Water and Sanitation Services That Last
Costing sustainable services The life-cycle cost approach
Catarina Fonseca and Peter Burr
International Water and Sanitation Centre
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
Agenda for webinar
1. What is the life-cycle costs approach
2. From theory to practice
3. Uptake: What’s in it for you
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
All materials available from:
www.washcost.info www.waterservicesthatlast.org
Partners
Life-cycle costs approach: What is it?
Water and Sanitation Services That Last
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
Non-functionality and decreasing service levels
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
What are the life-cycle costs?
The costs of ensuring adequate water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services to a specific population in a determined geographical area - not just for a few years but indefinitely.’
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
What are the cost components?
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
What are the cost components?
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
What are the cost components?
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
What are the cost components?
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
What are the cost components?
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
How to compare costs when services are different?
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
Service level
Quantity
(lpcd) Quality
Accessibility
(minutes per round trip=
distance and crowding)
Reliability
(number of days
functioning)
High >= 60
Good
<= 10 Very reliable
Intermediate
>= 40 Acceptable <=30 Reliable/secure
Basic (normative)
>= 20
Sub-standard >=5
Problematic
<=60 Problematic
No service (after
intervention)
<5
Unacceptable
> 60 Unreliable/insecure
Source: Moriarty et al., 2011
Water service levels
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
Service level
Quantity
(lpcd) Quality
Accessibility
(minutes per round
trip=
distance and
crowding)
Reliability
(number of
days
functioning)
Status
(JMP)
High >= 60
Good
<= 10 Very reliable
Improved Intermediate
>= 40
Acceptable <=30 Reliable/secure
Basic (normative)
>= 20
Sub-standard >=5
Problematic
<=60 Problematic
Unimproved No service
(after
implementation)
<5
Unacceptable
> 60 Unreliable/inse
cure
Source: Moriarty et al., 2011 Water service levels
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Borehole and hand pump
Small piped system Well
% o
f p
op
ula
tio
n
Combined service level (quantity + quality + accessibility + reliability) in Mozambique sample
No Service
Sub-Standard
Basic
Different systems and still… very low services overall
Source: WASHCost team Mozambique, 2011
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
Exclusion analysis: different caste groups in a village in Andhra Pradesh (India)
Source: WASHCost team India, 2011
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
Toilets: access and use by different caste groups Andhra Pradesh
Source: WASHCost team India, 2011
Life-cycle costs approach – from theory to practice
Water and Sanitation Services That Last
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
LCCA: bringing costs and service levels together
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
Service levels and costs: WASHCost sample for rural water
Andhra Pradesh
Burkina Faso
Ghana Mozambique Total
Number of rural communities sampled
187 9 36 67 299
Detailed HH surveys 5,743 3,046 1,273 1,710 11,772
Other data sources Borehole drilling contract data, financial record from small towns,
census data
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
Water facilities in the countries where cost information was collected/compared
Water system
Definition Andhra Pradesh
Burkina Faso
Ghana Mozambique
Borehole and manual hand pump
Mechanised Borehole
Small distribution network connected to public stand post. Limited storage and provision for HH connections
Single village scheme
Reticulated supply with village storage
Multi village scheme
Centralised supply serving a number of communities
Mixed piped supply
Overlapping service delivery systems
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Co
st p
er
pe
rso
n U
S$ (
20
10
)
% o
f p
op
ula
tio
n
Mean capital expenditure per climatic zone of Andhra Pradesh compared with service levels
No Service Sub-Standard Basic Intermediate Cost per person
Low levels of service can be costly
Source: WASHCost team India, 2011
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
More complex systems do not necessarily provide better levels of service (even with higher post-construction expenditure)
4.0
3.3
3.3
2.7
5.9
4.4
3.5
Andhra Pradesh Burkina Faso Ghana Mozambique
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
% o
f u
sers
wit
h a
bas
ic s
erv
ice
leve
l
Mechanised Borehole Single Village Scheme Multi Village Scheme
Mixed Piped Supply Borehole and Handpump
Size of bubble denotes expenditure per user (US$2010)
Source: WASHCost Burkina, Ghana, Mozambique and India teams, 2011
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
Andhra - HH Exp.
Andhra - Gov't Exp.
Burkina Faso Ghana Mozambique
CapEx (current costs)
290 1820 12507 8922 8660
CapEx (PPP) 706 4267 29328 11383 19905
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000 U
S$ (
20
10
)
Capital costs of boreholes with hand pump systems
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
Implications for the sector
1. From delivering technology to deliver services – what can be
done to speed up change in mind-set?
2. Expenditure on direct support and capital maintenance are
not happening – how can the sector finance this
expenditure?
3. Who’s accountable for sustainability?
For delivering change, understanding costs necessary but not
sufficient
Uptake: examples of use and what’s in it for you
Water and Sanitation Services That Last
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
Many organisations and governments already using components of the life-cycle costs approach
Source: 2011 WASHCost annual report
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
Replication of components of LCCA by type of organisation (Jan 2012)
1
1
1
4
3
3
7
7
1
3
2
2
3
8
9
0 5 10 15 20
Network
Project
Foundation
Training inst.
Academic
United Nations family
Development Bank
Government
NGO
Using components of LCCA Planning to use components of LCCA
Source: 2011 WASHCost annual report
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
Example from Ghana (Government) - Cost components and service level norms within
District Monitoring and Evaluation System (DiMES) going to become a national monitoring system.
- Working groups on how to finance capital
maintenance and direct support
Source: WASHCost team Ghana, 2012
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
NGO Fontes Foundation in Uganda
Costs by categories for their Katunguru water project 2004-2010 in 2010$US
Source: Koestler et. al, 2010
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
What early adopters say…
1. Non-functionality is high. How can I increase functionality with a better understanding of costs?
2. There are a lot of investments on infrastructures, but resulting services are low. Can we get more value for money?
3. The donor says is too expensive. Can I show that my programme is cost effective?
4. I want to monitor sustainability. What are the best indicators?
Water and Sanitation Services That Last May 2012
What early adopter say…
5. My organisation uses different approaches, I want to see which one is more cost-efficient.
6. As district government I need to ensure the maintenance of existing infrastructure. How can I calculate who will pay how much for what?
8. As local government I need to plan, budget and monitor WASH services
9. ?
The end
Thank you
Top Related