງຖິ່ນ. ຄ່າຂົນສົ່ງຈຳນວນຫຼາຍລະຫວ່າງສູນກາງຕ່າງໆແມ່ນປະມານ 400 ກີບ/ໂຕນ/ຫຼັກ ບ່ອນທີ່ມີສະພາບເສັ້ນທາງທີ່ດີ ແລະ ບໍ່ເປັນພູຜາແຕ່ຖ້າເສັ້ນທາງບໍ່ດີ ແລະ ເປັນພູຜາ ນັ້ນແມ່ນ 750 ກີບ/ໂຕນ/ຫຼັກ. ແນວໃດກໍຕາມ, ການກະຈາຍສິນຄ້າຈາກຕົວເມືອງໃຫ ຍ່ໄປຫາຕົວເມືອງນ້ອຍ ແລະ ໝູ່ບ້ານ, ໂດຍສະເພາະໄປຍັງເຂດຫ່າງໄກສອກຫຼີກ ຫຼື ເຂດພູຜາ, ເຫັນໄດ້ວ່າຄ່າຂົນສົ່ງສູງຂຶ້ນຢ່າງຫຼວງຫຼາຍ. ຄ່າຂົນສົ່ງໄປຕົວເມືອງດ້ວຍລົດຂະໜາດນ້ອຍແມ່ນປະມານ 5,500 ກີບ/ໂຕນ/ຫຼັກ. ຍ້ອນວ່າລົດບັນທຸກຄັນໜຶ່ງທີ່ໄປເຂດຫ່າງໄກສອກຫຼີກສາມາດບັນຈຸ 3 ຫາ 4 ວິດແບບພື້ນຖານເທົ່ານັ້ນ, ຄ່າວິດໜຶ່ງຈະເພີ່ມຄ່າຂົນສົ່ງປະມານ 136,000 ກີບ (17 ໂດລາ) ຕໍ່ຊຸວິດ (34% ຂອງຄ່າໂຄງຫຼັກຂອງວິດພື້ນຖານ), ໂດຍຂຶ້ນກັບພູມີປະເທດ ແລະ ໄລຍະທາງນຳອີກ. ຄວາມອາດສາມາດຈ່າຍ ຄົວເຮືອນຊົນນະບົດຜູ້ທຸກຍາກບໍ່ສາມາດຈ່າຍສຳລັບຫ້ອງວິດໃນລາຄາ 2.8 ລ້ານກີບ. ສຳລັບຄົວເຮືອນທີ່ຢູ່ໃນເສັ້ນ ຄວາມທຸກຍາກທາງການຂອງຊົນນະບົດ (180,000 ກີບ (22.50 ໂດລາ)/ຄົນ/ເດືອນ, ເຊິ່ງເທົ່າກັບ 900,000 ກີບ (112.50 ໂດລາ) ສຳລັບຄົວເຮືອນທີ່ມີ 5 ຄົນ), ຄ່າ ຂອງຫ້ອງສ້ວມທົ່ວໄປຈະເທົ່າກັບເງິນລາຍຮັບສາມເດືອນ. ຫຼາຍຄົວເຮືອນເປົ້າໝາຍມີລາຍໄດ້ຕ່ຳກວ່ານັ້ນອີກ: 85% ຂອງຄົວເຮືອນຊົນນະບົດທຸກຍາກທີ່ໄດ້ສຳຫຼວດໃນ ພາກໃຕ້ມີລາຍຮັບປະຈຳເດືອນຕ່ຳກວ່າ 500,000 ກີບ (63 ໂດລາ); ແລະ ຄ່າຂົນສົ່ງຍິ່ງພາໃຫ້ລາຄາວິດແພງ ຂຶ້ນກວ່າເກົ່າ. ຫ້ອງສ້ວມທົ່ວໄປຈະເທົ່າກັບລາຍຮັບຫົກເດືອນຂອງຄົວເຮືອນ ເຫຼົ່ານີ້. ທ່າແຮງຕະຫຼາດສໍາລັບວິດຖ່າຍຕົ້ນທຶນຕ່ໍາແມ່ນປະມານ 150,000 ຫາ 200,000 ຕໍ່ຊຸດໜຶ່ງ, ຂຶ້ນກັບລາຄາຂອງ ວິດແລະ ເມື່ອການແຈກຢາຍໃຫ້ບັນດາຄົວເຮືອນບໍ່ມີບັນຫາ. ການຄາດຄະເນດັ່ງ ກ່າວແມ່ນບົນພື້ນຖານທີ່ວ່າຄົວເຮືອນ ຊົນນະບົດຢູ່ລາວປະມານ 414,000 ຄົວເຮືອນບໍ່ໃຊ້ສິ່ງອຳນວຍຄວາມສະດວກທີ່ໄດ້ ຮັບການປັບປຸງແລະ 46% ຂອງຄົວເຮືອນໃນຊົນນະບົດທີ່ບໍ່ມີວິດຖ່າຍພ້ອມທີ່ຈະຈ່າຍ 500,000 ກີບ (62.50 ໂດລາ) ສຳລັບວິດຖ່າຍໜຶ່ງ (WSP – ການສຶກສາພຶດຕິກຳດ້ານສຸຂະອາ ນະໄມຂອງຜູ້ບໍລິໂພກ), ຊຶ່ງເທົ່າກັບ 190,500 ຄົວເຮືອນ.
