Page 1 This report was funded by the Bank-Netherlands Water Partnership, a facility that enhances World Bank operations to increase delivery of water supply and sanitation services to the poor (for more information see www.worldbank.org/watsan/bnwp ) Rural Water Supply, Sanitation, and Hygiene A Review of 25 Years of Lending: 1978 – 2003 This report was prepared by Param Iyer, Jennifer Davis, Elif Yavuz The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent. Any references provided in this document to a specific product, process, or service is not intended as, and does not constitute or imply an endorsement by the World Bank of that product, process, service, or its producer or provider. Energy and Water Department April, 2006 37967 Page 2 2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction: Taking stock of World Bank support to water supply, sanitation and hygiene in rural areas ..........................................................................................................3 2. Methodology.......................................................................................................................5 3. Findings...............................................................................................................................7 3.1 Regional lending patterns and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)...........7 3.2 Stand-alone and multi-sector operations....................................................................8 3.3 Sustainability............................................................................................................10 3.3.1 Cost sharing..................................................................................................12 3.3.2 Institutional roles..........................................................................................13 3.4 Scalability.................................................................................................................16 3.5 Sanitation and hygiene.............................................................................................18 4. Conclusions.......................................................................................................................21 Annex 1: General references....................................................................................................23 Annex 2: World Bank project documents reviewed................................................................24 Annex 2: Interviews completed ...............................................................................................29 Annex 3: Sample frame............................................................................................................30 Annex 4: Stratified sample.......................................................................................................38 Annex 4: Population and sample profiles................................................................................40 Annex 5: Historical overview of RWSSH at the World Bank.................................................42 Annex 6: Timeline of major international conventions and agreements related to rural water supply and sanitation................................................................................................46 Annex 7: The first World Bank-supported rural water supply and sanitation projects ...........49 Annex 8: The World Bank’s RWSSH assistance program in Paraguay..................................50 Annex 9: Summaries of previous reviews of Bank-supported RWSSH projects....................51 Page 3 3 1. Introduction: Taking stock of World Bank support to water supply, sanitation and hygiene in rural areas Background Access to adequate water supply and sanitation, coupled with hygienic practices, have a significant, direct and positive impact on health and dignity, educational attainment, and economic productivity in rural areas. Similarly, lack of access to safe water and sanitation has been shown to severely constrain the impact of other interventions in the health and education sectors. For all of these reasons, improving access to rural water supply, sanitation and hygiene (RWSSH) is central in the effort to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for poverty alleviation. 1 Achieving sustained access to clean water and sanitation facilities in rural areas is a daunting challenge, however. RWSSH operations need to be technically, financially, and socially sustainable —a particular challenge in rural areas, which are home to three-quarters of the world’s poor. Moreover, accelerating the rate of coverage expansion envisioned within the MDGs implies working effectively at the regional or national level. The World Bank has been a major supporter of rural and small town water supply and sanitation since the first projects in Paraguay and Nicaragua were approved in 1978. 2 During the 25-year period of 1978-2003, the Bank has implemented approximately 53 stand-alone (single-sector or “dedicated”) rural water and sanitation projects, with a total value of about US$2 billion. 3 Over the same period, rural, water, sanitation, and hygiene components have also been included in at least 340 multi-sector projects—including rural development projects, water sector reform projects, and social funds—at an estimated US$3.6 billion. As such, the Bank has a tremendous amount of experience on which to draw for operational learning and strategic planning in the sector. Purpose and structure of the Review Whereas the Bank has undertaken assessments of its RWSSH portfolio in the past, such reviews have been limited in their coverage regionally, temporally, and/or substantively. This review, which represents the only known effort to investigate the full universe of Bank-supported projects in the sector, was spurred in part by the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) initiative. Recognizing that improving access to water and sanitation services in rural areas can play a major role in the poverty reduction agenda embodied by the MDGs, the Bank’s Energy and Water Department launched this review to provide the Sector Board with (i) an overview of historical trends, as well as the current scope and direction, of the RWSSH portfolio; (ii) key insights regarding the alignment of the Bank’s RWSSH activities with its commitment to attaining the MDGs; and (iii) a proposed agenda to address gaps in knowledge and to help maximize the impact of the Bank’s RWSSH lending. 4 1 The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for water supply and sanitation, adopted by the Millennium Summit and the World Summit, are to halve the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water by 2015 and without access to basic sanitation by 2025. A list of all the MDGs is provided in Annex 1. 2 A full listing of the World Bank’s stand-alone and multi-sector rural water supply and sanitation projects is provided in Annex 3. 3 Unless otherwise indicated, all monetary figures in the review are presented in 2003 US$s. 4 The research team was managed by Param Iyer, Senior Water and Sanitation Specialist, EWD, and consisted of Elif Yavuz, Consultant, EWD; Barbara Evans, Water and Sanitation Consultant; Jason Cardosi, Consultant, EWD; and Jennifer Davis, Consultant. The team would particularly like to thank the operational task team members and leaders who contributed their time in interviews and discussions during the course of this preliminary review. A partial list of individuals interviewed for the Review is provided in Annex 2. Page 4 4 The review was carried out using data from 397 Bank-supported projects that had identifiable RWSSH components. 5 Summary information about each of these almost 400 projects was collected from existing reports, and was used for analysis of broad trends in the Bank’s RWSHH portfolio. Next, a stratified sample of 60 projects was drawn that mirrored the full dataset in terms of regional distribution, size of projects (in US$ terms), and period of execution. To supplement the available secondary data for this sub-sample, in-person or telephone interviews with World Bank task managers were carried out whenever possible. This additional data-collection effort allowed for the more in- depth analyses included in the review. Further information on the methodological approach employed for the review is provided in Section 2. Section 3 lays out the key findings of the Review, grouped into four thematic sub-sections: regional lending patterns and alignment with the Bank’s MDG agenda; institutional and financial performance of RWSSH projects; the consideration of “scalability” in project design; and sanitation and hygiene. Section 4 summarizes the outcomes of the Review and provides concluding observations. The primary audience for this work is World Bank management through the Water and Sanitation Sector Board. A second audience comprises Task Team Leaders who, it is hoped, will be able to use the review to inform both sector strategy development and project design. 