APPENDIX A
List of Non-water specific and water-specific
financial and Technical Assistance initiatives established over
last 10 years in support of private sector involvement in infrastructure
services, including water and sanitation.[119]
|
| Financial initiatives | Acronym
| Nature | Source
| Geographical focus |
Key outputs/instruments |
|
| Financial Sector Reform Strengthening | FIRST
| TA grant | Donors, UK
| Global | TA support for reform of financial sectors.
|
| Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Faciliy
| PPIAF | TA grant
| Donors, UK, Japan, WB |
Global | TA to support private sector participation in infrastructure sectors
|
| Environmental Action Programme Task Force |
EAP | Task Force
| Gov'ts OECD | CEE & NIS
| Identified urban water sector reform in NIS as one of key priorities.
|
| Project Preparation Commitee | PPC
| IFI coordination | IFIs, hosted by EBRD
| CEE & NIS | Networking mechanism to coordinate assistance to CEE & NIS
|
| Joint Environmental Programme | JEP
| Financing vehicle for TA |
Multilateral donors (WB/EC) |
NIS & Mongolia | Mechanism for funding feasibility and preparation studies for select investment projects
|
| Private Infrastructure Donor Group | PIDG
| Project financing | Donors, Sweden, Neth, UK, Switzerland
| Global | Aims to mobilise private investment and controls a Trust, based in Mauritius that can support initiatives such as EAIF and others under preparation
|
| Infrastructure Development Company (Planned)
| DevCo | Project Preparation
| UK-led, Multi-donors | Global
| Creation and structuring of infrastructure opportunities and presentation of these to the private sector through a competitive and transparent process
|
| Development Guarantee Company (Planned) |
GuarantCo | Guarantees
| UK-led, Multi-donors | Global
| Partial risk guarantees for local currency bonds issued by municipalities and utilities for infrastructure work
|
| Emerging Africa Infrastructure Fund | EAIF
| Long-term loans | Multi-donors, UK, Sweden, Netherlands, banks
| Africa | Long-term lending to infrastructure companies, including Water Supply and Sanitation for the poorest countries, focusing on Africa. Coordinated approach between donor and banks, including commercial and development banks.
|
| Public Private Partnerships for the Urban Environment
| PPPUE | Grants
| UNDP and donors, UK, Switzerland, New Zealand
| Global | Partnership grants for projects and activities establishing adequate policy, legal and institutional frameworks for PPP at local level, particularly at the urban level
|
| Community-led Infrastructure Financing Facility
| CLIFF | Project financing
| UK and NGOs | India
| Loans/credit guarantees to community-led slum upgrading initiatives
|
| EU Water Fund | EUWF
| Sector specific finance |
EU member states, EC | EC, ACP
| Proposed to provide co-financing and capacity building
|
| African Water Facility | AWF
| Investment Support |
| Africa | |
| Building Partnerships for Development in Water and Sanitation
| BPD | Tri-sector Partnerships, research
| Donors, UK, Netherlands, Switzerland
| Global | Focuses on exploring the merits of tri-sector partnerships for water and sanitation (government, private sector, community)
|
|
SANITATION
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 DFID deserves credit for leading the international
community in 2002 in securing a firm target for sanitation provision
in line with the Millennium Development Goals, at the Johannesburg
World Summit on Sustainable Development.
1.2 Disaggregated data on DFID's spending on sanitation
is not easily accessible. Nor has the department published a specific
strategy to guide its interventions. The Target Strategy[120]
states a commitment to give "high priority to sanitation,
hygiene promotion and environmental health", and proposes
a two-pronged approach. At policy level, the stated focus is on
creating demand for improved sanitation through hygiene promotion
and social marketing. At a programme level, DFID has made a commitment
to "integrate hygiene promotion in all appropriate interventions
and to support household-centred approaches".
1.3 The latest WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme
(JMP) report[121] reveals
that 2.6 billion people, more than 40% of the world's population
do not have access to basic sanitation. The world is not on track
to meet the Millennium Development Goal target for sanitation.
Sub-Saharan Africa causes particular concern. Between 1990 and
2004, the number of people without access to sanitation actually
increased by 30%. If current trends continue, by 2015, Sub-Saharan
Africa will end up with 91 million more un-served than in 2004.
This is one of the few MDG targets where the trend is regressive.
1.4 The un-served are obliged to defecate in the open
or in unsanitary conditions, exposing them to the risk of serious
illness, and for women, the risk of sexual abuse. Diarrhoeal diseases
are the single biggest killer of children under five in poor countries.
Providing basic sanitation would save lives. It would also reduce
the burden of disease, boost attendance at school and increase
economic productivity. The WHO has estimated that $84 billion
worth of benefits are being lost annually in the developing world
because of failure to meet the MDG targets.[122]
Universal coverage in sanitation is as vital as it is for water.
2. INADEQUATE PRIORITISATION
2.1 Governments in developing countries have failed to
give adequate attention to sanitation in national development
plans. Sanitation is often considered to be a household responsibility
and outside the public domain. Very few countries in Africa have
developed National Sanitation Policies and because sanitation
is not featured in development plans, this has not been considered
for funding by governments or by donor agencies. WaterAid research
in 14 countries found that only one country had a dedicated budget[123].
