Leading With Sustainability Webinar - December 15, 2011

1,142 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,142
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
659
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The institutional arrangements for support depend, in the first place, on the relationship between the service authority and service provider. If the service provision arrangement is fully internal, i.e. the service is provided by a municipal department or municipal utility company, there is no clear direct support mechanism and, probably, no need for it. However, in such cases, only indirect support may be needed, for example when a utility hires an external consultant. These costs are normally included in the operational expenditure of the utility and may be passed on to the client. The other extreme is when the service provision is fully externalised, i.e. the authority has fully delegated the service provision to an independent service provider, which can be a private utility or operator, a mixed company or a CBO. 2. Most of the cases found refer to support for community-based management, which is the most common service delivery model in rural areas. The case from Mali contains support for private operators and the one from South Africa represents a joint management model.
  • SISAR is an organisational model for managing rural water and sanitation in the rural areas of three states in North–East Brazil (Bahia, Ceará and Piauí It started in 1996 as associations of community-based service providers, with a dedicated operational unit which provides technical and administrative support to its individual member communities. In the State of Ceará, eight SISARs cover between 25 and 112 systems each, representing between 15,000 and 72,000 users. The initial costs of establishing the structure of SISAR has been co-financed between the State, through CAGECE, KfW (German Development Bank) and the World Bank. The running costs of the model are covered by user tariffs. The costs of direct support are difficult to single out, as a significant cost category (personnel costs) is both for direct support and operation and maintenance. specific costs of each SISAR differ. Support costs are significant in relative terms, representing around 25% of the total water costs to rural users. US$ 3.63 / person/ 2010 (combining both personnel and other expenses of SISAR
  • Leading With Sustainability Webinar - December 15, 2011