  24. 24. FINAL REPORT 18 ການເງິນ ຜູ້ດຳເນີນການໃນຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງຫຼາຍລາຍແມ່ນສາມາດຂໍສິນເຊື່ອໃນລະບົບ. ປະມານ 50% ຂອງຜູ້ສະໜອງ ວັດສະດຸທີ່ໄດ້ສຳພາດມີບັນຊີທະນາຄານ ຫຼື ເງິນກູ້ຈາກ MFI. ອັດຕາດອກເບ້ຍສະ ເລ່ຍແມ່ນປະມານ 13% ຕໍ່ປີ (ແຕ່ 6% ຫາ 15%) ແລະ ໄລຍະການກູ້ແມ່ນແຕ່ 1 ຫຼື 3 ປີ. ປະມານ 22% ຂອງຜູ້ຜະລິດສີມັງທີ່ໄດ້ສຳພາດແມ່ນໄດ້ ກູ້ຢືມເງິນຈາກທະນາຄານ, ໂດຍເສຍຄ່າດອກເບ້ຍ 14% ສຳລັບໄລຍະກູ້ 1 ປີ. ຊ່າງກໍ່ບໍສາມາດເຂົ້າເຖິງແຫຼ່ງເງິນ ສິນເຊື່ອໃນລະບົບ, ອາດເປັນເພາະວ່າພວກເຂົາມີຄວາມຕ້ອງການໜ້ອຍກວ່າ ຫຼື ອາດຈະເປັນເພາະພວກເຂົາບໍ່ມີຫຼັກຄ້ຳປະກັນກໍເປັນໄດ້. ຖ້າຊ່າງກໍ່ຢືມ, ສ່ວນ ໃຫຍ່ຈະແມ່ນການຢືມເງິນນອກລະບົບ. ຂໍ້ຫຍຸ້ງຍາກ ຜູ້ສະໜອງວັດສະດຸໄດ້ກ່າວວ່າສະພາບຖະໜົນທີ່ບໍ່ດີເປັນຂໍ້ຫຍຸ້ງຍາກ ຫຼັກ (31% ຂອງຜູ້ສະໜອງລາຍງານວ່າເຫດຜົນດັ່ງກ່າວເປັນຂໍ້ຫຍຸ້ງຍາກຫຼັກ). ມັນຍັງເປັນບັນຫາໃຫຍ່ສຳລັບຜູ້ຜະລິດສີມັງ (ປະມານ 19%). ບັນຫາກ່ຽວກັບການຂາດແຮງງານ ແລະ ແຮງງານທີ່ມີຄຸນນະພາບແມ່ນບັນຫາທີ່ຮ້າຍ ແຮງສຳລັບຜູ້ຜະລິດສີມັງ ແລະ ຊ່າງກໍ່ຍ້ອນວ່າທຸລະກິດຂອງພວກແມ່ນອີງ ໃສ່ແຮງງານຫຼາຍກວ່າຜູ້ສະໜອງວັດສະດຸ: ເກືອບ 40% ຂອງຜູ້ຜະລິດສີມັງແລະ ຊ່າງກໍ່ແມ່ນປະສົບກັບບັນຫາແຮງງານບໍ່ພຽງພໍ. ພ້ອມກັນນັ້ນ, 21% ຂອງຊ່າງ ກ່າວເຖິງບັນຫາກ່ຽວກັບພະນັກງານ ແລະ ບັນຫາການຝືກອົບຮົມ (ຫຼາຍຄົນໄດ້ ກ່າວເຖິງບັນຫາພະນັກງານທີ່ຂາດວຽກ ແລະ ຕົ້ນທຶນສຳລັບຄ່າແຮງງານ). ຂໍ້ຈຳກັດ ດ້ານແຮງງານບໍ່ແມ່ນບັນຫາສະເພາະສຳລັບລະບົບຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງໃນຂະແໜງການ ສຸຂະອານະໄມ. ມັນເປັນເລື່ອງປົກກະຕິສຳລັບທຸລະກິດໃນລາວທີ່ປະສົບກັບແຮງງານ ທີ່ຈຳກັດ. ຕົວຢ່າງໃນປີ 2011, 18% ຂອງທຸລະກິດໃນ ສ.ປ.ປ ລາວໄດ້ລາຍງານວ່າແຮງ ງານທີ່ຂາດທັກສະເປັນຂໍ້ຈຳກັດຫຼັກ (ທະນາຄານໂລກ 2011). ລູກຄ້າບໍ່ຈ່າຍ (30% ຂອງຜູ້ສະໜອງວັດສະດຸ) ແລະ ຄວາມຕ້ອງການບໍ່ພຽງພໍ (35% ຂອງຜູ້ຜະລິດສີມັງແລະ 41% ຂອງຊ່າງກໍ່) ແມ່ນຂໍ້ຫຍຸ້ງຍາກສຳຄັນທີ່ຈຳກັດ ການດຶງດູດທາງດ້ານການເງິນເຂົ້າສູ່ທຸລະກິດສຸຂະອານະໄມ. 28% ຂອງຜູ້ສະໜອງວັດສະດຸແລະ 38% ຂອງຜູ້ຜະລິດສີມັງລາຍງານ ວ່າການເຂົ້າຫາແຫຼ່ງທຶນເປັນບັນຫາ. ການເຂົ້າເຖິງທຶນເປັນບັນຫາທົ່ວໄປ ຂອງທຸລະກິດຂະໜາດນ້ອຍ. ໃນປີ 2011, ປະມານ 20% ຂອງບໍລິສັດລາວລາຍງານວ່າການເຂົ້າຫາແຫຼ່ງທຶນເປັນຂໍ້ຈຳກັດຫຼັກ (ທະນາຄານໂລກ 2011) ແລະ 57% ຂອງທຸລະກິດຈຸລະພາກກໍຄື 45%