5 Efforts were made to identify all Bank lending in support of projects with a RWSSH components; however, given limitations of project information available (particularly with respect to multi- sector initiative), it is almost certain that the Bank’s RWSSH portfolio during the period 1978-2003 includes a greater number of projects than the 397 identified for this review. Page 5 5 2. Methodology Data collection and analysis for the Review were carried out in five steps: 1: Review of existing literature, including previous RWSSH evaluations; 2: Collection of secondary data (project documents and database queries) for all Bank-supported projects with substantial RWSSH elements; compilation of a database; 3: Sampling of projects from database; 4: Primary data collection (via in-person and telephone interviews and email exchanges) for selected projects; and 5: Data analysis and write-up of findings. Identifying the full population of Bank-supported RWSSH projects was limited by the structure and classification approaches used within the Bank’s project database, the Business Warehouse (BW). For example, the BW does not clearly distinguish between rural and urban water sector operations, which complicated the identification of stand-alone projects. Nor does the BW allow queries for individual components of multi-sector operations, e.g. , one cannot easily discern whether a particular rural development project included water supply, sanitation, and/or hygiene. In such cases, the research team attempted to contact each project’s task manager or team leader to determine whether the project should be included in the review sample. A complete list of the projects included in the review is provided in Annex 3. Accurate monetary values for multi-sector projects in particular were also difficult to obtain. Available lending figures are often inaccurate because they are based on an initial budget allocation estimates made early in the project stage (not on actual disbursements, which can often differ substantially). Moreover, in many multi-sector projects—particularly social fund interventions—project components (and thus budgetary allocations) are not determined until participating communities have expressed their preference for particular interventions. In order to obtain reliable figures for the review, the research team thus pursued a lengthy investigation of several sector portfolios, e.g. , rural development, social funds, etc . All of the Bank’s lending projects are subject to an Implementation Completion Report (ICR) carried out by Bank staff, usually within twelve months of the closing of the project. In addition, the Bank has reviewed its rural water sector portfolio at various points since the first stand-alone projects in the late 1970s. In general, however, these reviews have been limited to a small number of projects or have focused on a particular project approach. 6 The most recent study focusing specifically on Bank support to the rural water supply sector was published by the Bank’s Operations Evaluation Department (OED) in 2000. 7 The review is based on the evaluation results of 15 stand-alone rural water and sanitation projects. Whereas the authors recognize that these “free-standing” projects are “just part of the story” and identify additional multi-sector projects with rural water subcomponents, such projects are not included in their actual analysis (Parker & Skytta, p.49). A more recent review by OED in 2003 assesses performance of both the rural and urban water sectors. Although favoring an urban/utility focus, the review tries to extend its analysis to multi-sector projects. This was limited because the authors found that “outcome, IDI [institutional development impact] and sustainability ratings were not readily available for water supply and sanitation investments financed under non-dedicated projects” (OED, 2003, p.9). In general OED reviews tend to rely strongly on Bank 6 Summaries of the major earlier RWSSH reviews carried out by the Bank are presented in Annex 9. 7 Parker, R. and Skytta T. (2000), Rural Water Projects. Lessons from OED Evaluations. Page 6 6 internal documents alone although over the years there have been two or three analytical pieces that have incorporated primary data collection. For example, in 1998 Sara and Katz authored a global study on the sustainability of rural water projects which uses data collected from 125 community water systems in six countries. 8 From the complete set of 397 projects with identifiable RWSSH components, a stratified sample of 60 projects was drawn that mirrored the full dataset in terms of regional distribution, size of projects (in US$ terms), and period of execution. Only projects with Implementation Completion Reports (ICRs) were eligible for inclusion in the sample. Detailed information on these sampled projects was collected from available project documents, including Staff Appraisal Reports/Project Appraisal Documents, Implementation Completion Reports, Project Performance Audits Reports, and other OED evaluations where available. Complementary information was obtained through in-person or telephone interviews with World Bank task managers. A total of 22 such interviews were completed. The data compiled for the review are thus substantially more complete than those for any other evaluation or study regarding RWSSH operations of which the research team is aware; however, serious limitations persist. Information on RWSSH operations at the Bank is incomplete, dispersed and inconsistent. Very few previous rigorous evaluations were found that could inform the review (although a more thorough search at country level might yield better results). Data which are available are heavily skewed toward inputs (project design) as opposed to outcomes and impacts, which severely limited analysis of issues related to the sustainability and scalability of the Bank’s RWSSH operations. As discussed in the following section, alternative analytical approaches were employed where possible to compensate for shortcomings in data quality. 8 Katz, T., Sara, J. (1998), Making Rural Water Supply Sustainable: Report on the Impact of Project Rules Page 7 7 3. Findings 3.1 Regional lending patterns and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) This review provides an opportunity to assess the extent to which Bank lending for RWSSH is aligned with those actions identified by the international community as being critical for attainment of the Millennium Development Goals. Recent (1996-2003) client RWSSH investments do not appear to be well aligned with MDG priorities. The Millennium Development Project, for example, has noted that the key regions requiring support and resources in order to meet the 2015 water supply and sanitation targets are sub-Saharan Africa (where progress to date has been slowest) and East Asia (where the numbers of unserved are highest). 9 These are not the regions to which the majority of Bank RWSSH lending has been channeled in recent years (Figure 1). Figure 1: Regional distribution of World Bank RWSSH lending and rural populations lacking access to improved water supply 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 ECA LAC SA EAP MNA AFR % of all WB RWSSH lending 1996-2003 % of all rural unserved living within region 2002 Sources: Review team analysis of WB data (lending), and WHO-UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (access to water supply) Bank staff and sector experts interviewed for the review cited a number of institutional and technical factors that have likely contributed to this finding. Some emphasized the low absorptive capacity in the rural water supply and sanitation sector in most African and some South and East Asian countries; others noted that the often stringent reform programs imposed by the Bank and other donors as prerequisites for aid have likely limited lending flows to those regions. In addition, lending to the East Asia and Pacific region dropped off during this period, most likely because of the regional macroeconomic crisis that began in 1997 (Figure 2). 9 United Nations Millennium Project Task Force on Water and Sanitation. 2005. Health, Dignity, and Development: What Will It Take? Achieving the Millennium Development Goals . Stockholm: Stockholm International Water Institute and the United Nations. 10 Note that investment data represent total RWSSH lending, whereas coverage data are for rural water supply alone. Investments in sanitation and hygiene constitute a negligible % of the total. A similar analysis for sanitation investments alone (from all ODA) showed as similar skewing of investment priorities Page 8 8 Figure 2: Allocation of World Bank RWSSH Lending by time period and region (% ) 11 Africa Latin Amer. & Carib. South Asia East Asia & Pacific Middle East & N. Africa 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 1977-1985 1986-1995 1996-2003 By contrast, respondents felt that the generally strong economic base and institutional framework found in many Latin American countries have facilitated lending from both a “demand” and a “supply” perspective. Bank lending for RWSSH in Latin America has also been comparatively more costly on a per-capita basis—the result of both higher unit costs and effective demand for higher levels of service—which also contributes to higher aggregate lending levels in that region. Finally, several respondents noted that the relative allocation of Bank resources through loan (IBRD) versus IDA (credit) channels has also shaped the regional distribution of funding for RWSSH. Whereas a substantial proportion of rural populations that lack access to water supply and sanitation services live in large middle income countries that receive IBRD loans, the majority of rural unserved live in poorer, IDA countries. 