    1. 1. Leading with Sustainability: Laying the Groundwork for Lasting Services     Thursday, December 15, 2011
    2. 2. <ul><li>Leading With Sustainability </li></ul><ul><li>Laying The Groundwork For Lasting Services </li></ul><ul><li>The Donor Perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Braimah Apambire </li></ul>
    3. 3. Background <ul><li>The Foundation has granted approximately $85 million to the WASH sector </li></ul><ul><li>Provided water to over 2 million people </li></ul><ul><li>Target countries: Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mali, Niger, Ethiopia, Mexico and India </li></ul><ul><li>5-year strategy </li></ul>
    4. 4. Evaluating Potential Grantees and Partnerships <ul><li>Infrastructure on the ground </li></ul><ul><li>Work long-term </li></ul><ul><li>Ability to work with communities, government and key stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Capacity building, training </li></ul><ul><li>WASH+ including water-related livelihood activities for income that can be used for repair and maintenance </li></ul><ul><li>Site visits with potential partners </li></ul>
    5. 5. Evaluating Proposals <ul><li>General </li></ul><ul><li>Demand for project </li></ul><ul><li>Appropriate technologies </li></ul><ul><li>Staff </li></ul><ul><li>Budgets provide for M&E, capacity building </li></ul><ul><li>Proposal adequately demonstrates how the outputs and outcomes are likely to be sustained </li></ul><ul><li>Exit strategy is well planned, feasible, and unlikely to cause harm to beneficiaries </li></ul><ul><li>M&E and sustainability plans linked with country’s system </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborative links </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboration and networking among stakeholders—communities, government and local institutions—to ensure program sustainability. </li></ul><ul><li>Sector-wide dialogue on sustainability </li></ul><ul><li>Strengthen community capacity to manage and fully own the facilities. </li></ul><ul><li>Linkages to spare parts and technical support </li></ul>
    6. 6. Evaluating Proposals <ul><li>Financial Sustainability </li></ul><ul><li>Community </li></ul><ul><li>District level </li></ul><ul><li>Environmental Sustainability </li></ul><ul><li>Protection of services </li></ul><ul><li>Long-term sustainability of water resources – quantity and quality </li></ul>
    7. 7. New Projects <ul><li>Ensuring that grantees incorporate long-term monitoring and evaluation of programs using modern tools, life cycle costs, sharing data and lessons learned </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CREPA, Water For People and MWA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Triple-S </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WASHCost </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Foundation’s M&E plan </li></ul>
    8. 8. Partnering with Service Providers: the Urban Perspective Andy Narracott, WSUP www.wsup.com
    9. 9. Who are service providers? www.wsup.com Regulator Municipality Utility Regulator Ministry of Health Delegated Management Kiosk Pit Emptier
    10. 10. 1. Create Incentives www.wsup.com
    11. 11. 2. Present The Facts www.wsup.com Sanitation zones, critical areas, possible solutions
    12. 12. 3. Listen To Them www.wsup.com
    13. 13. Planning for service delivery - the rural perspective Webinar 15 th December 2011
    14. 14. Expectations and reality – a failure of planning?
    15. 15. Better understanding of life cycle costs
    16. 16. Planning for a rural water service <ul><li>Direct support </li></ul><ul><li>Support for service providers – community management committees, private operators, associations: </li></ul><ul><li>Monitoring and oversight </li></ul><ul><li>Technical advice </li></ul><ul><li>Administrative and organisational support </li></ul><ul><li>Conflict resolution </li></ul><ul><li>(re-) Training </li></ul><ul><li>Information and resources </li></ul>
    17. 17. Arrangements for providing direct support Arrangement for support agent Examples Direct support by local government Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mozambique and Uganda Central government or parastatal agencies <ul><li>In Honduras, the national utility SANAA runs a </li></ul><ul><li>programme of support whereby circuit riders, called Operation and Maintenance Technicians (TOMs), </li></ul><ul><li>In Chile, regional private utilities are contracted by the Central Ministry to provide direct support to rural service providers </li></ul>Association of Community -based Service providers The Sistema Integrado de Saneamento Rural (SISAR) in north-eastern Brazil is a combination of an association of community-based service providers with support from a state-level utility Local government subcontracting a specialised agency or Individuals <ul><li>In South Africa, municipalities can contract a Support Services Agency (SSA), which can be a private company or NGO . </li></ul><ul><li>In Uganda, individual entrepreneurs, particularly hand pump mechanics or area-based mechanics, provide support. </li></ul>NGOs The Asociación Salvadoreña de Servicios de Agua (ASSA) offers direct support to 170 communities in rural El Salvador.
    18. 18. Example: Integrated System for Rural Sanitation (SISAR), Brazil Source: A. Meleg (2011) Costs of BBA SISAR based in Quixada, Ceará, Brazil <ul><li>12 staff members: </li></ul><ul><li>3 technical staff, </li></ul><ul><li>7 administrative/ commercial </li></ul><ul><li>1 social science background </li></ul><ul><li>1 responsible for general services </li></ul>Financing: User tariff, based on metered connections and collection of bills Coverage: 25 and 112 systems each, representing between 15,000 and 72,000 users. Direct Support ~ US$3.60 <ul><li>Costs of direct support are significant – accounting for ~ 20 - 25% of all long-term expenditure </li></ul><ul><li>In (lower) middle income countries ~ US$2 – 3 person/year appears to be sufficient order of magnitude </li></ul><ul><li>< U$1 person/year appears too low to be effective </li></ul>
    19. 19. Planning for rural service delivery - implementers <ul><li>Who coordinates and provides long-term support to WASH service delivery? </li></ul><ul><li>Can we make linkages with (local) authorities so that the projects we deliver are supported? </li></ul><ul><li>How can we best prepare the communities we help with WASH projects to obtain long-term support? </li></ul><ul><li>Can we contribute to existing support mechanisms? </li></ul>
    20. 20. Planning for rural service delivery - funders <ul><li>Who coordinates and provides long-term support to WASH service delivery? </li></ul><ul><li>How is this currently financed and what are the gaps? </li></ul><ul><li>Is it possible for us to contribute to maintaining such support structures? </li></ul><ul><li>How can we work with our implementing partners to ensure that their interventions are supported in the long-term? </li></ul>
    21. 21. For further information: ‘ Arrangements and cost of providing support to rural water service providers’ http://www.waterservicesthatlast.org/Resources/Building-blocks/Post-construction-support ‘ Life cycle cost approach for water and sanitation services that last’ http://www.washcost.info/page/1310
    22. 22. Thank You! www.SustainableWASH.org

    ×