Financing sustainable sanitation projects

Presentation at the EC-EIB seminar, 5/07/10

Sophie Trémolet (www.tremolet.com)

:

Presentation structure

2

Why is financing sustainable sanitation difficult? What is sanitation? Identifying critical financing challenges

What could be done differently to enhance the sustainability of sanitation projects?

Recap from KfW meeting on sanitation financing (Oct. 2009) Identifying potential ways of increasing repayable financing,

lowering its cost and improving its reach

What do we need to know in order to improve sanitation financing?

The sanitation “value chain”

Demand creation

Collection

Transport

Treatment

Disposal / Re-use

Types of services Main actors

• Households (investors)• Masons • Utilities

• Local governments• CBOs, NGOs

Promote sanitation , create demand, community organisation

• Pit-latrine emptiers (manual emptying, trucks, etc) • Utilities (sewers)

•Local governments • Utilities • SSIPs

Value chain

•Local governments • Local farmers, etc..

On-site with

reuse

On-site w/o reuse

Sewer connections

Decentralised treatment facilities

Partial on-site

treatment

Treatment Plants

Re-use (energy,

agriculture)

Main sanitation financing challenges

4

Overall, insufficient financing for the sector: under-

prioritised, taboo element Fragmented financing channels Difficult to charge for an “immaterial” service, with

low or unexpressed demand Lack of clarity on what funds should be used for Evidence of “wasted” hardware subsidies Mis-allocation of funds across the value chain: “too

much” for wastewater treatment rather than basic sanitation On-site sanitation:

Households are supposed to be main investors in sanitation but get limited support

Insufficient focus on environmental impacts of poor

sanitation and associated economic losses

Example of “mis-allocation”: DES

5

Study for WaterAid on effectiveness of public finance for sanitation in Dar es Salam (Tanzania)

80% of population have latrines, most unimproved Most public funding going to sewerage (70%) and wastewater

treatment (30%) Cost of on-site sanitation is much higher than connecting to

sewers (USD 511 vs 188): weighs disproportionately on the poor (112% of yearly income)

Inadequate systems for dealing with the residual sludge: need to invest in desludging services (private), transfer stations and decentralised treatment facilities

Presentation structure

6

Why is financing sustainable sanitation difficult? What is sanitation? Identifying critical financing challenges

What could be done differently to enhance the sustainability of sanitation projects?

Recap from KfW meeting on sanitation financing (Oct. 2009) Identifying potential ways of increasing repayable financing,

lowering its cost and improving its reach

What do we need to know in order to improve sanitation financing?

The sanitation financing “equation”

COSTS

Maintenanceand

operatingcosts

Capitalcosts

LOWER COSTTECHNOLOGY

COSTS

Maintenanceand

operatingcosts

Capitalcosts

REPAYABLE FINANCING

SOURCE OFFUNDS

Householdrecurrentpayments

Householdcapital

investment

FUNDING GAP

SOURCE OFFUNDS

HouseholdRecurrentpayments

Householdcapital

investment

FUNDING GAP

PUBLICSUBSIDIES

Sources of funding:Government own resourcesDevelopment Bank concessionary fundingCommercial financing, microfinance

e.g.: Financing on-site sanitation

8

October 2009 seminar on Financing Sanitation Stated objective: formulate recommendations for development

banks (KfW, EIB, AFD, JICA were there) What the banks took away

Consider lower cost technologies Invest more in regional and nation-wide promotion campaigns Focus on changing behaviours Consider the entire sanitation value chain - from a financing

point of view, there is a need to unbundle along the value chain o Who benefits o Who should payo Where are revenue streams and how to finance

Use a broad mix of financing instruments and blend devt bank financing with other types (including grant financing)

Examine in more detail the case for micro-finance o Loans to entrepreneurs (90% SSIPs)o Rely on local commercial banks, increase use of guarantees

KfW seminar: take-home messages

9

Using lower cost technologies could be a key way to reduce the funding gap:

Recent AICD estimates: would reduce costs of meeting MDGs in SSA by 30%, halving the funding gap in poorer countries, eliminating it in richer ones (high coverage)

Wide differences in costs depending on standards / local factors (see WSP report on financing hh sanitation): implications for effectiveness of public spending (leverage)

Multiple barriers to reducing costs: rigidities in choice of technologies based on existing standards, type of training received, prestige, political reasons, etc.