  25. 25. FINAL REPORT 19 ຂອງທຸລະກິດຂະໜາດນ້ອຍກ່າວວ່າການຂາດຕົ້ນທຶນເປັນບັນຫາ “ໃຫຍ່” ຫຼື “ໃຫຍ່ຫຼາຍ” (GIZ 2012). ສະຫລຸບຜົນການຄົ້ນຄວ້າ ຜູ້ດຳເນີນການ 1 ບໍ່ມີຜູ້ດຳເນີນການໃດທີ່ຂາຍຫ້ອງສ້ວມຄົບຊຸດ (ຍົກເວັ້ນບາງໂຄງການທົດລອງເຊັ່ນ PSI/WSP) – ລະບົບຕ່ອງໂສ້ແມ່ນແຍກກັນ. 2 ທຸລະກິດຕ່າງໆແມ່ນອາໄສແຫຼ່ງລາຍຮັບອື່ນໆ – ພວກເຂົາບໍ່ຖືວ່າ ຕົນເປັນສ່ວນໜຶ່ງຂອງລະບົບຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງສິນຄ້າສຸຂະອານະໄມ. 3 ປະກົດວ່າເຈົ້າຂອງທຸລະກິດສະໜອງສິນຄ້າທີ່ເປັນຜູ້ຍິງມີອັດຕາສູງ (62%) ແຕ່ສອດຄ່ອງກັບທຸລະກິດຈຸລະພາກອື່ນໆ. 4 ທຸລະກິດສ່ວນໃຫຍ່ແມ່ນມີຂະໜາດນ້ອຍ ແລະ ບໍ່ໄດ້ລົງທະບຽນ (ແລະ ຍິ່ງບໍ່ໄດ້ ລົງທະບຽນຫຼາຍກວ່າສຳລັບທຸລະກິດທີ່ຢູ່ນອກເທດສະບານເມືອງ). 5 1 ໃນ 4 ຂອງຜູ້ຜະລິດສີມັງລາຍງານວ່າມີແຜນການຕະຫຼາດ, ຊຶ່ງປະກົດວ່າສູງ. 6 ຊ່າງກໍ່ເຮັດວຽກຊົ່ວຄາວ, ຊຶ່ງເດີນທາງໄກໄປເຮັດວຽກ ແລະ ໄລຍະແກ່ຍາວ. 7 ຜູ້ຜະລິດສີມັງມີວຽກຫຼາຍກວ່າໃນລະດູຝົນ, ຊຶ່ງກົງກັນຂ້າມກັນກັບຊ່າງກໍ່ ແລະ ຜູ້ສະໜອງວັດສະດຸ. 8 ທຸລະກິດເຮັດການຕະຫຼາດໜ້ອຍ (ແລະ ເກືອບວ່າບໍ່ໃຊ້ຕົວແທນຂາຍ). ຜູ້ບໍລິໂພກ 9 ຊ່າງກໍ່ຮັບຮູ້ຄວາມຕ້ອງການຂອງຄົວເຮືອນດີກວ່າ. 10 ຄົວເຮືອນມັກໃຊ້ແຮງງານຂອງຕົນເອງ. 11 ຜູ້ບໍລິໂພກ (83% ທີ່ບໍ່ແມ່ນເຈົ້າຂອງ) ແມ່ນພ້ອມທີ່ຈະຈ່າຍຫຼາຍກວ່າສຳ ລັບໂຄງສ້າງຖານທີ່ໃຊ້ດິນຈີ. 12 ຜູ້ທີ່ບໍ່ມີວິດສ່ວນຫຼາຍ (82%) ບໍ່ຕ້ອງການຢືມເງິນເພື່ອທີ່ຈະມາສ້າງຫ້ອງສ້ວມ. 13 68% ຂອງຄົວເຮືອນແມ່ນເດີນທາງໄປຊື້ວັດສະດຸເພື່ອມາເຮັດຫ້ອງສ້ວມ (ໄປຍັງເທດສະບານເມືອງ ຫຼືເມືອງທີ່ໃຫຍ່ກວ່າ). ລາຄາ ແລະ ທາງເລືອກສຸຂະພັນຫ້ອງສ້ວມ 14 ສ້ວມສ່ວນໃຫຍ່ທີ່ສ້າງຈາກລະບົບຕ່ອງໂສການສະໜອງແມ່ນແພງຫຼາຍ – ທຽບເທົ່າກັບລາຍຮັບຫົກເດືອນຂອງຄົວເຮືອນ ທຸກຍາກ. 15 ຄ່າແຮງງານສາມາດເພີ່ມລາຄາສຸຂະພັນຫ້ອງສ້ວມທົບເຄິ່ງ. 16 ການກໍ່ດ້ວຍດິນຈີແທນທໍ່ສີມັງໄດ້ກາຍເປັນທີ່ນິຍົມ. 17 ຕະຫຼາດຊົນນະບົດບົ່ມຊ້ອນສຳລັບຕົວເລືອກຕົ້ນທຶນຕ່ຳແມ່ນ 150,000 ຫາ 200,000. ການແຂ່ງຂັນ ແລະ ອັດຕາກຳໄລ 18 ຜຸ້ດຳເນີນການມີຫຼາຍແຫຼ່ງຈາກຂັ້ນເທິງຂອງຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງ ແລະ ປະສົບກັບການແຂ່ງຂັນພາຍໃນ ແລະ ຕ່າງປະເທດ. 19 ລວມຍອດອັດກຳໄລສະເລ່ຍ 15% ຫາ 40% ແມ່ນບໍ່ຫຼາຍເກີນໄປສຳລັບຜະລິດຕະພັນດັ່ງ ກ່າວໃນຕະຫຼາດຊົນນະບົດ.
