The Right to Water and Sanitation in Ecuador: Progress,Limitations,and Challenges

Introduction

In addition to recent changes in constitutional frameworks that recognize the human right to water access in Ecuador and in the region,1 we can add the resolution adopted in July 2010 by the United Nations (UN) that declares “the right to drinking safe water and sanitation as a human right which is essential for full enjoyment of life and all human rights.”2 This reinforces the comprehensive vision of the human right to water, which not only refers to actual water access for human or domestic usage but is also related to other rights such as health, the right to eat, and collective and nature rights.

Within this country's context, the new institutional framework requires a set of institutional changes and regulatory modifications that can create the necessary means for the State to fulfill its role in ensuring the human right to water—universal and equal access to clean water and sanitation for the entire population. It will also allow the State accomplish what is prescribed by the Constitution regarding the creation of a single water authority, exclusive public and community management, and the certainty that the people will be involved in the execution, evaluation, and supervision of public policies and public services.

These reforms presuppose overcoming the so called “water stress adjustment” policies, oriented to neoliberal conceptions which, among other aspects, pushed an institutional reform that weakened and dismantled the State power and strengthened the private area role in water management. The balance below shows the last two decades' evolution in terms of drinking water services coverage and environmental sanitation as well as policy and institutional changes and advances in public investments made since the 2008 Constitution and, in particular, those taking place in 2010.

The Country's Situation Evolution

According to the National Institute of Statistics and Census's (INEC) data, Ecuador's percentage of residential access to piped water has progressively increased; 1990 census shows that 40.6% houses received this service. This figure increased to 52.1% in 2001 which shows 11.5% improvement in water supply infrastructure at the national level during the 90s.3 However, the service deficit was still considerably high if we take into account that in 2001, despite the 15.4% drop, 21.9% of homes were still using water for human consumption from sources (river, springs, truck delivered water, etc.) other than the public water network and that, in demographic terms, in 1990 the number of people that had access to a public water network inside their home was 3,897,653 (39.67%) and 5,886,689 (48.42%) in 2001.

At the regional level, although Amazonia is the region that had the most critically low numbers with barely one out of three homes having piped water access, it had an 8% improvement in its coverage when it went from 17.8% in 1990 to 26% in 2001. The Coastal region went from 33.5% to 41.8% (8% improvement), and the Sierra region went from 44.3% to 56.3% (12% improvement). Despite the improvements presented, historical differences between these three regions were still the same with the Sierra region being the only one that had coverage levels above the national average.4 In urban areas, the residential percentage of piped water service access inside the house went from 59.6% in 1990 to 67.3% in 2001 (7.7% increase), while in rural areas the coverage increased from 15.2% to 26.1% (10.9% increase).

Nationally, the percentage of homes connected to a public sewer network went from 39.5% in 1990 to 48% in 2011, which was an 8.5% improvement. At the regional level, Amazonia had the highest increase in sewer network coverage going from 19% in 1990 to 34.3% in 2001 (15.3%), followed by the Sierra region that went from 47.5% to 62.2% (12.7%) while the Coastal region registered a minimum 4% improvement going from 32.9% to 36.9%. As in the piped water access case, differences in the provision of sewer access in each region are remarkable; in 2001, 66.6% of houses in urban areas had access to this service while in rural areas only 16.4% of houses had that access.5

The urban-rural gap is confirmed by the II National Report of the Millennium Development Objectives (ODM in Ecuador)6 that, taking into account the living condition survey results in 2006, shows that urban access to public piped water service inside the house was as high as 66% compared with 14% of rural access; this means that there was a 52% urban-rural gap versus 48% of national average access. At the same time, the gap in sewer network access was 52% favorable to urban areas against 49% of the national average.7

It has also been shown that, according to poverty consumption, the poorest quintile has 11% of water service coverage compared with 87% of the richest quintile, making the difference between the first and fifth quintiles 76%. Furthermore, homes with indigenous and black self-determination headship present 18% and 38% coverage, respectively; these figures are below the national average (48%) and below the coverage presented by white (57%) and mestizo (50%) home headship. As regards sewer access, there is a 68% gap between the first quintile and fifth quintile of consumption for the richest quintile.8 This report shows the high correlation between the lack of access to piped water and poverty, “which means that the poorest provinces have less drinking water coverage per home,”9 so much so that the Amazonia region and the Los Rios and Bolivar provinces present the critical coverage figures because they cannot go above 25% homes with piped water service inside the house.