3.2 Stand-alone and multi-sector operations Bank lending for RWSSH is delivered through both stand-alone projects implemented under the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Board, as well as through multi-sector operations mainly within agriculture, social funds, and rural development. Following a period of predominantly stand-alone RWSSH projects in the early 1980s, multi-sector approaches have claimed a steadily increasing share of Bank lending owing mainly to the introduction of Social Development Funds. Indeed, multi-sector operations currently account for two thirds of RWSSH lending (Figure 3). 11 Allocation of WB RWSSH lending to Europe and Central Asia was < 5% in each of the three time periods. Page 9 9 Figure 3: World Bank lending in RWSSH by project type and period $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $ 1,200 $1,400 $ 1,600 78-82 83-87 88-92 93-97 98-02 Time-periods ( $ U S 2 0 0 3 m i l l i o n s ) Stand-alone Multi-sector The first Bank projects in RWSSH were two stand- alone (“dedicated”) operations approved in 1978 for Paraguay and Nicaragua. Lending to stand-alone RWSSH projects grew throughout the 1980s from an average of one project per year to three projects by the 1990s. Available data suggest regional preferences for stand-alone versus multi-sector approaches (Figures 4 and 5). The South Asia and East Asia regions of the Bank have been more likely to implement stand- alone projects, whereas RWSSH has been supported with multi-sector funds to a greater extent in the Bank’s Latin American region. Differences are most apparent during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Figures 4 & 5: WB support to RWSSH, 1978-2003, by time period, region, and project type Stand-alone Investments in RWSSH 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 78-82 83-87 88-92 93-97 98-02 Time-Periods $ U S 2 0 0 3 ( m i l l i o n s ) SAR MNA LCR ECA EAP AFR Multi-sectoral Investments in RWSSH 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 78-82 83-87 88-92 93-97 98-02 Time-Periods $ U S 2 0 0 3 ( m i l l i o n s ) SAR MNA LCR ECA EAP AFR Whether multi-sector or stand-alone approaches to RWSSH lending have systematically better outcomes is a question that has been subject to periodic debate. One 2003 evaluation completed by the Bank’s Operations Evaluation Department (OED), for example, concluded that stand-alone rural and urban water and sanitation projects receive higher performance ratings because they “include objectives such as cost recovery, policy reform, private sector participation, and regulatory reform more frequently than non-dedicated projects do.” 12 The findings of this current review, which are drawn from a larger sample of projects as compared to the OED study, do not corroborate these conclusions. For example, 12 World Bank (2003). Efficient, Sustainable Services for All? An OED Review of the World Bank ’s Assistance to Water Supply and Sanitation . Washington, DC: Operations and Evaluation Department. Page 10 10 median values for the percentage of capital cost-sharing for water infrastructure are consistent at 15% across all three project types although the mean value is higher at just over 20% for stand-alone projects (Table 1). Cost sharing for operations and maintenance of installed infrastructure is also consistent across project types and is close to 100%. Table 1: Capital cost sharing for water infrastructure (% of total cost), by project type 13 % capital cost sharing by users/ community Stand-alone projects ( n =14) Social funds ( n =14) Rural development projects ( n =10) All non-dedicated ( n =24) Median Mean St. Dev. 15 20 16 15 15 5 15 15 9 15 15 7 Additional discussion of the project elements for stand-alone and multi-sector projects is included in the sections on sustainability and scalability below. However, given the continuing debate within the donor community about the effectiveness and efficiency of various strategies for implementing RWSSH projects —as well as the continuing trend within Bank lending away from stand-alone toward multi- sector approaches—this topic would also seem to be an important element of future research into the conditions under which different RWSSH investment strategies are successful. 3.3 Sustainability Target 10 of the Millennium Development Goals explicitly identifies the expansion of sustainable access to water supply and sanitation services, implicitly recognizing the persistent challenge of maintaining installed infrastructure that has plagued the water and sanitation sector, particularly in rural communities. 14 Assessing the Bank’s experience with sustainability of rural water and sanitation projects over its 25 years of lending, however, is difficult because: · RWSSH components of multisector projects are rarely evaluated individually, despite the fact that these operations represent more than two-thirds of total Bank lending in the sector; · Only a small percentage of stand-alone RWSSH projects have been evaluated by the Operations Evaluation Department (OED); 13 In this and all tables and graphs, n represents the number of projects in the full or stratified sample for which data were available regarding the topic under analysis. 14 See, for example, J. Sara and T. Katz (1998), “Making Rural Water Supply Sustainable: Report on the Impact of Project Rules,” World Bank Water & Sanitation Program. Page 11 11 · OED’s approach to assessing sustainability has changed during the period under review (Box 1), making analysis of trends questionable; · Available data is heavily skewed toward inputs (project design) as opposed to outcomes and impacts; and · Attention to sustainability evaluations amongst Bank staff has increased over the period under review. OED defines sustainability as “the resilience to risk of net benefits flows over time,” and sustainability ratings are meant to answer the questions: “At the time of evaluation, what is the resilience to risks of future net benefit flows? How sensitive is the project to changes in the operating environment? Will the project continue to produce net benefits, as long as intended or even longer? How well will the project weather shocks and changing circumstances?” Sustainability is evaluated by assessing the risks and uncertainties faced by a project and by ascertaining whether adequate arrangements are in place to help avoid known operational risks or to mitigate their impacts. Analysis of sustainability for the Bank’s complete 25-year RWSSH portfolio using OED ratings is not formally possible, because the RWSSH component(s) of multi-sector projects are not evaluated independently. Each project, which could comprise lending for activities across a variety of sectors, receives a single set of sustainability scores. Moreover, in order to accurately assess sustainability of Bank-supported interventions, data collection—preferably through site visits of independent evaluators—at various points over the entire life of a project would be required. At present, many Implementation Completion Reports (ICRs) are completed within 12 months of project closing. Given Bank staff’s time and resource constraints, not every project can be evaluated directly, although period field-visits and assessments of projects do exist. 15 In sum, it is difficult to obtain comparable data on sustainability for stand-alone and multi-sector Bank- supported projects, and those (OED) data which are available provide only limited insight regarding long-term sustainability of RWSSH projects. The review effort did not include primary data collection in field and was thus limited to information available through desk reviews and a modes number of in- person interviews. The research team was thus limited in its assessment of portfolio sustainability to investigating the likely determinants of sustainability, rather than on direct assessments of whether the 15 The OED department regularly undertakes Project Performance Audits, which include both a review of ICRs and, most importantly, fieldwork conducted by OED. Such audits are completed for approximately 25 percent o f the Bank’s lending operations. Box 1: OED sustainability ratings The Operations Evaluation Department (OED) currently uses the following indicators to generate project sustainability ratings: · Technical resilience · Financial resilience (including cost recovery) · Economic resilience · Social support (including “safeguard policies”) · Environmental resilience · Government ownership (including by central governments/agencies, and availability of O&M funds) · Other stakeholder ownership (including local participation, beneficiary incentives, civil society/NGOs, private sector) · Institutional support (including legal/regulatory framework, organizational/management effectiveness) · Resilience to exogenous influences (including terms of trade, economic shocks, regional political and security situations) For more information, see http://oed.worldbank.org Page 12 12 systems remained in place with adequate operation and maintenance. In particular, financial performance and institutional arrangements are two factors widely stressed to be of crucial importance for the sustainability of RWSSH interventions, and for which data were available for most projects in the review sample. The following sections thus provide a summary of such data for RWSSH projects in different time periods, across regions, and for all types of projects. 