  26. 26. FINAL REPORT 20 20 ຜູ້ດຳເນີນການຈຳນວນ ໜຶ່ງຄິດວ່າອັດຕາກຳໄລຈາກການຂາຍວິດແມ່ນຕ່ຳກວ່າກຳໄລຈາກກິດຈະກຳອື່ນໆ. ຄ່າຂົນສົ່ງ 21 ຖະນົນແມ່ນຂໍ້ຫຍຸ້ງຍາກຫຼັກ 22 ການເຂົ້າຫາໝູ່ບ້ານຫຼາຍແຫ່ງແມ່ນຫຍຸ້ງຍາກຫຼາຍ ແລະ ໝູ່ບ້ານຈຳນວນໜຶ່ງແມ່ນບໍ່ສາມາດເຂົ້າເຖິງໃນລະດູຝົນ. 23 ຜູ້ສະໜອງສ່ວນໃຫຍ່ຈະສົ່ງແຕ່ສະເພາະສິນຄ້າທີ່ສັ່ງຊື້ຫຼາຍແຕ່ບໍ່ ສົ່ງສິນຄ້າທີ່ສັ່ງຊື້ຂະໜາດນ້ອຍ. 24 ຄ່າຂົນສົ່ງ – ສຳລັບການສັ່ງຊື້ໄປຍັງເຂດຫ່າງໄກສອກຫຼີກ – ອາດຈະເພີ່ມເຂົ້າ 34% ຂອງລາຄາສິນຄ້າ 25 ຊ່າງກໍ່ລາຍງານວ່າຜູ້ຜະລິດສີມັງທີ່ບໍລິການສົ່ງສິນຄ້າເປັນທີ່ນິຍົມ ການເງິນ 26 ຜູ້ດຳເນີນການລາຍງານວ່າການ ການເຂົ້າເຖິງແຫຼ່ງທຶນເປັນຂໍ້ຈຳກັດ. 27 ທຸລະກິດຕ່າງໆມີຄວາມກັງວົນກ່ຽວກັບລູກຄ້າທີ່ຊຳລະເງິນຊ້າ ຫຼື ບໍ່ຊຳລະ. ແຮງງານ 28 ການຂາດແຮງງານແມ່ນຂໍ້ຈຳກັດ, ຊຶ່ງສອດຄ່ອງກັບບັນດາທຸລະກິດຕ່າງໆໃນເສດຖະກິດຂອງລາວ. ລັດຖະບານ 29 ແຜນງານຂອງລັດຖະບານ ແລະ ອົງການທີ່ບໍ່ສັງກັດກັບລັດຖະບານ (NGO) ເປັນສ່ວນໜຶ່ງຂອງຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງ. 30 ເຈົ້າໜ້າທີ່ລັດຖະບານອາດຈະຖື ວ່າການສະໜອງສິນຄ້າສຸຂະພັນທັງໝົດນັ້ນເປັນສ່ວນໜຶ່ງຂອງແຜນ ງານລັດຖະບານ (ເມື່ອມີພຽງແຕ່ 24% ເທົ່ານັ້ນ). 31 ບໍ່ມີໃຜທີ່ແນະນຳລັດຖະບານໃຫ້ປັບປຸງສະພາບແວດລ້ອມສຳລັບທຸລະກິດ ຫຼື ການລົງທືນ. ນອກຈາກຜົນການຄົ້ນຄວ້າໂດຍລວມຂ້າງເທິງນັ້ນ, ຜົນການຄົ້ນຄ້ວາພາກພື້ນມີດັ່ງ ຕໍ່ໄປນີ້: ລະບົບຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງພາກເໜືອ 3 2 ມີຫຼັກຖານວ່າມີການສົມຮູ້ຮ່ວມຄິດລະຫວ່າງສອງຜູ້ສະໜອງວັດສະດຸໃນເຂດຜາອຸດ ົມ. 3 3 ປະກົດວ່າພາສີນຳເຂົ້າ ແລະ ຄ່າທຳນຽມກໍຄືອັດຕາອາກອນມູນຄ່າເພີ່ມເປັນບັນໃຫ ຍ່ກວ່າຢູ່ພາກເໜືອ. ລະບົບຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງພາກກາງ 3 6 ຜູ້ຜະລິດສີມັງ ແລະ ຊ່າງກໍ່ໄດ້ຮັບການຝຶືກອົບຮົມໜ້ອຍກວ່າທາງພາກເໜືອ ແລະ ພາກໄຕ້. 3 7 ຄ່າແຮງງານລາຍວັນຂອງຊ່າງກໍ່ແມ່ນສູງກວ່າທາງພາກເໜືອ ແລະ ໄຕ້ ລະບົບຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງພາກໃຕ້ 3 8 ຜູ້ຜະລິດສີມັງທາງພາກໃຕ້ລາຍງານວ່າການຂາຍຜະລິດຕະພັນສຸຂະພັນແມ່ນ ຕ່ຳກວ່າພາກເໜືອ ແລະພາກກາງ