Instead most funding is lumped together with allocations for water,
which is then spent mainly on water supply projects.
2.2 Most efforts to finance the sector are also frustrated
by lack of coordination within the sector. Frequently responsibility
for sanitation is spread across a number of government ministries.
In Madagascar, for example, sanitation is the primary responsibility
of the Ministry of Health, with the Ministry of Town and Country
Planning, the Ministry of Industry and Handicrafts and the Ministry
of the Environment also taking some responsibility. This piecemeal
approach to the sector leads to duplication and confusion and
makes it difficult to access reliable data, essential to the monitoring
of progress. DFID could give support to the establishment of sector
coordination mechanisms that bring together a range of stakeholders
to contribute to policy design and planning investments, and reviewing
progress.
2.3 Donors do not prioritise sanitation within their
aid programmes either. The JMP has found that donor spending on
sanitation is as little as one-eighth of spending on water while
the Global Water Partnership estimated in 2000 that only $1 billion
was being spent on sanitation compared with $13 billion on water.[124]
2.4 DFID has supported the recent South Asian Conference
on Sanitation (SACOSAN) in Pakistan. This is a regional, ministerial
level conference with participation of governments, donors and
civil society. The first SACOSAN was held in Bangladesh in 2003.
These conferences appear to be raising the political profile of
sanitation and are creating a healthy sense of competition between
countries as well as a supportive environment for learning and
sharing experiences. DFID should support the continuation and
deepening (through the inter country working group on SACOSAN)
of this process and its expansion into East Asia. Similarly, DFID
should look to supporting and strengthening the AFRICASAN initiative
on generating high-level political support for sanitation in Africa.
3. ENCOURAGING AND
SUPPORTING DEMAND
FOR SANITATION
3.1 Demand for sanitation services is generally lower
than for water. This is because people do not associate improved
sanitation with improved health. In some cases, when people explain
their desire for improved sanitation, health concerns rank lower
than privacy, dignity, status and safety. Hygiene education is
essential to the creation of sanitation awareness and action.
Yet this activity receives little serious attention or funding.
3.2 In Bangladesh, WaterAid and partners have developed
a successful approach to rural sanitation, which seeks to recognise
the skills, abilities and knowledge of local communities. In Asia,
experience of the Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) approach—which
seeks to stimulate community action and local government support
for an end to open defecation—has been promising. Initial
attempts to replicate CLTS in an African context are also showing
promise. Government and donor funding can be well used to set
up incentives for stimulating community action to achieve open
defecation free and total sanitation status. In some cases, DFID
has financed these experiments. DFID is currently reviewing these
experiences. It should consider mainstreaming this approach in
its programme design and monitoring and evaluation systems.
4. INEQUITABLE COVERAGE
4.1 Sanitation services often fail to reach the poorest
and most vulnerable people, in particular women, children and
disabled people. In Nepal, the National Living Standard Survey,
2004 reported that the richest quintiles are eight times more
likely to have improved sanitation (79% versus 10%) than poor.
Expanding services to those living in urban slums or in remote
rural areas can be costly and offers low or no returns.
4.2 Rural communities are less likely to have access
to sanitation than urban areas. The JMP notes that there are three
rural dwellers unserved for every urban dweller unserved. However,
rapid urbanisation and population growth mean that more and more
people are living in informal settlements with few opportunities
to build toilets or connect to sewerage networks, and few incentives
for tenants, who make up the majority of the urban poor—to
invest in on-site latrines.
4.3 Different approaches are needed for urban and rural
sanitation. The challenge for urban areas is arguably more complex.
In urban areas, sanitation has reached crisis point in urban slums
and illegal settlements—areas where most residents do not
have property rights to their dwellings and where space (eg, for
building latrine and bathing blocks) are at a premium. Lack of
sewerage connectivity affects as high as 72% of the Indian urban
population.[125] Where
sanitation infrastructure exists, the poor and vulnerable are
rarely connected. And yet, most donors are not interested in investment
in urban sanitation especially to poor slum and squatter settlements.
In Nepal, squatters are not given access to sanitation because
they do not have legal land ownership. Donors and civil society
are reluctant to invest if squatters are likely to be evicted
from their temporary holdings. Where there has been a donor response,
it has been in the form of large and unsustainable infrastructure
projects financed by loans from bilateral agencies.
4.4 Another obstacle to reaching the poorest people is
cost recovery principles in urban centres. Research by the Nepal
NGO Forum[126] found
that service providers were ignoring the poorest people when providing
water and sanitation services because these people would not be
able to afford the cost of loan repayment and on-lending loan
interest.
4.5 In some cases, subsidy approaches have failed to
actually reach the poor. In India, the Government's Total Sanitation
Campaign provides subsidised latrines to poor households. Yet
due to limited participation of communities and lack of information
about the campaign in remote villages, many poor and vulnerable
households have been overlooked[127].