According to the Urban and Housing Development Ministry10 estimates, by 2008, 58.6% of homes in the country were to have access to a public drinking water network. Urban area coverage would reach 66.5% and in the rural area 42.5%; 51.3% of homes at the national level would be connected to a public sewer network; this figure would reach 65% in the urban area and 14.2% in the rural area. These figures, to be confirmed by the VII Population Census and VI Housing Census, would show, in comparison with 2001 data, 6.5% improvement of drinking water service coverage at the national level and 5.4% in the urban area; and 2.8% improvement in sewer service coverage at the national level.

As it can be observed, this would mean that during almost a decade water and sewer service access through residential connections did not change significantly. There are still 41.1% of homes without water service coverage at the national level; this problem is more than critical in rural areas where the deficit is 57.5% against 33.5%11 deficit in urban areas. The sewer service national deficit would be 48.7% against 35% of urban deficit and 85.8% very critical rural deficit.

Living conditions data from 2006 also reveal that access to piped water does not ensure permanent access to this service or to drinking water quality; at the national level, only 33% of homes with a piped water system received this service permanently. As to water quality, there are no available official statistics; however, sewer treatment data are available and they give us hints of pollution level in water sources. A case study in 1999 shows that only 26.6% of wastewaters in the country are treated.12 According to the 2000 Urban and Housing Development Ministry (MIDUVI) data, out of 176 urban cities only 29 (18%) had a sewer treatment system available and the remaining 145 (82%) did not have any.13

In the city of Guayaquil, where the drinking water and sanitation system is franchised to the transnational company Veolia Environnement, Proactiva Medio Ambiente, and Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas (FCC), grouped as INTERAGUA. In 2009, only 11% of the polluted water received sanitation in their stabilization lakes, although according to the grant, 20% of polluted water should be treated.

In addition, the parameters of compliance with environmental regulations were not acceptable. The company Aguas de Samborondó Amagua C.E.M., a private provider in the Samborondón canton, did not consider wastewater treatment for the cantonal main urban and rural areas. In Quito, Ambato, and Ibarra cities, public drinking water and sanitation companies do not have sewer treatment systems and wastewater pollutes rivers and water sources. Cuenca, Sushufindi, and Babahoyo cities are the only ones that have complete sewer water treatment systems.

Institution, Legislation, and Public Policy

The new constitution, in article 318, points out that “The Estate, through the unique water authority, will be directly responsible for the planning and management of water resources that will be delivered for human consumption, feeding-ensuring irrigation, ecological flow and productive activities …” According to this legal frame and to the National Development Plan, the National Secretariat for Water Provision (SENAGUA) is the entity that should currently exercise stewardship of water resources in Ecuador.14 Besides SENAGUA, there are also other entities with jurisdiction over one or more aspects in water management: among others, MIDUVI, the Environment Ministry (MAE), the Public Health Ministry (MSP), the National Irrigation Institute (INAR), municipalities and provincial councils. SENAGUA does not work as the unique water authority that dictates national policies and coordinates other institutions' interventions.

In this way, within the existing framework, there is an overlapping of policies, objectives, functions, and responsibilities, as well as duplication of course of studies, geographic information system design, infrastructure work investment and building for irrigation systems, water quality control and pollution control, and handling and protection of water sources. In addition, in connection to both the central government level and different levels of local governments, almost all these institutions work with the 219 municipalities in charge of service provision, to strengthen their management of drinking water and sanitation services.

As to policy gaps at a national level, a clear proposal for integral environment sanitation can not be identified—so much so that the Water Law draft defines sanitation as drinking water, a sewer and rainwater system, and sewer water treatment without adding solid waste treatment. This continues the fragmentation of policy, management, and control of solid waste.

In addition, the Constitution did not set the exclusive public provision of solid waste management and treatment services as part of sanitation. This omission continues the provision of these services as aprivate business. In many cities within the country, the service is kept in private hands at the expense of service quality and of a public environment sanitation policy that should be a priority. Furthermore, both the MIDUVI and the MAE have their own plans and programs for solid waste handling in coordination with the municipalities.