  27. 27. FINAL REPORT 21 3 9 ທຸລະກິດທາງພາກໄຕ້ມີແນວໂນ້ມທີ່ຈະເພິ່ງພາກິດຈະກຳທຸລະກິດດ້ານອື່ນໆ 4 0 ທຸລະກິດໃນພາກໄຕ້ສ່ວນໃຫຍ່ບໍ່ມີແຜນການຕະຫຼາດ ຂໍ້ສະເໜີ ການເຜີຍແຜ່ຂໍ້ມູນຂ່າວສານດ້ານການຕະຫຼາດ ຕະຫຼາດໃນຊົນນະບົດສຳລັບສຸຂະພັນສ້ວມຕົ້ນທຶນຕ່ຳ (ຕ່ຳກວ່າ 700,000 ກີບ) ແມ່ນປະມານ 150,000 ຫາ 200,000 ວິດ, ຖ້າຖື ວ່າບໍ່ມີບັນຫາໃນການແຈກຢາຍສິນຄ້າສຸຂະພັນສ້ວມ. ຄວາມຈິງທີ່ຜູ້ປະກອບການບໍ່ມີມາດຕະການເພື່ອຮອງ ຮັບຄວາມຕ້ອງການນີ້ຊີ້ໃຫ້ເຫັນວ່າມັນເປັນທຸລະກິດທີ່ບໍ່ໄດ້ກຳໄລ ຫຼື ເປັນຮູບແບບການລົ້ມເຫຼວ ຂອງຕະຫຼາດໃດໜຶ່ງ, ເຊັ່ນ: ການຮັບຮູ້ຂໍ້ມູນທີ່ບໍ່ສະເໝີພາບກັນ. ທັງລັດຖະບານ ແລະ ຄູ່ຮ່ວມພັດທະນາຄວນແກ້ໄຂບັນຫາຊ່ອງວ່າງດ້ານຂໍ້ມູນດັ່ງ ກ່າວໂດຍການເຜີຍແຜ່ຂໍ້ມູນດ້ານການຕະຫຼາດ (ຂະໜາດບົ່ມຊ້ອນ, ອື່ນໆ) ເພື່ອສົ່ງເສີມ ໃຫ້ມີການລົງທຶນຫຼາຍຂຶ້ນ ຫຼື ເພື່ອດຶງດູດຜູ້ປະກອບການໃໝ່ໆ, ກໍຄືການແຈ້ງຕະຫຼາດວ່າມີການແຊກແຊງດ້ານຄວາມ ຕ້ອງການເພື່ອເປັນການສົ່ງເສີມການຂະຫຍາຍຕົວດ້ານຄວາມຕ້ອງການທີ່ເປັນໄປ ໄດ້. ຄວນເຜີຍແຜ່ຂໍ້ມູນກ່ຽວກັບປະເພດສຸຂະພັນສ້ວມທີ່ຍັງບໍ່ສາ ມາດຕອບສະໜອງຕາມຄວາມຕ້ອງການໃນປະຈຸບັນ. ແບບສຸຂະພັນສ້ວມທີ່ສາມາດເຂົ້າ ເຖິງໄດ້ເຫຼົ່ານີ້ຄວນຕິດຕັ້ງໄດ້ງ່າຍ ແລະ ໄວກວ່າ. ແບບທີ່ສາມາດເຂົ້າເຖິງ ໄດ້ແມ່ນມີຢູ່ແລ້ວເຊັ່ນ: ວິດຕົ້ນທຶນຕ່ຳ (ລາຄາປະມານ 50 ໂດລາບໍ່ລວມຖານ) ທີ່ທາງ WSP, ໂດຍຜ່ານການດຳເນີນການ ຂອງຄູ່ສ່ວນ PSI, ແມ່ນໄດ້ພະຍາຍາມຂະຫຍາຍໄປແຂວງຈຳປາສັກ ແລະ ເຊກອງ. ການຈັດວາງດ້ານການເງິນ ບໍ່ຄວນສົ່ງເສີມການສະໜອງທຶນໂດຍກົງແຕ່ຄວນສົ່ງເສີມການຈັດວາງດ້ານການ ເງິນວິທີອື່ນໆເຊັ່ນ: ແຜນການຜ່ອນເປັນງວດກັບ MFI ແລະ/ຫຼື ສະຖາບັນການເງິນອື່ນໆ. ການຈ່າຍເປັນງວດຈະເຮັດໃຫ້ຫຼາຍຄົນສາມາດຊື້ສຸຂະພັນສ້ວມ. ແນວໃດກໍຕາມ, ທູລກິດໃນລະບົບຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງບໍ່ອາດຈະຈັດການແຜນການຜ່ອນສຳລະເປັນ ງວດດ້ວຍຕົນເອງ. ໂດຍການຮ່ວມມືກັບທະນາຄານ ຫຼື MFI, ຜູ້ດຳເນີນການແມ່ນສາມາດສະໜອງສຸຂະພັນສ້ວມດ້ວຍສິນເຊື່ອໃນລະບົບ ໂດຍການສຳລະເງິນທີ່ກະຈາຍເປັນເວລາໃດໜຶ່ງ (ຊຶ່ງເປັນການດຶງດູດຜູ້ບໍລິໂພກ)