In reality it has been the rich rather than poor people who have
capitalized on and benefited from the subsidies that have been
made available. In Nepal, there has been a mix of experiences
and programmes, ranging from the subsidy approach to targeted
subsidy and graded subsidy, and recently no subsidy. A combination
of different approaches needs to be explored for reaching the
poorest, vulnerable and excluded communities.
5. WOMEN AND
SANITATION
5.1 Women are deeply affected by the lack of adequate
sanitation facilities. In many cultural settings, it is not acceptable
for women to defecate in the open air. As a result, they are often
forced to control their bodies until darkness affords them some
privacy. This, however, exposes them to risks of sexual attacks,
and in the rural areas, to animal attacks as well. For many girls
menstruation means interruptions to their attendance at school
where school does not have sanitation facilities. Any improvement
in the appalling statistics regarding women's access to sanitation
will depend on bringing women into the centre of planning and
decision-making. All sanitation programmes need to take account
of menstrual hygiene. The importance of provision of adequate
sanitation, especially for grils at schools can not be over-stated.
5.2 Women are responsible for family health and can be
a driver of change. Yet their voice is often un-heard or suppressed
when household, community and national decisions are made about
investment in infrastructure. Women's access and participation
in decision making is seriously constrained by cultural norms
and institutional barriers. The latter can be addressed in part
by a concerted attempt to mainstream gender perspectives in government
policy documents and legislation and in donor policies towards
the sector.
6. INTEGRATING SANITATION
INTO HEALTH
AND EDUCATION
PROGRAMMES
6.1 The success of education and health programmes is
frequently undermined by lack of investment in water and sanitation.
Hygiene, sanitation, and water in schools can contribute to improved
child health, welfare, higher attendance of girl children and
improved learning capacity. In India, cross-sectoral working has
also provided an opportunity to strengthen essential institutional
partnerships and synergies between education and child welfare
authorities.
6.2 WaterAid research shows that a school sanitation
project in Bangladesh has increased the enrolment of girls by
11% per year since it began in 1990. Separate budgets for the
construction of facilities for girls in schools can ensure that
gender sensitive sanitation becomes a reality.
6.3 Hygiene education in schools can be a catalyst for
the kind of awareness and behaviour change that the sector so
urgently requires. At the same time, it is essential to think
more broadly than the education programme. Providing hygiene education
without providing safe water and good sanitation facilities in
the schools' catchment communities is unproductive.
7. SUSTAINABILITY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY OF
SANITATION SERVICES
7.1 Evidence shows that latrines constructed with improper
awareness and community mobilization has led to high drop out
rate in the use of sanitation facilities[128].
Inappropriate technical design, which communities cannot afford
to operate and maintain is the main reason cited for discontinued
use. DFID needs to increase its support for community-based initiatives
that are context specific and appropriate for users.
7.2 Service providers are not held to account for non-sustainability.
Service providers consider their responsibility to be limited
to the construction of latrines. Very few projects are monitored
or reviewed at regular intervals. WaterAid India has found public
hearings are an effective form of reviewing progress of rural
sanitation and water projects and programmes and ensuring that
financing and planning is transparent and participatory. There
is a need to support projects which improve community knowledge
of rights, entitlements and responsibilities under government
water and sanitation programmes.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DFID
— Ensure that the new DFID Target Strategy paper
gives adequate prominence to sanitation and sets out a separate
funding strategy for this sector.
— Invest resources in raising the political profile
of sanitation and on stimulating research and thinking within
DFID and internationally on how best to support the sanitation
and hygiene education provision, eg, through health and education
programmes.
— Encourage recipient governments to prioritise
sanitation in national development strategies, ensure sufficient
resources are allocated and that committed funds are fully disbursed.
— Support recipient governments to develop coordinated
plans for investment, implementation and monitoring. This should
be done in a participatory manner with a view to ensuring that
national sanitation programmes are actually reaching the poorest.
— Ensure programme strategies and plans give sufficient
consideration to the needs and interests of women.
— Strengthen the links between sanitation and interventions
in the health and education sectors both at policy and programme
level.
119
Environmental Resources Management. The European Union Water
Initiative: Final Report of the Financial Component (2003). Back
120
DFID, Addressing the Water Crisis: healthier and more productive
lives for people (2001) Back
121
WHO/UNICEF, Joint Monitoring Report for Water Supply and Sanitation.
Meeting the MDG Drinking Water and Sanitation Target, The Urban
and Rural challenge of the Decade. (2006). Back
122
WHO, Evaluation of the Costs and Benefits of Water and Sanitation
Improvements at the Global Level (2004) http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/wsh0404/en/ Back
123
WaterAid, Getting to Boiling Point, Turning up the heat on water
and sanitation (2005), Back
124
Global Water Partnership (2000), Towards Water Security: A Framework
for Action Back
125
Government of India (1997), Mid term review of 9th Plan. Back
126
NGO Forum case study of a small town (2005). Back
127
WaterAid, Total Sanitation in South Asia : the challenges ahead
(2006) Back
128
World Development Report, Making services work for poor people
(2004) Back
|