In the same way, as far as water quality control is concerned, SENAGUA monitors regulations compliance accomplishment for wastewater treatment; on the other hand, MIDUVI, MSP, and drinking water and sanitation companies have their own water quality control programs, some of them based on additional regulations for water and sanitation areas by MIDUVI, the Ecuadorian Normalization Institute (INEN), the Public Health Ministry (MSP), as well as the quality guides published by the Pan-American Health Organization/Worldwide Health Organization (OPS/OMS) and other regional regulations of the Andean Association of Enterprises and Drinking Water and Sewer Institutions (ANDESAPA).

There has been no change in the water and environmental sanitation institutional framework or in a national comprehensive policy that might change this scenario, nor have there been any changes in the deprivatized franchises of public water services in the Guayaquil, Samborondón, and Pedro Moncayo cities. In Guayaquil and with public funds, both the national and municipal government are in charge of sewer investments, home connections, and wastewater treatment services that the transnational company INTERAGUA does not carry out, thereby justifying the renegotiation of the contract, by reason of the deficiencies found in audits and the provisions set in the Constitution.

A challenge for national policy in the area is the community management integration and its real involvement in water policy development and institutional framework. According to SENAGUA estimates, this development is done by 9,952 community systems recognized by MIDUVI, MIES, MSP, and other government entities that are distributed as follows: 6,603 for human consumption water, 124 for drinking water, and 3,225 for irrigation systems. According to the Administrative Boards for Drinking Water and Irrigation of Ecuador (JAAPRE), these community systems provide domestic consumption water to approximately 25.9% of the population, located mainly in rural and suburban areas of the country. An additional challenge is the incorporation of these figures to national stats. For example, the recent census did not include any questions distinguishing between homes that have access through community systems and those that have access to the public services, or whether the access is permanent or by the hour.

With regard to the new regulations, the approval of the Water Resources, Uses and Management Act has been suspended. This law should give more empowerment to the unique water authority so that it can be consolidated as the governing water entity. Social organizations have proposed that the unique water authority also be composed of a multinational and cross-cultural council with decision-making power over national policies. On the other hand, MIDUVI is drafting the Organic Law on Provision of Drinking Water and Sanitation; in addition, among pending actions is the update of the Law for Drinking Water and Sewer Administrative Boards and the General Rules governing its amended law.

A Look into Public Investment in the Area

Like policy definitions, investments for water areas are made by several national and local institutions. According to management reports by SENAGUA, MIDUVI, MAE, INAR, and the State Bank, during the 2007–2010 period, MIDUVI was the entity with greater investment carried out in the drinking water and sanitation area, using tax funds, external financing, or loans from the State Bank.

Among the MIDUVI investment programs conducted over the last three years, there have been several that have been designed by multilateral agencies to promote privatization of the area:

• Drinking and Sanitation Water program for small municipality and rural communities (PRAGUAS). BM executed until 2008.

It should be noted that while public investment in water areas has significantly increased, the lack of a national policy or a government entity as an intervention framework that can coordinate inter-institutional interventions results in few programs that can provide permanent and quality public services or that might contribute effectively to improving living conditions and poverty reduction.

An example of that is the Environment and Social Repair Project (PRAS), a safe water and sanitation project that the Environment Ministry executes within its social compensation program for health damage in communities affected by State hydrocarbon exploitation. The evaluation report, conducted in 2010, shows that, instead of responding to a comprehensive repair policy that should be directed by the MAE, the execution of these projects was made through overlapping functions and activities, and there was a lack of inter-institutional coordination with MIDUVI or MSP. Furthermore, a holistic approach linking drinking water and environmental issues with health issues has not been included in the program implementation. As well, comprehensive strategies were not defined to give municipalities' governments the chance to ensure a project's sustainability, and there were no training or health education programs or a plan to strengthen and support local management so that they can operate, maintain, and manage projects.

A paradoxical aspect is that, despite being a MAE investment, these projects—executed by municipalities—do not have environment impact studies. This means that they have not obtained environmental license or water usage authorizations. The evaluation report recognizes PRAS contribution to living conditions improvement in Amazonia; however, it is compelling to note that no significant progress has been made in service coverage and quality, especially in their sustainability.

To have the human right to water access would not only be related to increasing the investment in guaranteed public water service for domestic consumption, but it would also incorporate a comprehensive sanitation vision and mechanisms, such as the minimum amount free of charge for subsistence, that can make it effective. This challenge for public policy implies an effective ecosystem protection policy associated with the water cycle and the protection of water sources, in addition to pollution control and the privatization of its management; wherefore, it is necessary to have full social participation in the construction and determination of water policies based on the Constitution provisions. These are goals that challenge our present and future.