Solutions, Trends, & Best Practices: The Donor Perspective

1. Solutions, Trends, & Best Practices: The Donor Perspective Louis Boorstin, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Jorge Ducci, Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) Jae So, Water & Sanitation Program John Borrazzo,USAID Objective Donors share perspective on and commitment to sustainable programming.

2. Deputy Director, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Louis Boorstin The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

3. Fostering Sustainability inWater, Sanitation & Hygiene January 2011

4. What we do –Focus on sanitation

5. Two fundamental sanitation challenges Challenge #2:2.1 billion people Challenge #1:2.5 billion people

6. Focus on sustainable sanitation without central sewers • We focus on these two fundamental sanitation challenges: • Expanding and improving sanitation without central sewers, because this is by far the most common type of sanitation service used by the poor • 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”:

7. Grant-making initiatives • 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. • 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. • 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.

8. How we do it

9. How we do it WS&H Sector Our role – how we add value to the WS&H sector … which should ultimately help our beneficiaries What works to help beneficiaries Grantees BMGF Beneficiaries

10. How we add value to the sector WS&H Sector We add value by: • Focusing on a limited area – sanitation for the poor • Insisting that interventions meet three core criteria:(1) Impact (2) Sustainability (3) Scalability • Using an evidence-based approach • Seeking out replicable, cross-cutting interventions • Helping our grantees to learn, not just to do • Taking risks to drive innovation • Working with all sectors – public, private, NGO Grantees BMGF Beneficiaries

11. Impact on the health, economic and social well being of the poor Not just counting new taps and toilets Sustainable in terms of long-term operations and funding ‘Service delivery’ instead of ‘access’ 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

12. How our grantees help beneficiaries WS&H Sector 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 stakeholders • Take an economic, not social, perspective to solving the problem • Focus on incentives and motivations that sustain changes over long run • Combine three capacities: • Deep understanding of users’ behavior • Reflective approach that evaluates what works and what doesn’t • Flexibility to respond with new models and technologies • Remember the three criteria: impact, sustainability and scalability Grantees BMGF Beneficiaries

13. Fostering sustainability

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. Thank You!

18. Senior Water and Sanitation Economist Jorge Ducci Inter-American Development Bank

19. 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

20. 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”

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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)?

27. 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

28. 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!)

30. Manager Jae So Water and Sanitation Program

31. Chief, Maternal and Child Health Division John Borrazzo USAID