Lower cost technology

Cost of on-site sanitation: alternative standards

10

Different public financing effectiveness

11

12

Mobilising repayable financing

Constraints Potential solutions

Affordability constraints Micro-finance, Output-based aid, blending grants and loans

Limited availability of funds for domestic operators and SSWSPs

Micro-finance, Output-based aid and innovative contracts

Risk profile and difficulties in managing certain risks (e.g. political risk, foreign exchange risk)

Guarantees, insurance, devaluation backstopping facility Local-currency financing, revenue agreements

Lack of funds at decentralised level Municipal bonds, pooled funds, revolving funds, bond banks Instruments to increase sub-sovereign lending

Short tenor of available financing Guarantees and equity contributions

Under-capitalized balance sheets Raising equity to strengthen the balance sheet, convertible loans,

debt-equity swaps

Lack of understanding by external lenders and investors

Blending of public and private finance, credit ratings

Lack of “bankable” projects Project preparation facilities

Evaluating the potential for OBA in sanitation

What is OBA?• OBA: Performance-based grants to help cover the gap between what the

user can reasonably afford and the cost of the service to the provider• OBA “subsidies” (or “payments” to service providers) channeled most often

as supply-side subsidies after pre-identified outputs have been delivered

• OBA part of a broader framework of Results-Based Financing – Focusing on concrete, sustainable results, using performance information

to improve decision-making– Other results based mechanisms to improve access to basic services (e.g.

CCT, COD, OBA)

Limited use of OBA for sanitation

14

Using performance-based subsidy schemes (OBA) in sanitation A number of sanitation programs are performance-based without being “labelled” OBA

TSC campaign in India: subsidies to BPL HH after village becomes ODF PLM in Mozambique: payments to workshops per slab sold / latrine built PRODES in Brazil: linking payment to volume of wastewater treated

GPOBA has had limited success with sanitation projects OBA project in Senegal built on existing subsidy scheme, slow to start OBA in Morocco: some success – GPOBA involved

Key questions (recent study for GPOBA/WSP)How could OBA-type subsidies be used for sanitation? At which step of the value chain can OBA financing be provided and should it be packaged with other services? (e.g. water, solid waste)What other components (e.g. support services to SSIPs, micro-finance, etc) may be required to improve chances of success of OBA schemes?

Potential OBA project types

15

PRODES (Brazil): OBA for WWT

16

In 1999: <½ sewage volume collected, <1/3 collected volume treated ANA (National Water Agency) created in 1997, initiated PRODES program with objective to create incentives to invest in WWT

Build new plants Enlarge/improve existing ones (higher-end treatment, new units)

History of wasted investment in WWTs: provide subsidies only for investments that works

OBA/PRODES : deliver subsidies based on reaching performance standards (e.g. payment per volume of treated sewage) rather than up-front based on works budget

Incentive to use cheaper and more cost-effective options Incentive to maintain good operational performance Funds transferred to escrow account: not used if utility not

performingResults

2001-2009: 42 projects, reduced pollution for 6 million people ANA invested € 60 mn, utilities (public & private) € 184 mn

Presentation structure

17

Why is financing sustainable sanitation difficult? What is sanitation? Identifying critical financing challenges

What could be done differently to enhance the sustainability of sanitation projects?

Recap from KfW meeting on sanitation financing (Oct. 2009) Identifying potential ways of increasing repayable financing,

lowering its cost and improving its reach

What do we need to know in order to improve sanitation financing?

What do we need to know?

18

Understanding sanitation costs Software costs: including all the costs, evaluating the

comparative effectiveness of software support Estimating lifecycle costs to guide appropriate investment

(incorporating opex and maintenance costs) Improve and redesign M&E frameworks so as to keep track of

critical financing information

Sources of financing Assess drivers and constraints for investment at household level Explore the potential for using “innovative” financing

mechanisms, such as micro-finance, OBA and CCTs Identify how public finance can be better targeted Leverage other financing sources (“social investors”,

remittances) Evaluate potential for “payments for environmental services”

What do we need to know (continued)?

19

Understanding the potential for microfinance Micro-finance schemes have potential to leverage substantial private (hh) investments BUT limited and mixed experiences in sanitation (e.g. revolving fund in Vietnam) Need to understand why and how they can work to mobilize financing for MDGs with limited public funds: for households and for small-scale entrepreneurs

Allocating financing at the right “level” based on benefits Where coverage is low, channeling financing to the utility may miss a large component of the “sanitation market”: financing households and small-scale entrepreneurs also to be considered Where coverage is high, need to better understand the potential benefits from increasing treatment levels (at the extreme, evidence of some declining returns to further tightening standards)