  28. 28. FINAL REPORT 22 ແລະ ບໍ່ມີຄວາມສ່ຽງດ້ານສິນເຊື່ອທີ່ມາຈາກຜູ້ທີ່ບໍ່ຈ່າຍຄືນ (ເປັນ ການດຶງດູດທຸລະກິດ). ຄົວເຮືອນຕົກລົງທີ່ຈະຊື້ຊຸດຫ້ອງສ້ວມ ແລະ ຍືນ ຂໍເງິນກູ້ ໃນເວລາດຽວກັນ, MFI ອະນຸມັດເງິນກູ້ ແລະ ຈ່າຍໃຫ້ທຸລະກິດ, ແລະ ຄົວເຮືອນຈ່າຍຄືນກັບ MFI ຕະຫຼອດໄລຍະໃດໜຶ່ງ. ກົນລະຍຸດນີ້ຈະຕ້ອງເອົາຊະນະຄວາມລັງເລໃຈ ຂອງຜູ້ບໍລິໂພກທີ່ຈະຕິດນີ້ຊື້ຊຸດສຸຂະພັນສ້ວມ, ແລະຜູ້ໃຫ້ຢືມທີ່ ສ່ຽງບໍ່ໄດ້ຮັບເງິນຄືນ. ຄວາມຕ້ານທານນີ້ແມ່ນສາມາດແກ້ໄຂຮ່ວມກັນໂດຍຜູ້ ມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມທີ່ກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ, ລັດຖະບານ, ຜູ້ໃຫ້ທຶນ ແລະ NGOs ທີ່ມີຄວາມສົນໃຈ ແລະ ໄດ້ເຂົ້າຮ່ວມໃນການສຶກສາລະບົບຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງ. ໂດຍສະເພາະມີສ່ວນຫົວຂອງນາຍບ້ານ (ເບິ່ງຂ້າງລຸ່ມ) ສາມາດຊ່ວຍຈຳກັດເຫດການ ບໍ່ຈ່າຍຄືນເງິນກູ້. ນາຍບ້ານເປັນຜູ້ນຳໜ້າ ແລະ ຜູ້ປະສານງານ ນາຍບ້ານຄວນມີບົດບາດເປັນຜູ້ນຳໜ້າດ້ານສຸຂະອານະໄມ. ພວກເຂົາສາມາດເຮັດບົດ ບາດຜູ້ປະສານງານສຳລັບການສັ່ງຊື້ຈຳນວນຫຼາຍ. ການສັ່ງຊື້ຈຳນວນຫຼາຍສາມາດເພີ່ມຂະໜາດຂອງຕະຫຼາດ ແລະ ສົ່ງຜົນໃນທາງທີ່ ດີເພື່ອການຂະຫຍາຍກຳໄລ. ນີ້ຈະຊ່ວຍຫຼຸດ ຜ່ອນບັນຫາດ້ານຄ່າຂົນສົ່ງທີ່ສູງ – ເຖິງວ່າຄ່າຂົນສົ່ງຍັງສູງຢູ່ສຳ ລັບການສັ່ງຊື້ຈຳນວນຫຼາຍ. ບໍຄວນສົ່ງເສີມການສັ່ງຊື້ຈຳນວນຫຼາຍໂດຍກົງຂອງລັດຖະບານ ຫຼື ຜູ້ໃຫ້ທຶນ ເພາະຈະເປັນການບິດເບືອນ ແລະ ລົບຄວາມສຳພັນລະຫວ່າງຜູ້ສະໜອງ ແລະ ຜູ້ບໍລິ ໂພກ. ການສັ່ງຊື້ຈຳນວນຫຼາຍອາດຈະນຳສົ່ງເຖິງສະຖານທີ່. ການສັ່ງຊື້ຈຳນວນຫຼາຍທີ່ສົ່ງຮອດສະຖານທີ່ຈະຊ່ວຍຫຼຸດຄ່າຂົນສົ່ງໄດ້ (ແລະ ການແຕກຫັກຕ່າງໆ). ການຂາຍ ແລະ ການຕະຫລາດ ຜູ້ດຳເນີນການຂອງລະບົບຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງດຳເນີນການຕະຫຼາດສຳລັບຜະລິດຕະ ພັນ ແລະ ການບໍລິການທີ່ໜ້ອຍ ຫຼື ວ່າບໍ່ມີເລີຍ — ບໍ່ພຽງແຕ່ການຕະຫຼາດດ້ານສຸຂະອານາໄມເທົ່ານັ້ນແຕ່ບໍ່ວ່າການຕະຫຼາດ ອື່ນກໍຕາມ. ໂດຍການໃຫ້ ນາຍບ້ານເປັນຜູ່ນຳໜ້າດ້ານວຽກງານສຸຂະອານາໄມ, ພວກເຂົາສາມາດເຮັດໜ້າ ທີ່ສົ່ງເສີມຜະລິດຕະພັນສ້ວມ ແລະ ແນະນຳຜູ້ສະໜອງ. ວິທີການໜຶ່ງແມ່ນ ການເຮັດວຽກຮ່ວມກັບທຸລະກິດເພື່ອວ່າໃຫ້ພວກເຂົາສະດວກໃນການຈ່າຍ ຄ່ານາຍໜ້າໃຫ້ນາຍບ້ານສຳລັບການຂາຍຜະລິດຕະພັນສ້ວມ. ນາຍບ້ານກໍ່ຈະມີແຮງຈູງໃຈໃນການສົ່ງເສີມການ ໃຊ້ວິດຖ່າຍ.
