washcost sierra leone

January 25, 2013 KNUST/IRC team

Water Directorate, MWR


Introduction to LCCA

Key findings of inception mission

Proposed study district

Activities and milestones

Project management structure

Outline


WASHCost project

The cost of failure – 20 countries in sub-Saharan Africa

Investment loss in sub-Saharan Africa of between US$ 1.2 to 1.3 billion over 20 years

Information Collated by Peter Harvey, UNICEF Zambia, May 2007

36%

Sierra Leone today??-~40% of rural non-functional

at time of visit (point sources)???


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


Disaggregated Life Cycle Costs


CapEx per capita - WPS US $ 40 and Piped scheme US$ 80

Cost per technology


WATER –CapEx piped schemes


Direct Support cost modelling with DAs


ExpDS per capita at district level


Source: Moriarty et al., 2010

Water service levels

Service level

Quantity(lpcd)

Quality Accessibilitydistance and crowding (mpcd)

Reliability

High >= 60 Litres per capita per day

Meets or exceeds national norms based on regular testing

Less than 10 minutes (Water available in the compound or HH)

Very reliable = works all the time

Intermediate

>= 40 Litres per capita per day Acceptable user

perception and meets/exceeds national norms based on occasional testing

Between 10 and 30 minutes. (Less than 500m AND <= normative population per functioning water point)

Reliable/secure = works most of the time

Basic (normative)

>= 20 Litres per capita per day

Sub-standard

>=5 Litres per capita per day

Negative user perception and/or no testing

Between 30 and 60 minutes. (Between 500m and 1000 meters AND/OR more than normative population per functioning water point)

Problematic =Suffers significant breakdowns and slow repairs

No service <5 Litres per capita per day

Fails to meet national norms

More than 60min (More than 1000m)

Unreliable/insecure = completely broken down


Service levels

Accessibility UseReliability

(O&M)

Environmental protection

(pollution and density)

Improved service

Each family dwelling has one or more toilets in the compound

Facilities used by all members of HH

Regular or routine O&M (inc. pit emptying) requiring minimal user effort

Non problematic environmental impact disposal and re-use of safe-by products

Basic service

Latrine with impermeable slab (hh or shared) at national norm distance from hh

Facilities used by some members of HH

Unreliable O&M (inc. pit emptying) and requiring high user effort

Non problematic environmental impact and safe disposal

Limited “service”

Platform without (impermeable) slab separated faeces from users

No or insufficient use

No O&M (pit emptying) taking place and any extremely dirty toilet

Significant environmental pollution, increasing with increased population density

No service No separation between user and faeces, e.g. open defecation

Source: Potter et al., 2011 (revised service levels)

Costing sanitation service levels


Service levels

Accessibility UseReliability

(O&M)

Environmental protection

(pollution and density)

Improved service

Each family dwelling has one or more toilets in the compound

Facilities used by all members of HH

Regular or routine O&M (inc. pit emptying) requiring minimal user effort

Non problematic environmental impact disposal and re-use of safe-by products

Basic service

Latrine with impermeable slab (hh or shared) at national norm distance from hh

Facilities used by some members of HH

Unreliable O&M (inc. pit emptying) and requiring high user effort

Non problematic environmental impact and safe disposal

Limited “service”

Platform without (impermeable) slab separated faeces from users

No or insufficient use

No O&M (pit emptying) taking place and any extremely dirty toilet

Significant environmental pollution, increasing with increased population density

No service No separation between user and faeces, e.g. open defecation

Reliability and use are important


Cost and Service Level by area


Cost vrs water service levels


Hygiene Service

The hygiene indictors cover: Faecal containment and latrine use Hand washing with soap/Substitute Drinking water source and

Management


KEY FINDINGS


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.


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.


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.


DistrictN/S/E

Availability/diversity of information

Water Sanitation

Implementing agencies with costs Other aspects

Kenema (E) R + PUGravity, HP

R + PUCLTS

GOAL, GIZWaterAid, UNICEF

Mentioned by everyone + ASI

Bo (S) PU – gravity fed, HP

PU Through district Dynamic leadership

Bombali (N) Gravity, HP CLTS UNICEFInterAid

Spare part study

Tonkolili (N) Rural part of Bombali

CLTS UNICEF ASI

Port Loko (N) X CLTS UNICEF, JICA, PLAN

Kambia (N) 42 small towns

X JICA ASI

Moyamba (S) Water programme

CLTS PLAN, UNICEF ASI

Pujehun (S) CLTS UNICEF Difficult area, not for pilot

Districts for study


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


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


Mile stones

Description of outcome based milestones Expected

1 Agreements with MoWR and MoH on their roles, selection of focal persons and outcomes of study trip to Ghana

March 2013

2 Establishment of Steering Committee to guide the implementation of WASHCost Sierra Leone

March 2013

3 Institutional cost mapping discussed and validated with sector stakeholders

May 2013

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 shared at national, regional and international level

Nov 2013

7 Evidence on the use of the life-cycle cost approach for planning and budgeting

February 2014


Project Management structure

Project Steering Committee

KNUST/IRC ASI/WASH FACILITY

Local consultants:

Institutional Cost mappingData collectionProject hosting


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.

washcost sierra leone

Documents

knustirc team

cost of ensuringadequate

water directorate

cost of failure

lifecycle costapproach

litres pere capita

wash services wash service

day acceptable userbetween