Covid-19 and Water in Asia and the Pacific

Guidance Note

• Publisher: Asian Development Bank
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9789292629496
• Topic: Technology & Engineering
• Subtopic: Environmental Management
• Index: Technology & Engineering

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has had a wide-ranging and substantial impact on the water sector in Asia and the Pacific. This guidance note focuses on how service providers—particular those involved in supply, sanitation, and wastewater treatment—have been affected and the response measures they have undertaken. It also identifies potential pathways to shape a post-pandemic recovery for the sector and the role of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in supporting this. The guidance note is one of a series produced by ADB for key sectors and thematic areas.

1 Introduction and Purpose of the Guidance Note

Background and Objectives

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has raised global alarms on public health and safety; to curtail widespread transmission, water utilities have been at the forefront of ensuring regular water supply provision to communities. The pandemic also underscored the importance of sanitation and wastewater management, amidst initial fears that Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) may persist in sewage or water bodies and either remain infectious or lie dormant with the ability to regain infectivity at a later date.

To understand the impact of COVID-19 on the water sector, it is important to look at the impacts on service providers, authorities, and organizations responsible for water management. By their nature of providing essential services to various sectors in society (including agriculture, industry, and marginalized communities), water, wastewater, sanitation, irrigation, and drainage service providers and authorities (collectively water service providers or simply “service providers”) contribute to many development outcomes such as poverty reduction, food security, rural development, and public and environmental health protection.

This guidance note comprehensively examines the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the water sector from March to December 2020, the actions taken by service providers in response to various challenges, and the potential pathways toward postpandemic recovery.

This paper serves three objectives:

(i)Provide interim stock of and guidance on the recent developments in the water sector with respect to the ongoing COVID-19 crisis.

(ii)Summarize the key learning and lessons of the water organizations and service providers dealing with the challenges of COVID-19 first-hand

(iii)Outline fundamental principles for effective recovery of the water sector toward a sustainable and resilient “new normal.”

Different readers are also provided with various actionable insights. To the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the recommendations set out in this guidance note can aid in developing projects and programs in support of the water sector’s recovery and progressive improvement, resilience, and sustainability. To developing member countries (DMCs) and service providers, it reflects on the impacts that they may have encountered or experienced and therefore glean practical insights based on responses observed elsewhere. Finally, to policymakers and researchers, it aggregates knowledge on COVID-19 impacts on the water sector and points to recommendations for further study and inquiry as the world navigates this crisis.

Water Service Providers

The management of water resources and systems for the delivery of public services are collectively handled by service providers and various sector institutions. Although there are often overlaps in their responsibilities and activities, these entities can be distinguished by the services they provide. Table 1 identifies the key responsibilities of water service providers encompassed in this Guidance Note. To collect primary data on water sector impacts and responses, ADB conducted a survey among service providers in DMCs. Appendix A summarizes the respondents to the ADB survey, which ran from 2 October to 17 November 2020.

Table 1: Description of Water Service Providers

Service Provider Scope	Key Responsibilities
Water resources and river basin management	Managing the watershed environment and flood protection, monitoring environmental water quality, engaging multiple catchment stakeholders and, in some cases (usually government authorities), permitting or monitoring water resources allocations such as through water use permits or rights.
Irrigation	Provision of irrigation water services to farmers including expansion, management, and maintenance of reservoirs and storage facilities, canals, and channels, and ensuring water flow.
Water supply	Abstraction and treatment of raw water, delivery of treated water to customers (either to end-user taps or communal standpipes), and provision of customer services; expansion and maintenance of the water treatment and distribution system.
Sanitation and fecal sludge management	Human waste containment, toilet and pit emptying, conveyance or transport of waste, treatment of fecal sludge, and disposal of treated waste; in some cases, recovery and reuse of resources from treated waste. Some sanitation service providers may also operate communal toilet facilities.
Sewerage and wastewater treatment	Conveyance of raw sewage through a sewer network system including pumping stations and rising (pressure) mains, and may also include drainage water in the case of combined sewer systems. The conveyance terminates at a wastewater treatment plant (or water reclamation plant) for processing prior to discharge of treated effluent to a body of water. The sewerage system and treatment plant may be operated separately by two different service providers. Wastewater treatment plants may also receive influent waste from sanitation or septage transport service providers.
Urban drainage and stormwater management	Expansion and maintenance of urban drainage conveyance, channels, and waterways (natural or man-made); conveyance typically terminates at a body of water without treatment.

Source: Asian Development Bank.

