solutions, trends, & best practices: the donor perspective

WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011

Solutions, Trends, & Best Practices:

The Donor PerspectiveObjective

Donors share perspective on and commitment to

sustainable programming.

1

Louis Boorstin, Bill and Melinda Gates FoundationJorge Ducci, Inter-American Development Bank (IADB)Jae So, Water & Sanitation ProgramJohn Borrazzo, USAID


LOUIS BOORSTINDeputy Director, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

2

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation


Fostering Sustainability inWater, Sanitation &

Hygiene

January 2011


What we do –Focus on sanitation


Challenge #1:2.5 billion people

Challenge #2:2.1 billion people

Two fundamental sanitation challenges


We focus on these two fundamental sanitation challenges:1. Expanding and improving sanitation without central sewers, because this is by far the

most common type of sanitation service used by the poor2. Making sanitation services safe and sustainable by addressing the failure to

effectively transport, treat and reuse waste captured in on-site facilities

We see opportunities to improve sanitation service delivery along the entire “sanitation value chain”:

Focus on sustainable sanitation without central sewers


Grant-making initiatives

1. Ending Open DefecationWe are supporting efforts to stimulate demand for improved sanitation within communities; encourage local entrepreneurs to offer a range of affordable, desirable products; strengthen the policy and regulatory environment; build the capacity of local government; and, use effective monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.

2. Investing in Sanitation Tools and TechnologiesWe are funding the development of new tools and technologies, such as latrine design, pit emptying, sludge treatment and disposal or reuse of waste. We aim to develop scalable business models and technologies across the sanitation value chain.

3. Policy and Advocacy We are investing in advocacy to disseminate successful approaches to sanitation and encourage changes in policy and funding priorities necessary to accelerate access to sustainable sanitation.

Although we are now focusing on sanitation, we will continue to support our grantees working in water and hygiene. Going forward,

we will provide limited new funding to effective, sustainable approaches to clean water and safe hygiene with a high potential for

scale-up, primarily following up on existing grants.


How we do it


GranteesBMGF

Beneficiaries

Our role – how we add value to the WS&H sector … which should ultimately help our beneficiaries

What works to help beneficiaries

WS&H Sector

How we do it


We add value by:Focusing on a limited area – sanitation for the poorInsisting that interventions meet three core criteria:(1) Impact (2) Sustainability (3) ScalabilityUsing an evidence-based approachSeeking out replicable, cross-cutting interventionsHelping our grantees to learn, not just to doTaking risks to drive innovationWorking with all sectors – public, private, NGO

How we add value to the sector

GranteesBMGF

Beneficiaries WS&H Sector


1. Impact on the health, economic and social well being of the poor Not just counting new taps and toilets

2. Sustainable in terms of long-term operations and funding ‘Service delivery’ instead of ‘access’

3. Scalable to reach tens to hundreds of millions of people But not at the expense of sustainability and impact

Relentless drive to achieve three core criteria


Our grantees get the best results for beneficiaries when they:Implement approaches that leverage local systems

More likely to be sustainable if work effectively with local stakeholdersTake an economic, not social, perspective to solving the problem

Focus on incentives and motivations that sustain changes over long run Combine three capacities:1. Deep understanding of users’ behavior2. Reflective approach that evaluates what works and what doesn’t3. Flexibility to respond with new models and technologies Remember the three criteria: impact, sustainability and scalability

How our grantees help beneficiaries

GranteesBMGF

Beneficiaries WS&H Sector


Fostering sustainability


• Basic conflict between donors and implementers:Counting beneficiaries vs. delivering sustainable services So, how can BMGF as a donor contribute to improving

sustainability … rather than making it worse?!