3.3.1 Cost sharing It has been widely asserted that without adequate cost recovery, rural water supply and sanitation services will not be sustainable or replicable. Full cost recovery comprises funds for both the initial capital costs of facilities construction, as well as the costs of ongoing operation and maintenance (O&M). Irrespective of the source of funds, without adequate money, schemes are often not completed or fall into disrepair, thus negating any potential benefits to the community. In addition, many sector professionals consider that financial contributions by community members (for both capital and O&M costs) helps to create a sense of ownership that itself increases the chances of installed infrastructure being sustained in the long run. At the World Bank, the concept of greater cost-recovery through user fees, together with granting communities greater voice in planning decisions and the choice of technologies and level of water supply and sanitation (W&S) services, has been termed the “demand-responsive approach” to W&S planning. The approach gained currency in the 1990s, with many other donors in the W&S sector adopting variations of the approach in their own W&S operations. Interestingly, however, despite the relatively recent attention to “demand-oriented” project design in the water and sanitation sector, the review found that cost-sharing by users and communities for both capital and operation and maintenance costs (O&M) of installed infrastructure has actually been a consistent feature of Bank-supported RWSSH projects since the first operations in Ecuador and Paraguay in 1978 (Table 2). Over time the form of such cost-sharing has changed somewhat, with non- cash ( e.g. , labor and land) contributions becoming more common over time. Table 2: User/community cost sharing in Bank-supported RWSSH projects Period 1 77-85 Period 2 86-95 Period 3 96-03 Over all time periods Median % of capital costs contributed by users/communities 15 ( n =6) 15 ( n =16) 15 ( n =16) 15 ( n =38) % of projects including capital cost contributions of indicated type Cash 100 100 94 98 Labor 80 83 92 86 Materials 60 78 85 78 Land 40 61 69 61 Median % of operation and maintenance cost borne by users/communities 100 ( n =10) 100 ( n =23) 100 ( n =18) 100 ( n =51) The pattern of capital cost sharing across different regions is generally consistent, with a few exceptions. Recognizing that the cell sizes for Table 3 are very small, the median cost-sharing rate for South Asian projects is 30%, whereas the median values for all other regions range between 10 and 15% of total capital costs. Table 3: Cost sharing by communities (% of total costs), per project Sub-Saharan Africa (AFR) ( n =12) East Asia / Pacific (EAP) ( n =3) East / Central Asia (ECA) ( n =3) Latin Amer. / Caribbean (LAC) ( n =16) Middle East / North Africa (MNA) ( n =6) South Asia (SA) ( n =7) Mean: 14.5 Mean: 26.3 Mean: 9.7 Mean: 21.8 Mean: 14.0 Mean: 15.7 Page 13 13 St. dev.: 8.2 Median: 12.5 St. dev.: 14.8 Median: 30.0 St. dev.: 0.6 Median: 10.0 St. dev.: 14.9 Median: 15.0 St. dev.: 6.5 Median: 10.0 St. dev.: 13.5 Median: 15.0 With respect to cost-sharing by communities for O&M of installed infrastructure, the data from sampled projects suggest that Bank-supported RWSSH have consistently called for a high level of recurrent cost sharing throughout the 25-year period under study (Table 4). It appears that right from the start of the first rural water and sanitation intervention; virtually all O&M expenses were expected to be borne by users or communities. Similarly, regional values for cost sharing in O&M are all close to 100% (data not shown). Table 4: Cost sharing (percentage) for O&M by users/the community Period 1:77-85 ( n =10) Period 2: 86-95 ( n =23) Period 3: 96-03 ( n =18) Mean: 100 St. Dev.: 0 Median: 100 Mean: 97.8 St. Dev.: 13.4 Median: 100 Mean: 100 St. Dev.: 0 Median: 100 3.3.2 Institutional roles Analysis of the Bank’s RWSSH portfolio reveals an evolution in institutional arrangements for planning, financing, and managing rural water and sanitation services that mirrors changing attitudes throughout the sector. An increase in the diversity of institutional actors, as well as increasing reliance on community associations and private sector actors and a reduced role for central government, was documented (Figure 6). Figure 6: Key actors in project design and planning, by time period (% of projects) Similar trends over time are suggested when analyzing institutional roles during the post-construction phase of RWSSH projects (Table 5). Governments and utilities are less frequently considered “key actors” with responsibilities for operations and maintenance of infrastructure. Community associations and, to a lesser extent, local private sector and paid operators are playing an increasingly important role in O&M. Table 5: Key actors in operations and maintenance of installed water infrastructure (% of projects) Period 1: 77-85 ( n =14) Period 2: 86-95 ( n =25) Period 3: 96-03 ( n =19) All time periods ( n =58) Government utility/board 79% 64% 47% 62% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% (n=15) (n=25) (n=19) Period 1: 1977- 1985 Period 2: 1986- 1995 Period 3: 1996- 2003 Central gov’t. &/or utility Local gov't Local intermediary/N GO Local private sector Community association Page 14 14 Local intermediary/NGO 7% 12% 5% 9% Local private sector 0% 8% 11% 7% Paid operator 14% 24% 26% 22% Community association 57% 68% 74% 67% Note: Columns may sum to more than 100% because categories are not mutually exclusive. Finally, the data suggest that ownership of installed RWSSH assets has increasingly moved into the hands of community associations, largely at the expense of ownership by central government (Figure 7). Figure 7: Ownership of completed water supply assets (% of projects) Regional trends Some regional variation in the allocation of institutional responsibilities is observed (Table 6). For example, central governments have a somewhat less central role, and community organizations a more significant role, in projects implemented within the South Asia region. By contrast, no local private sector participation was reported among the SA projects included in the review sample, as compared to one third of ECA and MNA projects. Local government appeared as a key actor more frequently in the MNA, LAC, and SA regions, and less so in Africa and Eastern/Central Asia. Table 6: Key actors in project design and planning (% of projects) by region: 1978-2003 Central gov’t./ utility Local government NGO/local intermediary Local private sector Comm. association AFR ( n =22) 82 9 14 9 59 EAP ( n =5) 100 20 0 20 40 ECA ( n =3) 100 0 0 33 33 MNA ( n =7) 100 33 17 33 50 LAC ( n =16) 88 31 6 13 56 SA ( n =7) 71 29 14 0 71 Note: Rows may sum to more than 100% because categories are not mutually exclusive. Regionally, considerable variation in the allocation of responsibility for operations and maintenance was documented (Table 7). Projects in the LAC, MNA, and SA regions have particularly high reliance on community involvement for O&M. More than half of projects in all regions except East Asia/Pacific include a principal role in operations and maintenance for the government utility or water board. Table 7: Key actors in operation and maintenance of installed water infrastructure (% of projects) AFR ( n=22) EAP ( n=5) ECA ( n=3) LAC ( n=3) MNA ( n=6) SA ( n=7) Govt utility Local government Community association 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Period 1:77-85 (n=12) Period 2: 86-95 (n=25) Period 3: 96- 03 (n=19) Page 15 15 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 AFR (n=22) EAP (n=5) ECA (n=3) LAC (n=16) MENA (n=7) SA (n=7) National/ central government Local government Community Individual users Gov’t utility/board 59 40 100 67 67 57 NGO/local intermediary 9 20 0 0 17 14 Local private sector 5 20 0 0 33 0 Community Association 55 60 33 87 83 71 Paid operator 27 0 0 7 33 57 Note: Rows may sum to more than 100% because categories are not mutually exclusive. Regarding ownership of assets, MNA, ECA and the Africa regions have a comparatively