Service Provision Under the Three Pandemic Phases

This paper is structured to present an overview of three phases of the COVID-19 pandemic: response, recovery, and rejuvenation. Although much of the COVID-19 literature makes reference to these three phases, there is no internationally accepted standard or definition to demarcate a clear distinction. It is quite possible for these phases to overlap, and where there is a resurgence of cases (a second or third wave) there is a rebound from recovery to response phase. Epidemiologists are expecting a multimodal pattern to emerge with repeated peaks and troughs in patient numbers over the next 3–5 years at least, not related to seasonality. Fakhruddin et al.¹ describe the cyclical nature of pandemic transitions to and from response and recovery (Figure 1). During these cycles, it is important to review which policies and approaches have been effective and which need to be revised to minimize consequences.

Figure 1: Cycles of Pandemic Response and Recovery Phase

Source: B. (SHM) Fakhruddin, K. Blanchard, and D. Ragupathy. 2020. Are we there yet? The transition from response to recovery for the COVID-19 pandemic. Progress in Disaster Science. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7214278/.

We refer to the response phase as the period that follows official (usually national) government pronouncement of community lockdown or quarantine measures that expressly signify the growing risk of COVID-19 transmission risk among the population. This reckoning period differs among countries, and indeed among cities within a country, as lockdown measures were announced or took effect at different times across Asia and the Pacific. The basis for lockdown pronouncements also differ: some governments may have imposed lockdown proactively to prevent widespread transmission, while some imposed lockdown in response to an already growing number of cases. This distinction is further blurred by the fact that countries acquired COVID-19 testing capabilities at varying times and expanded their capabilities at widely different paces. For example, the Republic of Korea rolled out mass testing in the early days of the pandemic even for people who did not show symptoms.² In any case, the overarching focus in the response phase is to decrease transmission and build up frontline healthcare capabilities for testing and treatment.

The recovery phase corresponds to a period of gradual return to “almost-normal” levels of business and social activity while maintaining cautionary measures and continuing to boost healthcare capability. This entails lifting of strict lockdown protocols which allows for a limited variety of commercial and social activities to resume, provided safety measures are observed such as wearing of masks, physical distancing, and, in some areas, curfews. The recovery phase may be triggered by the decreasing number of COVID-19 cases, an indication that the initial response measures have been effective in managing transmission. However, this is not always the case, as many countries and cities have lifted initial lockdowns despite having no reduction in cases. As such, the recovery phase may be motivated more by economic recovery or politics rather than recovery in the public health sense.

Compared to the response and recovery phases, the rejuvenation phase is clearly demarcated by the availability of a vaccine and widespread immunization that allows a “new normal” for social activities and business operations. During the H1N1 pandemic of 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) monitored the prevalence of cases until the winter in the southern hemisphere to determine whether the virus had begun to behave like a seasonal influenza strain.³ In the postpandemic phase, there will still be cases and possibly widespread outbreaks of COVID-19. Governments can shift their focus to reviving and spurring economic and social activities, as well as preventing succeeding waves of COVID-19 cases. The availability of a COVID-19 vaccine is the precursor for the rejuvenation phase. Mass delivery of the vaccine and widespread immunization may even be considered the first step in the rejuvenation phase—a critical step toward the “new normal.”

Pandemic mitigation strategies depend on a number of highly localized factors. The most important factor is the effective containment of transmission, which in turn dictates the relaxation of quarantine measures in the area. The gradual lifting of mobility restrictions domestically and internationally can spur local economic activities such as tourism, agriculture, and trade. The pace of rebooting economic activities is capped by prevailing cautionary measures such as physical distancing or curfews. Firms will likely operate at less than full capacity, and many businesses will not be allowed to operate yet.

Some economies and cities that have transitioned to the recovery phase (or have started operating in a recovery “mode”) reverted to lockdowns after experiencing a new wave of increased COVID-19 cases. Many economies in Asia and the Pacific initially showed promising performance in terms of reported cases. The Australian state of Victoria reported zero new cases in early June, but a month later declared a state of disaster that imposed curfews, mobility restrictions, and border closure.⁴ In contrast, New Zealand and Taipei,China, have both ended local transmission, which paved the lifting of most restrictions, and have earned international praise and recognition as models of effective economywide pandemic suppression. Some economies have seen new waves of COVID-19 infections while many economies have not successfully recovered from their first wave. The key lesson, concludes Normile (footnote 4), is for governments to avoid cutting corners in COVID-19 countermeasures and avoid falling into a...