  29. 29. FINAL REPORT 23 ການສ້າງຂີດຄວາມສາມາດ ການສ້າງຂີດຄວາມສາມາດແມ່ນສາ ມາດຜ່ານການໃຫ້ຄຳປຶກສາທາງທຸລະກິດເພື່ອຊ່ວຍໃຫ້ທຸລະກິດໃນຊົນນະບົດ ໄດ້ມີການວາງແຜນ ແລະ ການບໍລິຫານດ້ານການເງິນ. ການປັບປຸງປະສິດທິພາບຂອງທຸລະກິດໃນລະບົບຕ່ອງໂສ້ການ ສະໜອງສາມາດຊ່ວຍໃຫ້ຕົ້ນທຶນການຜະລິດຫຼຸດລົງໄດ້, ຊ່ວຍໃຫ້ລາຄາສ້ວມທີ່ຜະລິດຫຼຸດລົງໃນຂະນະທີ່ຍັງຮັກສາ ອັດຕາກຳໄລໄດ້. ນອກຈາກນີ້, ການຈັດກອງປະຊຸມໂດຍການເປັນເຈົ້າພາບ ແລະ/ຫຼື ການສະໜັບສະໜູນຈາກຜູ້ໃຫ້ບໍລິການຂະໜາດ ໃຫຍ່ຂອງພາກເອກະຊົນ (ເຊັ່ນ: ບໍລິສັດສີມັງລາວ), ຫຼື ການຢ້ຽມ ຢາມທຸລະກິດອື່ນໆສາມາດເພີ່ມຄວາມຮູ້ດ້ານການຕະຫຼາດ ແລະ ດ້ານວິຊາການໃນຂະນະທີ່ຍັງຊຸກ ຍູ້ການເຊື່ອມໂຍງກັບລະບົບຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະຫນອງ. ການເຊື່ອມໂຍງກັບຜູ້ດຳເນີນການຂະຫນາດໃຫຍ່ກ່ວາສາມາດສົ່ງຜົນໃຫ້ມີເຄື່ອ ຄ່າຍຕົວແທນ, ການແຈກຢາຍ ຫຼື ການຮັບເໝົາລາຍຍ່ອຍ, ຊຶ່ງຈະຊ່ວຍແກ້ໄຂສິ່ງ ທ້າທາຍດ້ານຂີດຄວາມອາດສາມາດ ແລະດ້ານການຄ້າ. ສຸຂະພັນຫ້ອງສ້ວມແບບສຳເລັດຮູບ ຄ່າຂອງວິດສ່ວນຫຼາຍແມ່ນມາຈາກຄ່າວັດສະດຸ ແລະ ຄ່າຂົນສົ່ງ. ການຂາຍເປັນຊຸດ (ທີ່ມີວັດສະດຸທັງໝົດເປັນຊຸດ ຈາກສະຖານທີ່ດຽວ) ນັ້ນເປັນວິທີທາງໜຶ່ງເພື່ອຫຼຸດຕົ້ນທຶນຂອງວິດຖ່າຍ. ວິທີການດັ່ງກ່າວຈະຊ່ວຍຫຼຸດຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍ ໃນການດຳເນີນທຸລະກຳຂອງຄົວເຮືອນ (ເຊິ່ງປະຈຸບັນພວກເຂົາຕ້ອງເຂົ້າຫາຜູ້ດຳ ເນີນການສອງບ່ອນເພື່ອຊື້ ວັດສະດຸທີ່ຈຳເປັນ). ຈະຊ່ວຍຫຼຸດການກະຈາຍຕົວຂອງລະບົບຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງ ໂດຍ ໂດຍການສະໜອງ ຜະລິດຕະພັນສ້ວມເປັນລາຄາດຽວ, ດີກວ່າວັດສະດຸຈາກຫລາຍບ່ອນ. ເມື່ອລວມກັບການອອກແບບຫ້ອງສ້ວມ ທີ່ຖືກກວ່າ (ໂດຍທີ່ການອອກແບບຍັງເປັນທີ່ໜ້າສົນໃຈຕໍ່ກັບຜູ້ຊົມໃຊ້), ແບບນີ້ສາມາດສະໜອງຜະລິດຕະພັນ ທີ່ເປັນທີ່ພໍໃຈກວ່າເກົ່າສຳລັບຕະຫຼາດ. ການປະຕິຮູບທຸລະກິດລະບົບຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງ ແບບການຂາຍຊຸດສ້ວມເປັນຊຸດຈະກາຍເປັນທຸລະກິດຫຼັກ (ຫຼື ອັນດຽວ) ທີ່ຈະຊ່ວຍຫຼຸດບັນຫາຕ່າງໆໃນລະບົບຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງໄດ້. ແນວໃດກໍ່ຕາມ, ບັນຫາຫຼັກບໍ່ໄດ້ຢູ່ທີ່ທຸລະກິດ. ການປ່ຽນແປງທຸລະກິດ (ເຊັ່ນ: ການປ່ຽນແປງຜະລິດຕະພັນຂອງພວກເຂົາໂດຍການຂາຍແບບເປັນຊຸດສຳເລັດຮູບ ຫຼື ການປ່ຽນແປງວິທີ່ການຂາຍຂອງພວກເຂົາເພື່ອໃຫ້່ລວມການຕະຫຼາດ ຫຼື
  30. 30. FINAL REPORT 24 ຂາຍຜ່ານຕົວແທນ) ສາມາດປັບປຸງລະບົບຕ່ອງໂສ້ການສະໜອງໄດ້ຢ່າງຫຼວງຫຼາຍ, ແຕ່ບັນຫາທີ່ສຳຄັນບາງອັນກໍຈະບໍ່ສາມາດແກ້ໄຂໄດ້. ຕົວຢ່າງ, ການສົ່ງ ມອບສ້ວມໃນບາງພື້ນທີ່ຍັງຄົງລຳບາກ ແລະ ມີລາຄາແພງ. ທຸລະກິດຈະປັບປຸງແນວໃດເພື່ອໃຫ້ການຂາຍຜະລິດຕະພັນ (ສຸຂະພັນສ້ວມ) ທີ່ມີ ການບໍລິໂພກໃນຈັງວະທີ່ຊ້າ (ຄືການຂາຍທີ່ຄວາມຖີ່ຕ່ຳ, ຊ້າ) ໃນສະພາບແວດລ້ອມທີ່ມີລາຄາຂົນສົ່ງແພງ? ບໍ່ມີວິທີການງ່າຍ. ການປ່ຽນແປງຕ້ອງໃຊ້ ເວລາ. ການປ່ອຍໃຫ້ທຸລະກິດຂະຫຍາຍຕົວເອງ – ໂດຍຕອບສະໜອງຕໍ່ການລິເລີ່ມດ້ານຄວາມຕ້ອງການ – ອາດຈະ ບໍ່ສົ່ງຜົນຂະໜາດໃຫຍ່ທັນທີ, ແຕ່ຈະມີຄວາມຍືນຍົງຫຼາຍກວ່າ ແລະ ມີຄ່າ ຕົ້ນທຶນຕໍ່ວິດຂອງແຜນງານລັດຖະບານ ແລະ ຄູ່ຮ່ວມພັດທະນາທີ່ຕ່ຳກວ່າ.
  31. 31. FINAL REPORT 25 1 Introduction 1.1 Lao PDR Overview Lao PDR’s economy has grown by around 8% per annum over recent years, making it one of the fastest- growing economies in ASEAN. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecasts growth of 8.2% in 2013, and 7.5% to 8.0% over the following five years (IMF 2013). Despite this strong economic growth, Lao PDR remains one of the poorest countries in the region (Figure 1). Furthermore, the average data in Figure 1 masks considerable poverty. In 2012, 33.9% of Laotians lived on less than 1.25 International Dollars per day (World Bank 2012) and about 11% of Lao PDR’s 1.1 million households live under the official poverty line3 . Life expectancy at birth is 67.8 years. In 2010, nearly one- third of children under age five were moderately or severely under-weight for their age (UNICEF 2012). Figure 1: GDP