• Sustainability involves local, permanent institutions – typically government, but also private sector and civil society Implementing organizations need to work within that

system if they want to support durable solutions

Key takeaways from the October 12 workshop


• As one of our 3 core criteria, sustainability underpins all of our WS&H investments From R&D to working at scale Across all stages of the sanitation value chain

• Investments in research to build an evidence base on what works and what doesn’t Impact evaluation to see if people’s lives are improving Also evidence on effectiveness: what are the best ways to get

initial adoption, sustained adoption, and scalability

• Investments to help governments and local stakeholders to improve sustainability through better decision-making

• Life-cycle costing through WASHCost• Sustainable service delivery through Triple S

BMGF investments to improve WS&H sustainability


Focus on ‘contribution’ not ‘attribution’

Our grantees are part of a larger system – map out where each implementer is contributing

Don’t expect grantees to say “we installed and maintained X toilets” but rather “we contributed to sustainable sanitation service delivery for X households”

Seeking optimal combination of effectiveness, sustainability and scale

Different approaches offer different benefits Can we achieve impact, scale and sustainability all together?• Need to use the right metrics

Not just toilets installed … but actual usage over time … and sustainable transport, treatment and reuse if needed

Metrics should become accountability mechanisms for users, not donors

Continue to focus on learning, not just implementation, as that’s how we move forward

Urgency of ‘solving the problem’ overshadows need to learn

Emerging issues on how BMGF fosters sustainability


Thank You!


Inter-American Development Bank

JORGE DUCCISenior Water and Sanitation Economist

18


SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES FOR RURAL WATER AND SANITATION PROJECTS IN LATIN AMERICA

Presentation in WASH Sustainability Forum 2011

Jorge Ducci

Lead Economist

Water and Sanitation Division

Interamerican Development Bank

Washington D.C., January 14th, 2011


IDB POLICY

High issue in the policy directives

The first objective of the current public

utilities policy (OP-708 – Jan 1997)

is to: “Ensure Long-term Sustainability of the Services”

and that “Ensuring long-term sustainability of the services

is contingent on the availability of resources to fund the

operation, maintenance and investments that are required

to improve and expand the services to existing and future

consumers”


APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABILITY OF RURAL W&S SYSTEMS

60’s and 70’s Rural Sector entity, centralized

at (say) Ministry of Public Health

– Very weak institution (politically and otherwise)

– Without sufficient budget

– Lack of technical expertise

– Focused mainly (only?) on investments

– Very insufficient funds for O&M

– Large entities with excess of workforce

Policies were oriented to strengthen these entities



80’s some significant sector reforms, mainly:

– Decentralization (national to regional / local)

– Increased role of communities as basic service

providers

– Public entity would focus on investments (fully

subsidized) and “train” communities to operate and

maintain the systems

– Financing O&M would come from tariffs paid by

communities and a fund created at each community

for major repairs



90’s major sector reforms towards privatization

of urban services

In some countries rural areas were neglected

(ministerial level entities disappeared;

municipalities were responsible)

In general, community involvement was

strengthened, much additional work with social

assistants, focused on project design,

construction, training for O&M, strengthen self-

financing of O&M



In the last decade:

Many countries without adequate institutions

for sector policies, financing and oversight;

Most countries rely on community involvement,

but relatively weak support post-construction

Very few with somewhat strong specific sector

entities in charge, or well defined policies

Lack of political priority



Current prevailing view:

• Community participation necessary but not

sufficient.

• No matter how significant is the previous

empowerment process a large number of

systems will fail over time (say 40% in 10 years?)

• Need to document system’s situation, regarding

quantity of service and mainly potability of

water



Current prevailing view: improve governance:

Other elements need to be put in place

- someone needs to be placed in charge of

policy, financing, subsidies, and sector overview

- someone in charge of monitoring and support

of communities post-construction

but this is “paternalistic”? Shouldn’t they be left alone

(pervasive incentives)?



Modern options for support:

• Chile: The Rural W&S Unit in Ministry of Public Works

hires (private) urban utilities to provide monitoring

and technical support services to rural systems.

- Expensive, but 100% in working condition

• Paraguay: some private concessions of rural

systems; association of communities for hiring of

services

• Haiti: pilot service contracts by communities



Elements for modern option:

- get political priority for rural W&S

- adequate governance (focus of donors)

- maintain strong community involvement

- support post-construction through local

specialized companies (economies of scale)

- significantly funded through subsidies (not a bad

policy!)


Manager

Water and Sanitation Program

JAE SO

30


JOHN BORRAZZO

Chief, Maternal and Child Health Division

USAID

31

solutions, trends, & best practices: the donor perspective

Documents