high rate of ownership by central governments (Figure 8). Legal ownership by local government was documented in projects within only four of the six regions. At least one half of projects in all regions except MENA report community ownership of installed systems. Figure 8: Ownership of water infrastructure assets per region (% of projects): 1978-2003 Stand-alone versus multi-sector projects A comparison of different types of project instruments reveals a consistent pattern of central government/utility involvement in design and planning (Table 8). Stand-alone projects, however, appear to have greater local government involvement in planning; social funds report a higher rate of involvement by community groups. Rural development projects, by contrast, have predominantly limited participation in project design and planning to central governments and utilities. Table 8: Key actors in project design and planning: Percentage of projects by type of project, 1978-2003 Stand-alone projects (n=20) Social funds (n=20) Rural dev. projects (n=20) All multi-sector Central government &/or utility 90 80 90 85 Local government 35 10 16 13 Local intermediary/NGO 15 15 0 8 Local private sector 20 15 5 10 Community association 55 75 37 56 Note: Columns may sum to more than 100% because categories are not mutually exclusive. Central governments and/or utilities play a more limited role in ongoing operations and maintenance of installed infrastructure across all project types (Table 9) , but these institutions are still viewed as ‘key actors’ in more than half of the sampled projects in each category. A high percentage of stand-alone projects and social funds also identify community groups as key actors in O&M, compared with 44% of rural development projects. Indeed, the comparison in Table 9 highlights the potential, when analyzing all types of multi-sector project approaches in a single category, of overlooking substantial differences among them. In this example regarding institutional roles for O&M, for instances, social funds appear to have much more in common with stand-alone projects as compared to rural development projects. Page 16 16 Table 9: Key actors in O&M: Percentage of projects by type of project, 1978-2003 Stand-alone projects (n=20) Social funds (n=20) Rural dev. projects (n=20) All multi-sector Central government &/or utility 60 70 56 63 Local government 5 5 17 11 Local intermediary/NGO 15 0 6 3 Local private sector 20 15 33 24 Community association 70 85 44 66 Note: Columns may sum to more than 100% because categories are not mutually exclusive. Summary In sum, the frequency of both favorable evaluations for sustainability, as well as the inclusion of project design elements that are widely considered to be prerequisites for sustainability, have increased in Bank-supported RWSSH projects over time. For the reasons cited above, however, no causal relationship between these observations should be inferred. Indeed, the paucity of rigorous analysis into sustainability represents both a challenge and an opportunity for the Bank. In the absence of a solid understanding regarding how project design factors have influenced sustainability over time, on what basis can the Bank justify shifts in its approach to RWSSH lending (such as the current trend toward multi-sector, as opposed to stand-alone, projects)? From a broader perspective, the persistent challenges related to sustainability of donor operations in RWSSH suggest that this is an important puzzle that deserves attention within the Bank’s research agenda. 3.4 Scalability Many of the task managers and team leaders interviewed by the research team emphasized the need to capitalize on the Bank’s 25 years of experience in RWSSH lending with more systematic and operationally linked research into the determinants of sustainability and other elements of project success. Several also mentioned the need to examine rigorously the issue of scaling up successful projects to regional and national levels. It has been estimated, for example, that achieving the Millennium Development Goals for water supply would require providing 280,000 individuals—most of whom live in rural areas—with access to improved water services every day for the next twelve years. Given this immense challenge, the extent to which a project can expand and/or influence future operations ( e.g. , by introducing new policy tools) at regional or national scale has become a topic of increasing importance to multi and bi-lateral donors, NGOs, and other national stakeholders. The term “scaling up” is used with a variety of meanings. A recent discussion paper by the World Bank defines the concept as having two basic elements: 16 1. Inclusion: the vast majority of the target population is provided with sustainable, improved services within a reasonable time frame. Inclusion should not necessarily be equated with full coverage, and 2. Institutionalization: a system of actors and institutions (public, private, and/or civic) is in place with the necessary capacity and resources to deliver sustainable RWS services indefinitely’ Despite the relatively recent emergence of a sector dialogue on “scalability,” Bank project data do not suggest major shifts in the extent to which scaling up has been considered in project design over the past 25 years (Table 10). Although the percentage of projects in which scaling up was reported to be a “major project objective” does appear to have increased over time, the share of projects in which it was “not at all considered” in planning and design shows a similar increase. Table 10: Extent to which ‘scalability’ was considered in project design (% of projects) Period 1: 77-85 Period 2: 86-95 Period 3: 96-03 All periods 16 Davis, J., and P. Iyer. 2003. Scaling up sustainable rural water supply services: A discussion paper. Washington, DC: The World Bank-Netherlands Water Partnership. Page 17 17 ( n =13) ( n =24) ( n =18) ( n =55) Not at all considered in planning/design 38.5 33.3 44.4 38.2 Desirable outcome, but no planning 15.4 20.8 11.1 16.4 Some planning, but not main objective 30.8 20.8 16.7 21.8 Main project objective 30.8 33.3 44.4 36.3 The findings in Table 10 may be explained somewhat by the recent increase in share of multi-sector project approaches within the Bank’s RWSSH portfolio. As shown in Figure 9 a substantially smaller percentage of social fund and rural development projects reported considering scalability as a primary or secondary objective (50-56%) as compared to stand-alone projects (89%). Figure 9: Scalability as an objective in project design (percentage of projects) 11% 50% 44% 36% 25% 50% 53% 25% 6% Stand-alone RWSSH projects Social fund projects Rural development projects Project objective Some planning Not considered Regionally, the data from sampled projects suggest that RWSSH interventions in East Asia have a clear emphasis on scaling-up, with three-quarters including scalability as primary or secondary project objective (Table 11). Interventions in the South Asia and Latin America region also seem to devote attention achieving results on a larger scale. By contrast, in at least one half of sampled projects in the ECA and MNA regions, scaling up was not at all considered to be a project objective. Table 11: Extent to which ‘scalability’ considered in project design (% of projects), by region Not at all considered Desired outcome but no planning Planned for but not main objective Main project objective AFR ( n =20) 40 20 25 15 EAP ( n =4) 0 25 25 50 ECA ( n =3) 67 0 33 0 MNA ( n =6) 50 17 17 34 LAC ( n =15) 33 20 27 40 SA ( n =7) 43 0 0 57 Summary The still inchoate discussion of scaling up among sector experts provides an opportunity for the Bank to make important contributions to understanding the conditions under which project lending leads to broader impacts and increased access to services among rural communities. Such work might also ultimately enable the development of “scalability” criteria that could be included within project evaluation processes at the Bank with the aim of maximizing impact of RWSSH lending. Page 18 18 3.5 Sanitation and hygiene Whereas this review was nominally intended to survey Bank experience with water supply, sanitation, and hygiene in rural areas over the past 25 years, in reality this portfolio has been dominated by water (Figure 10). The percentage of Bank-supported RWSSH projects that include sanitation has doubled during the period 1978-2003, but is currently only about 60%. The share of projects that include a hygiene component has remained essentially unchanged at 20%. Across all regions, sanitation components within Bank-supported RWSSH projects receive just three percent of the total project funds on average. Hygiene activities claim less than one percent of lending (Figure 11). 