per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP), 2012 Note: Current international dollars. PPP adjusts GDP for relative differences in living costs. Source: IMF, World Economic Outlook Database, October 2013. The Lao PDR economy is largely agrarian, with agriculture accounting for about 26% of GDP and employing 77% of the population.4 The total population of rural communities currently exceeds 4.4 million. In many remote areas road quality is an issue – around 81% of villages are accessible year-round. Nearly one-third of households do not have access to improved sanitation (see below). Despite still being a least developed country (LDC), Lao PDR has made significant progress in poverty alleviation over the past two decades. The country is on course to achieve the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target of halving poverty by 2015. According to the outcomes of 11th high level round table meeting regarding the progress of the MDGs, Development Partners welcomed the commitment of the Government to strengthen health systems and improve health governance, as well as commitments to ensure free access to Maternal and Child Health services (UNDP 2013). 3 Source: Results of poverty reduction for 2011-2013, Poverty Reduction Committee, Prime Minister Office. 4 National Statistic Center, Ministry of Planning and Investment, 2014, www.nsc.gov.la. 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 Myanmar Bangladesh Cambodia Lao P.D.R. Vietnam India Philippines Indonesia China Thailand Malaysia
  32. 32. FINAL REPORT 26 1.2 Sanitation in Lao PDR Sanitation coverage in Lao PDR is strongly correlated with wealth: while 99.7% of households in the richest quintile have access to improved sanitation facilities, only 12.6% of those in the poorest quintile do (Figure 2). Figure 2: Households Using Improved Sanitation Facilities, by Wealth Quintile, 2012 Source: LSIS 2012. Since households in rural communities tend to be poorer than urban households, it is rural regions that have the lowest access to improved sanitation. Around 42% of those in rural communities in Lao PDR practice open-defecation (OD), compared to only 4% in urban areas (Table 1). However, there has been significant improvement in rural communities – 73% of rural households practiced OD as recently as 2000 (WHO-UNICEF 2014). The most common improved facilities in rural areas are flush toilets to a pit (33%) and to a septic tank (14%) (WHO-UNICEF 2014). Table 1: Lao PDR sanitation coverage 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. Rural households with road access are more than twice as likely to use improved facilities as those without road access (LSIS 2012). Road quality is important in the sanitation supply chain. It effects the costs of materials for constructing latrines – and hence the affordability of latrines – and also whether the supply reaches certain communities at all. Many businesses in the sanitation supply chain cite road quality as a constraint (see Section 10 below). Similarly, there are geographic differences in sanitation coverage: residents of the South region are much less likely than others to have access to improved facilities: 35% of households using improved sanitation facilities compared with 61% in the Northern region, and 68% in the Central region (LSIS 2012). % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest

×