Tag Archives: sanitation financing

Financial indicators for water and sanitation at national level: what do we really need to know and early warning system

Financial indicators for water and sanitation at national level: what do we really need to know and early warning system | Source: Catarina Fonseca, IRC Blog, April 18 2016 |

This blog is meant to support those efforts by answering the question: What indicators can be used as a diagnostic tool for the adequacy of budgets and financial flows for water and sanitation?

The current proposed SDG indicator framework will mainly track outcomes: the number of people with access to water and sanitation services. That is what ultimately matters but it is also an indicator that only gives off a ‘late’ alarm. If a country is not showing much progress on access to services yet, it will take several years to address the root causes of the problem. See the blog 15 years to make history, 5 years to make change.

This is the reason why it is also important to track inputs into the sector, particularly money, which can give off an ‘early’ alarm. If for example, analyses show that the funds available for water and sanitation are too little to address financial gaps, it can be addressed much earlier, before it translates into stagnating or lower coverage figures (see for instance Uganda and Tanzania as examples).

Tracking financial indicators does not require sophisticated monitoring systems

The key question is then which financial indicators to track and what level of detail and break-down is needed. This is what was discussed at a recent sector meeting organised by UNICEF and where the inspiration to write this blog comes from.

Tracking financial indicators does not require a sophisticated monitoring system. In my experience, it is perfectly possible to collect this information from secondary sources if there is some openness in sharing government financial flows on water and sanitation. However, it does require a system that is tracking government expenditure at different levels. This is already the case in most public administrations in lower income countries.

The problems emerge in the reconciliation of accounts, the level of disaggregation of data and most important for the water sector: linking the money flowing into the sector with the number of people accessing a decent service. See some examples in the testing phase of the WHO TrackFin methodology in three countries in this flyer.

Read the complete article.

African Government investment in sanitation: 2016 state of play

African Government investment in sanitation: 2016 state of play: Finance Brief 9, 2016.  Public Finance for WASH. logo

In May 2015, African leaders committed to budget allocations amounting to 0.5% of their countries’ respective Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to sanitation and hygiene by 2020.

Specifically, this commitment was part of the Ngor Declaration adopted at the fourth African Conference on Sanitation and Hygiene (AfricaSan) by ministers responsible for sanitation and hygiene.

This brief explores the context of this commitment: how much are governments currently investing in sanitation? How can this investment be increased?

Umande Trust Sanitation Payment Innovations

Umande Trust Sanitation Payment Innovations being used at the Bio-Centers within the Urban Informal settlements.

Sanitation financing models for the urban poor – new IRC thematic overview paper

Sijbesma, C., 2011. Sanitation financing models for the urban poor. (Thematic overview paper ; 25).  The Hague: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
120 p. : 44 boxes, 1 fig., 4 tab.
Includes references, glossary and lists of resources.
Available at: <http://www.irc.nl/top25>

The provision of sanitation services in low-income urban areas is one of the greatest challenges in development. Population growth in developing countries currently outpaces sanitation growth, especially in urban areas. Consequently, in urban areas where poor people reside, and where “formal” sanitation services are not available to them, they experience the compounded effect of serious economic disadvantages such as high risk to public health; a dirty and contaminated environment; no basic human dignity and safety for a large part of the world’s population, especially for adolescent girls and women.

Continue reading

Meeting the challenge of financing water and sanitation : tools and approaches

OECD (2011). Meeting the challenge of financing water and sanitation : tools and approaches. (OECD studies on water). Paris, France, OECD Publishing. 142 p. : 13 fig., 5 tab.
ISBN : 9789264120525 (PDF) ; 9789264120518 (print)
doi: 10.1787/9789264120525-en

Order online  / Look inside (free online preview)
Price: €25 | $35 | £22 | ¥3200 | MXN450

This report provides an overview of key issues related to financing the water and sanitation sector in both developed and developing countries (part 1), and presents tools and approaches developed by OECD for both policy makers and practitioners (part 2).

Continue reading

Sanitation costs and financing – presentations at IRC’s 2010 Symposium

The following papers on sanitation costs and financing were presented at the IRC Symposium 2010, ‘Pumps, Pipes and Promises: Costs, Finances and Accountability for Sustainable WASH Services’, held in The Hague from 16-18 November.

The economics of sanitation initiatives (ESI) for sanitation decision making in Southeast Asia. Author: Guy Hutton

This presentation discusses cost data from 5 Southeast Asian countries in various forms (by technology, by site/project, by hardware/software, by financing source, by timing, and under different infrastructure capacity use levels) to aid decision makers in intervention selection and to draw more general lessons about sanitation financing, efficiency and sustainability. Cost data were triangulated from household surveys, project or provider documents and local market surveys to estimate investment and annualized life cycle costs per household and per individual.

Full paper

Continue reading

WSP/ADB – Sanitation Finance in Rural Cambodia

Sanitation Finance in Rural Cambodia: Review and Recommendations. Andy Robinson. Water and Sanitation Program; Asian Development Bank. May 2010.

Download Full-text (pdf, 1.37MB)

The study primarily contains a comparative analysis of different approaches to financing sanitation:  CLTS, project subsidies and social marketing. The report also makes a suggestion for a sanitation financing system based on conditional cash transfers, which to date have been mainly used in education and health care.

Some of the main findings include the following:

Comparative analysis of case studies

The comparative analysis confirms that public finance for sanitation in Cambodia is not reaching those below the poverty line. Ninety percent of the public finance for the large ADB program goes to non-poor households, and the two sanitation marketing project will require households to contribute at least USD 30 in order to obtain a latrine, whereas the willingness to pay data imply that USD 10 is the maximum amount that most poor households are willing to spend on a latrine.

The Plan CLTS program promotes far cheaper and simpler facilities than the other programs, which should be more affordable and appropriate for poor households. However, 35 percent of households in its program communities continue to practice open defecation, and most of these open defecators are likely to be poor households.

The use of public finance to subsidize the development, promotion and marketing of appropriate sanitation products is to be encouraged, but there is a risk that the current sanitation marketing programs will not benefit many poor households. It is important that an appropriate amount of public finance is directed towards developing and marketing products and services that are specifically targeted at the poorest households and those that cannot afford the USD 30 sanitation core package.

Finally, few of the programs examined have been successful in achieving collective sanitation outcomes, such as open defecation free communities, which should be the ultimate aim of all sanitation programs (in order to achieve the optimal benefits). The population segment that practices open defecation in the program communities is largely made up of poor households, and generally includes those with the highest disease burdens, i.e. those that are most likely to transmit diseases to others through unsafe excreta disposal. As a result, the benefits achieved by these sanitation programs may be limited.