The document discusses a proposed study on life-cycle costs for water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services in Ghana. It outlines key findings from an inception mission, including a lack of focus on annual recurrent costs and capacity building needs. The proposed study would examine costs and service levels in selected districts. Challenges include limited data on long-term maintenance and a lack of coordination between implementing partners. Potential quick wins are institutional support for cost mapping and data collection in initial study districts.

1. Water Directorate, MWR
January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

2. Outline
 Introduction to LCCA
 Key findings of inception mission
 Proposed study district
 Activities and milestones
 Project management structure
January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

3. WASHCost project
January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

5. The cost of failure – 20 countries in
sub-Saharan Africa
Investment 36%
loss in
sub- Sierra Leone today??
Saharan -~40% of rural non-functional
Africa of at time of visit (point
sources)???
between
US$ 1.2 to
1.3 billion
over 20
years
Information Collated by Peter Harvey, UNICEF Zambia, May 2007

8. Life-cycle costs approach
The life-cycle costs is the cost of ensuring
adequate water, sanitation and hygiene
(WASH) services to a specific population in
a determined geographical area - not just
for a few years but indefinitely.’
The WASHCost methodology, Life-cycle cost
approach (LCCA) has two components:
- the cost of providing WASH services
- WASH service received by the users
January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

9. Disaggregated Life Cycle Costs
January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

10. Cost per technology
CapEx per capita - WPS US $ 40 and Piped scheme US$ 80
January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

11. WATER –CapEx piped schemes
January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

12. Direct Support cost modelling with DAs
January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

13. ExpDS per capita at district level
January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

14. Water service levels
Quantity Quality Accessibility Reliability
Service (lpcd) distance and crowding (mpcd)
level
High >= 60 Litres per Meets or exceeds Less than 10 minutes (Water Very reliable =
capita per day national norms available in the compound or HH) works all the time
based on regular
testing
Intermediat >= 40 Litres per
e capita per day Acceptable user Between 10 and 30 minutes. Reliable/secure =
Basic >= 20 Litres per perception and (Less than 500m AND <= works most of the
(normative) capita per day meets/exceeds normative population per time
national norms functioning water point)
based on
occasional testing
Sub- >=5 Litres per Negative user Between 30 and 60 minutes. Problematic
standard capita per day perception and/or (Between 500m and 1000 meters =Suffers
no testing AND/OR more than normative significant
population per functioning water breakdowns and
point) slow repairs
No service <5 Litres per Fails to meet More than 60min Unreliable/insecu
capita per day national norms (More than 1000m) re = completely
Source: Moriarty et al., 2010 broken down
January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

15. Costing sanitation service levels
Environmental
Reliability
Service Accessibility Use protection
(O&M)
levels (pollution and density)
Improved Each family dwelling has Facilities used Regular or routine Non problematic
service one or more toilets in by all members O&M (inc. pit environmental impact
the compound of HH emptying) disposal and re-use of
requiring minimal safe-by products
user effort
Basic Latrine with Facilities used Unreliable O&M Non problematic
service impermeable slab (hh or by some (inc. pit emptying) environmental impact
shared) at national norm members of HH and requiring high and safe disposal
distance from hh user effort
Limited Platform without
“service” (impermeable) slab No or No O&M (pit Significant
separated faeces from insufficient use emptying) taking environmental
users place and any pollution, increasing
No service No separation between user extremely dirty with increased
and faeces, e.g. open toilet population density
defecation
January 25, 2013 et al., 2011 (revised service levels)
Source: Potter KNUST/IRC team

16. Reliability and use are important
Environmental
Reliability
Service Accessibility Use protection
(O&M)
levels (pollution and density)
Improved Each family dwelling has Facilities used Regular or routine Non problematic
service one or more toilets in by all members O&M (inc. pit environmental impact
the compound of HH emptying) disposal and re-use of
requiring minimal safe-by products
user effort
Basic Latrine with Facilities used Unreliable O&M Non problematic
service impermeable slab (hh or by some (inc. pit emptying) environmental impact
shared) at national norm members of HH and requiring high and safe disposal
distance from hh user effort
Limited Platform without
“service” (impermeable) slab No or No O&M (pit Significant
separated faeces from insufficient use emptying) taking environmental
users place and any pollution, increasing
No service No separation between user extremely dirty with increased
and faeces, e.g. open toilet population density
defecation
January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

17. Cost and Service Level by area
January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

18. Cost vrs water service levels
January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

19. Hygiene Service
The hygiene indictors cover:
 Faecal containment and latrine use
 Hand washing with soap/Substitute
 Drinking water source and
Management
January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

