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
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
LOUIS BOORSTINDeputy Director, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
2
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
Fostering Sustainability inWater, Sanitation &
Hygiene
January 2011
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
What we do –Focus on sanitation
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
Challenge #1:2.5 billion people
Challenge #2:2.1 billion people
Two fundamental sanitation challenges
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
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
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
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.
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
How we do it
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
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
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
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
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
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
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
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
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
Fostering sustainability
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
• 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
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
• 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
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
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
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
Thank You!
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
Inter-American Development Bank
JORGE DUCCISenior Water and Sanitation Economist
18
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
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
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 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”
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
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
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABILITY OF RURAL W&S SYSTEMS
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
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABILITY OF RURAL W&S SYSTEMS
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
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABILITY OF RURAL W&S SYSTEMS
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
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABILITY OF RURAL W&S SYSTEMS
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
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABILITY OF RURAL W&S SYSTEMS
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)?
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABILITY OF RURAL W&S SYSTEMS
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
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABILITY OF RURAL W&S SYSTEMS
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!)
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
Manager
Water and Sanitation Program
JAE SO
30
WASH Sustainability Forum – January 14, 2011
JOHN BORRAZZO
Chief, Maternal and Child Health Division
USAID
31