20. KEY FINDINGS
January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

21. General Findings
 High enthusiasm and feedback on “good timing” from
stakeholders.
 Urgent need for annual recurrent costs after construction.
 Assumption that after construction Local Councils and communities
will “take over” the management of the facilities.
 Lack of knowledge on the requirements for yearly maintenance and
human resources contributing to rates of no-functionality as high
as 40%,
 The strong capacity building focus in the project is seen as
fundamental for supporting realistic WASH Council plans and
budgets.
 Interest in the “service level” approach to measure sustainability
and value for money.
January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

22. Challenges to project implementation
 Lack of personnel and logistics at the Ministry of Water
Resources.
 No coordination platform to discuss sector priorities,
which will limit the dissemination and uptake of project
findings.
 No sharing between key implementing development
partners
 No sharing between DPs and government
 There are limited programmes in rural water and
sanitation which have been implemented more than
three years ago, limiting the collection of real data on
maintenance.
January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

23. Quick wins for WASHCost project
 Available capacity for institutional cost mapping , organising larger data
collection in the initial three districts and physical hosting of the project
 High interest from health and sanitation department. In addition to the
agreements with the MoWR, we will also seek an agreement with the
MoH.
 Stakeholders seem to agree on study districts based on availability of
cost information , diversity of water systems and sanitation/hygiene
approaches, a mix of rural, small-town and peri-urban systems and
geographical distribution.
 Availability and willingness to share cost and service level data and several
ongoing complementary studies with which synergies can be achieved.
January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

24. Districts for study
Availability/diversity of
District Implementing
information Other aspects
N/S/E agencies with costs
Water Sanitation
Kenema (E) R + PU R + PU GOAL, GIZ Mentioned by
Gravity, HP CLTS WaterAid, UNICEF everyone + ASI
Bo (S) PU – gravity PU Through district Dynamic
fed, HP leadership
Bombali (N) Gravity, HP CLTS UNICEF Spare part study
InterAid
Tonkolili (N) Rural part of CLTS UNICEF ASI
Bombali
Port Loko (N) X CLTS UNICEF, JICA, PLAN
Kambia (N) 42 small X JICA ASI
towns
Moyamba (S) Water CLTS PLAN, UNICEF ASI
programme
Pujehun (S) CLTS UNICEF Difficult area,
not for pilot
January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

25. Activities
Grouped into 5 areas:
Capacity building
 Study tour in Ghana
 District training in LCCA
 Training in Data Collection
 National level LCCA training
Data Collection and Analysis
 Institutional Cost mapping
 Data Collection
 Data Analysis
January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

26. Activities
 Learning and Sharing
 Validation workshop on Institutional cost mapping
 Validation workshop on cost and service level analysis
 WASHCost Sierra Leone website
 Presentation at national, regional and international conferences
 Embedding
 Publication of briefing notes for the sector
 Dedicated support for the use of WASHCost data in selected
 Project Management
 Reporting
 Management of consultants
 Synergies with ongoing projects
January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

27. Mile stones
Description of outcome based milestones Expected
1 Agreements with MoWR and MoH on their roles, selection ofMarch 2013
focal persons and outcomes of study trip to Ghana
2 Establishment of Steering Committee to guide the March
implementation of WASHCost Sierra Leone 2013
3 Institutional cost mapping discussed and validated with sector May 2013
stakeholders
4 Selected district staff is trained on the life-cycle cost approach June 2013
5 Data analysis discussed and validated with sector stakeholders August
2013
6 Case-studies, briefing notes and other advocacy materials Nov 2013
shared at national, regional and international level
7 Evidence on the use of the life-cycle cost approach for planning February
and budgeting 2014
January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

28. Project Management structure
Project Steering Committee
KNUST/IRC ASI/WASH FACILITY
Local consultants:
Institutional Cost mapping
Data collection
Project hosting
January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

29. What WASHCost can offer
 Compare the normative service indicators stated in the Sierra Leone
policy with the real level of services delivered.
 Provide life-cycle cost benchmarks for rural and peri-urban services.
 Measure the costs of decentralisation (direct support expenditure).
 Quantify wasteful investments by measuring “slippage levels”.
 Define the levels of maintenance required and compare with existing
funds to the sector.
 Quantify amount of capital expenditure budget that could be
reserved for the maintenance, which users cannot pay for to ensure
sustainability.
 Capacity building and training on budgeting, planning and monitoring
costs and service levels and the cost implications for different
implementation models.
January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

30. January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team