1 7 Figure 10: Percentage of Bank-supported RWSSH projects with sanitation and hygiene components, by time period S anitation Hygiene 0 10 2 0 3 0 40 50 60 70 1978-1985 1986-1995 1996-2003 Figure 11: Percentage of RWSSH lending allocated to sanitation & hygiene, by region, 1978 - 2003 Figure 12 disaggregates these data between dedicated and multi-sector projects and suggests that, since 1986, multi-sector projects have been less likely to include sanitation or hygiene activities within rural water projects as compared to stand-alone projects. Such findings might be further pursued as part of a broader investigation regarding the strengths and shortcomings of different project approaches. 17 Of course the impact of a given amount of spending on water supply, sanitation, or hygiene is likely to be quite different; there is no a priori expectation as to what the ideal allocation of RWSSH funding among these components might be. At the same time, in a qualitative sense the Bank’s funding for sanitation and hygiene appears very limited, given that (a) a substantially larger number of people lack access to sanitation services as compared to water supply, and (b) consensus is mounting that hygiene programs are central for maximizing the impacts of sanitation infrastructure. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 AFR EAP ECA LAC MNA SA Sanitation Hygiene Page 19 19 Figure 12: Percentage of stand-alone and multi-sector projects with sanitation and hygiene components, by time period The review did find evidence that the Bank has been willing to work with governments to experiment with alternative approaches to sanitation. These include supplanting central government subsidies with locally administered subsidies, social marketing programs, engagement with NGOs, and promoting household-level investments (Figure 13). Figure 13: Approaches to sanitation utilized in Bank-supported RWSSH projects, by time period (percentage of projects) Marketing Sanitation Local government subsidy provided Central government subsidy provided NGO-facilitated project 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1977-1985 1986-1995 1996-2003 Along with increased diversity in institutional arrangements for sanitation and hygiene, Bank-supported RWSSH projects have also broadened the range of technologies being offered (Figure 14). Review of project-level documents reveals that such diversity increasingly occurs within, not merely among projects, reflecting a greater degree of choice for households and communities. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1996-2003 stand- alone 1996-2003 multi- sector 1986-1995 stand- alone 1986-1995 multi- sector 1978-1985 stand- alone 1978-985 multi- sector Hygiene Sanitation Page 20 20 Figure 14: Types of sanitation technologies offered (% of projects within time period 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 (n=7) (n=17) (n=12) Period 1: 1977-1985 Period 2: 1986-1995 Period 3: 1996-2003 Traditional latrine VIP latrine Pour flush toilet Ecosan Small bore sewer Conv. sewerage Page 21 21 4. Conclusions Lending an average of US$220 million each year during the 25-year period of 1978-2003, the World Bank has been a key actor in rural water supply, sanitation, and hygiene. The wealth of experience gained during this period provides a basis for continuing leadership in the sector, as well as an opportunity to explore critical questions about maximizing both sustainability and impact at scale within RWSSH operations. The Bank has the potential to accelerate improvements to the quality and impact of its RWSSH portfolio, particularly if it endeavors to: · Investigate and address factors which may be limiting RWSSH lending and achievement of the MDGs in Africa, East Asia, and Southeast Asia . · Encourage more rigorous and longer-term sustainability assessments of RWSSH projects that are linked to practice and whose findings are used to shape new programs. Implement related organizational policy changes that promote greater attention to sustainability, such as revising project cycle budgeting so as to allocate more resources toward post-implementation project assessment (as has been done by the German government). · Move scalability up the agenda , including developing a clear definition and monitoring process. Despite a recognized need to address scalability in the sector, no organization has operationalized the concept ( e.g. , through the development of indicators). · Work with partners to optimize their leadership competencies in key areas of the sector, particularly with respect to sanitation and hygiene . The Bank also has the opportunity to maintain its position as a “thought leader” in RWSSH, and to make major contributions to the understanding of both sustainability and scalability of interventions in the sector, if it is prepared to: · Undertake a program of rigorous empirical (field-based) studies to examine the long-term sustainability and scale impact of operations and the conditions under which different lending strategies—including stand-alone and multi-sector approaches—are most likely to be successful. · Modify existing monitoring and evaluation systems to ensure that they generate key information on design inputs, implementation experience, and sustainability and scalability outcomes. Such efforts might entail working with partners to develop cost-effective and practical indicators and guidelines for their use; testing and calibration of such indicators through rigorous field work across a sample of Bank supported projects; and, eventually, revamping monitoring systems across the Bank (including those tracking multi-sector lending) to ensure that data are reported in a consistent, regular, and timely manner. · Continue strengthening its capacity in the area of rural sanitation and hygiene through sustained support of the recently established Sanitation, Hygiene, and Wastewater Advisory Service. The utility of establishing learning networks with related sectors such as education and health might also be explored. The Bank has 25 years of experience as the leading international financier of rural water supply, sanitation and hygiene. This review revealed the depth of experience and valuable lessons which have been learned over the years. With some additional research efforts this experience could be converted Page 22 22 Annex 1: The Millennium Development Goals Page 23 23 Annex 1: General references Black, M. (1998), Learning what works: A twenty year retrospective view on international water and sanitation cooperation, UNDP-World Bank, Washington D.C. Cairncross, S. (1992), Sanitation and Water Supply: practical lessons from the decade, UNDP-World Bank, Washington D.C. Churchill, A.A. with D. Ferranti, R. Roche, C. Tager, A. Walters and A. Yazer (1987), Rural Water Supply and Sanitation – Time for a Change, World Bank Discussion Papers Nr. 18, World Bank Group, Washington D.C. Davis, J. and Iyer, P. (2002), Taking Sustainable Rural Water Supply Services to Scale: A Discussion Paper, Bank Netherlands Water Partnership – Water and Sanitation Program, Washington D.C. DFID (1998), Guidance Manual on Water Supply and Sanitation Programmes, Department for International Development/Water and Environment at London and Loughborough, London. Hodgkin J. and WASH Project Staff (1994), The Sustainability of Rural Water Supply Projects, WASH Technical Report No. 94. Mukherjee, N. and van Wijk, C. eds. (2003), Sustainability Planning and Monitoring in Community Water Supply and Sanitation, Water and Sanitation Program/IRC IRC Thematic Group on Scaling up of community-managed rural water supply; www.irc.nl/scalingup 2003 IRC (2001), From system to service: scaling up community management Report on the conference, 12- 13 December, The Hague, The Netherlands, Report, Unpublished document, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, Delft, The Netherlands Rawlings, L.B., Sherburne-Benz, L., and van Domelen, J. (2004), Evaluating Social Funds: A Cross- Country Analysis of Community Investments’, The World Bank, Washington D.C. Sara, J., Katz, T. (1998), Making Rural Water Supply Sustainable: Report on the Impact of Project Rules, World Bank, Washington D.C. Water and Sanitation Program – Africa (2002), Water Supply and Sanitation in PRSP Initiatives: A Desk Review of Emerging Experience in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Water and Sanitation Program – Africa (2004), The Case for Marketing Sanitation. White, G.F., D.J. Bradley, A.U. White (1972), Drawers of Water – Domestic Water Use in East Africa, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. World Bank (2000), Rural Water Projects: lessons from OED evaluations, Operations Evaluation Department Working Paper Series 21096; World Bank, Washington D.C. World Bank (2002), Social Funds: Assessing Effectiveness, Operations Evaluation Department; World Bank, Washington D.C. World Bank (2003), Efficient Sustainable Services for All? An OED Review of the World Bank’s Assistance to Water Supply and Sanitation, Operations Evaluation Department. World Bank (2004), OED Review of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Process, Operations Evaluation Department, Washington D.C. World Bank, Sanitation, Health and Hygiene in World Bank Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Projects, Europe and Central Asia Regional Studies Program. World Bank/BNWP (2002), Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Toolkit for Multi-sector Projects, Rural Water Supply and Sanitation, and Social Funds Thematic Groups. Page 24 24 Annex 2: World Bank project documents reviewed 18 Arid Lands Resource Management Project, Kenya , 2003, ICR Report No: 27560. Arid Lands Resource Management Project, Kenya , 1995, SAR Report No: 13692-KE. Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project, China , 1992, SAR Report No: 10028-CHA. Review of the Bank’s Assistance to the Urban Water Supply and Wastewater Sector, China , 2002, Report No: 24979. Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project, China , 1999, ICR Report NO: 19475. Rural Water Supply Project, China , 1994, PPAR Report No: 13281. Rural Water Supply Project, China , 1992, PCR Report No: 11251. Rural Water Supply Project, China , 1985, SAR Report No: 5358-CHA. Rural Water and Sanitation Project, Bolivia , 2002, ICR Report No: 23133. Rural Water and Sanitation Project, Bolivia , 1995, SAR Report No: 14490-BO. Lower Shire Valley Agricultural Development Projects, Malawi , 1983, Impact Evaluation Report, Report No: 4850. Shire Valley Agricultural Consolidation Project, Malawi, 1986, PPAR Report No: 6171. Shire Valley Agricultural Consolidation Project, Malawi , 1978, SAR Report No: 1945-MAI. Rural Rehabilitation Project, Mozambique , 2001, ICR Report No: 22446. Rural Rehabilitation Project, Mozambique , 1993, SAR Report No: 11474-MOZ. Technical Assistance and Pilot Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project, Brazil , 1993, PCR Report No:11549. Technical Assistance and Pilot Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project, Brazil , 1985, SAR Report No: 5438-BR. Rural Water Supply Project, Zambia , 1992, PCR Report No: 10723. Rural Water Supply Project, Zambia , 1983, SAR Report No: 4175-ZA. Social Investment Project, Guatemala , 1992, SAR Report No: 11060-GU. Social Investment Project, Guatemala , 1999, ICR Report No: 19459. Small Rural Operations Project, Senegal , 1980, SAR Report No: 2700a-SE. Small Rural Operations Project, Senegal , 1995, PPAR Report No: 14765. Small Rural Operations Project, Senegal , 1991, PCR Report No: 9332. Rural Poverty Alleviation Project -Bahia, Brazil , 2001, ICR Report No: 23395. Northeast Rural Poverty Alleviation Program – Rural Poverty Alleviation Project – Bahia, Brazil , 1995, SAR Report No: 14390-BR. Bihar Plateau Development Project, India , 2001, ICR Report No: 21798. Bihar Plateau Development Project, India , 1992, SAR Report No: 10974-IN. Northeast Brazil Ceara Rural Development Project, Brazil , 1977, SAR Report No: 1580a-BR. 18 PAD: Project Appraisal Document, SAR: Staff Appraisal Document, ICR: Implementation Completion Report, PCR: Project Completion Report, PPAR: Project Performance Audit Report. Page 25 25 Project Performance Audit Report – Brazil: Supporting Rural Development in the Northeast, Ceara Rural Development Project – Ibiapaba, Paraiba Rural Development Project – Brejo, Pernambuco Rural Development Project – Agreste Setentrional, Brazil , 1989, PPAR Report No: 7910. Ceara Second Rural Development Project, Brazil , 1990, PCR Report No: 8380. Northeast Brazil Ceara Second Rural Development Project, Brazil , 1980, SAR Report No: 3020a-BR. Ceara Second Rural Development Project, Brazil , 1992, PPAR Report No: 10636. Fes-Karia-Tissa Agriculture Project, Morocco , 1992, PCR Report No: 10808. Fes-Karia-Tissa Agriculture Project, Morocco , 1978, SAR Report No: 2017-MOR. Fes-Karia-Tissa Agriculture Project, Morocco , 1994, PPAR Report No: 12701. Kerala Water Supply and Sanitation Project, India , 1998, PPAR Report No: 17922. Kerala Water Supply and Sanitation Project, India , 1985, SAR Report No: 5397-IN. Kerala Water Supply and Sanitation Project, India , 1995, ICR Report No: 14783. Rural Water Supply Project, Burundi , 1985, SAR Report No: 5445-BU. Water Supply Sector Project, Burundi , 1991, SAR Report No: 9185-BU. Social Investment Fund, Belize , 2003, ICR Report No: 25398-BZ. Social Investment Fund, Belize , 1997, PAD Report No: 16310-BEL. Rural Water Supply Project, Mali , 1983, SAR Report No: 4402-MLI. Rural Water Supply Project, Mali , 1995, PCR Report No: 15148. Rural Water Supply Project, Mali , 1997, PPAR Report No: 16511. Social Action Fund Project, Malawi , 1996, SAR Report No: 15345-MAI. Social Action Fund Project, Malawi , 2002, ICR Report No: 24017. Economic and Social Fund Project, Haiti , 1990, SAR Report No: 9058-HA. Mutara Agricultural and Livestock Development Project – Phase II, Rwanda , 1991, PCR Report No: 9829. Mutara Agricultural and Livestock Development Project – Phase II, Rwanda , 1979, SAR Report No: 2221-RW. Third Social Development Fund - Social Investment Fund, Ecuador , 1994, SAR Report No: 12436-EC. Third Social Development Fund, Ecuador , 2000, ICR Report No: 19997. NWFP Community Infrastructure and NHA Strengthening Project, Pakistan , 1996, SAR Report No: 15341-PAK. NWFP Community Infrastructure and NHA Strengthening Project, Pakistan , 2003, ICR Report No: 27496. Community Action Project, Zimbabwe , 1998, PAD Report No: 17115-ZIM. Community Action Project, Zimbabwe , 2004, ICR Report No: 28811. Project to Support Grassroots Initiatives to Fight Hunger and Poverty, Mali , 2004, ICR Report No: 28408. Project to Support Grassroots Initiatives to Fight Hunger and Poverty, Mali , 1998, SAR Report No: 17342. Community Reintegration and Rehabilitation Project, Sierra Leone , 2003, ICR Report No: 27263. Page 26 26 Water Supply and Sanitation for Low Income Communities Project, Indonesia, 1993, SAR Report No: 11777. Water Supply and Sanitation Project for Low-Income Communities, Indonesia , 2001, PPAR Report No: 22395. Small Towns Water and Sanitation Project, Uganda , 1994, SAR Report No: 12296-UG. Small Towns Water and Sanitation Project, Uganda , 2003, ICR Report No: 27529. Water Supply and Sanitation Project for Low Income Communities Project, Indonesia, ICR Report No: 20420. Tarim Water Supply Project, Yemen , 1990, SAR Report No: 8362-YDR. Tarim Water Supply Project, Yemen , 1999, ICR Report No: 19946. Rural Water and Sanitation Project, Morocco , 1997, PAD Report No: 17005-MOR. Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project, Morocco , 2003, ICR Report No: 25917. Pilot Public Health Management Project, Algeria , 1995, PCN Report No: 15219. Pilot Public Health Management Project, Algeria , 1991, SAR Report No: 8916-AL. Shaanxi Agricultural Development Project, China , 1989, SAR Report No: 7475-CHA. Shaanxi Agricultural Development Project, China , 1998, ICR Report No: 18127. Shaanxi Agricultural Development Project, China , 2000, PPAR Report No: 20683. Second Water Supply Project, Rwanda , 1987, SAR Report No: 6602-RW. Second Water Supply Project, Rwanda, 1999, ICR Report No: 19521. Southern Conveyor Project for Water Resources Development, Cyprus, 1988, SAR Report No: 6649. Southern Conveyor Project for Water Resources Development, Cyprus, 1997, ICR Report No: 16820. Emergency Drought Recovery Project, Sudan, 1992, SAR Report No: P-5578. Emergency Drought Recovery Project, Sudan, 1996, ICR Report No: 15792. Agricultural Sector Investment Loan, Tunisia, 1994, SAR Report No: 12229. Agricultural Sector Investment Loan, Tunisia, 2001, ICR Report No: 22291. Agricultural Sector Investment Loan, Tunisia, 2003, PPAR Report No: 26260. Village Infrastructure Project, Indonesia, 1995, SAR Report No: 13776. Village Infrastructure Project, Indonesia, 1999, ICR Report No: 19099. Village Infrastructure Project, Indonesia, 2000, PPAR Report No: 21546. Benin Borgou Pilot Rural Support Project, Benin, 1998, PAD Report No: 17654. Benin Borgou Pilot Rural Support Project, Benin, 2002, ICR Report No: 24797. Benin Borgou Pilot Rural Support Project, Benin, 2003, PPAR Report No: 26087. Social Recovery Project, Zambia, 1991, SAR Report No: 9471. Social Recovery Project, Zambia, 1999, ICR Report No: 18864. Social Recovery Project, Zambia, 2000, PPAR Report No: 20673. Second Social Recovery Project, Zambia, 1995, SAR Report No: 14329. Second Social Recovery Project, Zambia, 2001, ICR Report No: 22047. Page 27 27 Community Development Fund Project, Eritrea, 1996, SAR Report No: 14937. Community Development Fund Project, Eritrea, 2002, ICR Report No: 22694. Community Development Fund Project, Eritrea, 2002, PPAR Report No: 24418. Social Investment Fund Project, Armenia, 1996, SAR Report No: 14655. Social Investment Fund Project, Armenia, 2001, ICR Report No: 22077. Social Fund for Development, Yemen, 1997, PAD Report No: 16301. Social Fund for Development, Yemen, 2003, ICR Report No: 27194. Third Social Fund, Madagascar, 1999, PAD Report No: 18967. Third Social Fund, Madagascar , 2003, ICR Report No: 25649. Northeast Rural Development Program, Sergipe, Rio Grande Do Norte, Bahia and Ceara Projects, Brazil , 1996, ICR Report No: 16191. Northeast Rural Development Program, Northeast Rural Development II Project, Brazil , 1985, SAR Report No: 5349-BR. Community Works Project, Albania , 1998, PAD Report No: 18468 ALB. Community Works Project, Albania , 2002, ICR Report No: 25260. Second Social Development and Compensation Fund Project, Peru , 2001, ICR Report No: 22019-PE. Second Social Development and Compensation Fund Project, Peru ,, 1996, SAR Report No: 15497-PE. Third Water Supply and Sanitation Project, Paraguay , 1992, SAR Report No: 10684-PA. Third Water Supply and Sanitation Project, Paraguay , 1999, ICR Report No: 19180. Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal Rural Water Supply and Environmental Sanitation (SWAJAL) Project, India , 2003, ICR Report No: 27288. Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal Rural Water Supply and Environmental Sanitation (SWAJAL) Project, India , 1996, SAR Report No: 15516-IN. Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project, Pakistan , 2001, ICR Report No: 21867. Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project, Pakistan , 1991, SAR Report No: 8345-PAK. Karnataka Rural Water Supply and Environmental Sanitation Project, India , 1993, SAR Report No: 11450-IN. Karnataka Rural Water Supply and Environmental Sanitation Project, India , 2001, ICR Report No: 22012. Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project, Nepal , 1996, SAR Report No: 15232-NEP. Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project, Nepal , 2004, ICR Report No: 28523. Second Rural Development Fund (FSAR) Project, Cameroon , 1985, SAR Report No: 4780-CM. Second Development Fund Project, Cameroon , 1996, PCR Report No: 15660. Second Social Investment Fund Project, Nicaragua , 1995, Memorandum and Recommendation of the President of the IDA, Report No: P-6569-NI. Second Social Investment Fund Project, Nicaragua , 1998, ICR Report No: 18657. Social Investment Fund II – Rural Water and Sanitation Project, Bolivia , 2002, PPAR Report No: 24158. Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project, Benin , 2001, ICR Report No: 22461. Page 28 28 Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project, Benin , SAR Report No: 12860-BEN. Second Water Supply Project, Rwanda , 1987, SAR Report No: 6602 RW. Second Water Supply Project, Rwanda , 1999, ICR Report No: 19521. Social Investment Fund Project, Honduras , 1991, SAR Report No: 9148-HO. Social Investment Fund Project, Honduras , 1994, PCR Report No: 13573. Social Fund Project, Egypt , 1991, SAR Report No: 9561-EGT. Social Fund Project, Egypt , 1997, ICR Report No: 17248. Social Fund for Development Project, Yemen , 2003, ICR Report No: 27194. Social Fund for Development Project, Yemen , 1997, PAD Report No: 16301 YEM. Rural Sanitation Project, Nicaragua , 1988, PCN Report No: 7527. Rural Sanitation Project, Nicaragua , 1977, SAR Report No: 1753a-NI. Rural Water Supply Project, Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project II-III – Impact Evaluation Report - Community-based Rural Water Systems and the Development of Village Committees, Paraguay , 1998, Operations Evaluation Department, Report No: 17923. Page 29 29 Annex 2: Interviews completed The authors interviewed a number of task team leaders and other World Bank staff between October 2004 and February 2005, including: Raja Rehan Arshad Alexander Bakalian Caroline van den Berg Chris Cornelius Yasser El Gammel Wambui Gichuri Midori Makino Anna Sant Anna David Steel Tashi Tenzing Andrea Vermehren Richard Verspyk David Warren Page 30 30 Annex 3: Sample frame 3.A: Known population of stand- alone (“dedicated”) Bank-supported rural water supply, sanitation, and/or hygiene projects 1. Estimated Population of Stand-alone Rural Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Projects ( n =53) FY78 LCR Paraguay P007867 Rural Water Project FY78 LCR Nicaragua P007759 Rural Sanitation Project FY80 SAR India P009770 Rajasthan Water Supply and Sewerage Project FY81 LCR Paraguay P007874 Second Rural Water Project FY82 MNA Tunisia P005648 National Rural Water Supply Project FY83 AFR Zambia P003184 Rural Water Supply Project FY83 EAP Philippines P004497 Rural Water Supply Project FY84 AFR Mali P001715 Water Supply I FY84 MNA Tunisia P005659 Rural Water Supply Project FY84 SAR India P009827 Tamil Nadu Water Supply Project FY85 EAP China P003438 Rural Water Supply Project FY85 LCR Brazil P006359 Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Pilot FY86 AFR Burundi P000192 Water Supply II FY86 SAR India P009858 Kerala Water supply Project FY87 AFR Rwanda P002222 Water Supply II FY90 EAP Philippines P004561 Water Supply, Sewerage and Sanitation Project FY90 MNA Yemen, Republic of P006206 Tarim Water Project FY91 SAR India P010369 Maharashtra Rural Water Supply Project FY91 SAR Pakistan P010366 Rural Water Project FY92 AFR Burundi P000217 Water Supply Sector Project FY92 EAP China P003587 Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project FY93 EAP Indonesia P003990 Indonesia – WSSLIC I FY93 LCR Paraguay P007920 Third Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project FY93 SAR India P010418 Karnataka Rural Water Supply and Environmental Sanitation Project FY93 SAR Sri Lanka P010409 Community Water Supply and Sanitation Project FY94 AFR Benin P000121 Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project FY94 AFR Ghana P000924 Community Water and Sanitation Project FY94 AFR Uganda P002957 Small Towns Water and Sanitation Project FY96 LCR Bolivia P006206 Rural Water and Sanitation Project FY96 LCR Venezuela P008224 Monagas Water Project FY96 SAR India P010484 Uttar Pradesh & Uttaranchal Rural Water FY97 EAP China P003637 Naitonal Rural Water Supply Project FY97 ECA Turkmenistan P008867 Water Supply and Sanitation Project FY97 MNA Yemen, Republic of P043367 RY – Taiz Water Project FY97 SAR Nepal P010516 Rural Water and Sanitation Project FY98 AFR Madagascar P001564 Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Pilot Project FY98 ECA Uzbekistan P009121 Rural Water Supply and Health Project FY98 LCR Paraguay P039983 4 th Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project FY98 MNA Morocco P040566 Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project FY99 EAP China P057352 4 th Rural Water Supply Project FY00 AFR Ghana P050616 Second Community Water and Sanitation Project FY00 AFR Nigeria P064008 Small towns Water and Sanitation Program Pilot Project FY00 AFR Rwanda P045182 RW- Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project FY00 EAP Indonesia P059477 Indonesia – WSSLIC II FY01 LCR Ecuador P049924 EC Rural Water Supply and Sanitation FY01 MNA Yemen, Republic of P005906 Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project FY01 SAR India P055454 Kerala Rural Water Supply and Environmental Sanitation Project FY02 AFR Tanzania P047762 Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project FY02 ECA Kyrgyz P036977 Rural Water and Sanitation Project Page 31 31 Republic FY02 LCR Colombia P065937 Water Sector Reform Assistance Project FY02 SAR India P050653 Second Karnataka Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project FY03 SAR Sri Lanka P058067 Second Community Water and Sanitation Project FY03 LCR Peru P065256 National Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project 3.B: Known population of multi-sector Bank-supported projects with rural water supply, sanitation, and/or hygiene components 2. Estimated Population of Multi-sector Rural Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Projects ( n =344) FY78 AFR Cameroon P000340 ZAPI Integrated Rural Development Project FY78 AFR Cameroon P000341 Western Highlands Rural Development Project FY78 AFR Chad P000493 Sahelian Zone Project FY78 AFR Malawi P001604 Shire Valley Agricultural Consolidation Project FY78 AFR Tanzania P002712 Shinyanga Rural Development Project FY78 EAP Korea, Republic of P004078 Second Rural Infrastructure Project FY78 EAP Philippines P004454 First Rural Infrastructure Project FY78 ECA Cyprus P008349 Pitsilia Integrated Rural Development Project FY78 LCR Bolivia P006130 Ulla Ulla Development Project FY78 LCR Brazil P006285 Paraiba Rural Development Project FY78 LCR Brazil P006286 Ceara Rural Development Project FY78 LCR Brazil P006287 Bahia Rural Development Project FY78 LCR Colombia P006751 Integrated Nutrition Project FY78 MNA Morocco P005381 Kes-Faria-Tissa Agriculture Project FY78 MNA Yemen, Republic of P005768 Tihama Development Project II FY78 MNA Yemen, Republic of P005855 Wadi Tuban Agriculture Development Project FY78 SAR India P009727 Andhra Pradesh Fisheries Project FY79 LCR Brazil P006302 Water Supply and Sewerage Project FY79 MNA Tunisia P005632 Fifth Water Supply Project FY79 AFR Rwanda P002200 Second Mutara Agricultural and Livestock Development Project FY79 ECA Greece P008434 Integrated Forestry Development Project FY79 LCR Bolivia P006133 Omasuyos – Los Andes Rural Development Project FY79 LCR Brazil P006294 Sao Francisco II Irrigation Project FY79 LCR Brazil P006295 Pernambuco Rural Development Project FY79 LCR Ecuador P007057 Tungurahua Rural Development Project FY79 MNA Yemen, Republic of P005771 Third Tihama Development Project FY79 MNA Yemen, Republic of P005858 Second Fisheries Development Project FY79 SAR Afghanistan P009316 Agricultural and Rural Development Project FY79 SAR Nepal P010134 Second rural Development –Mahakli Hills- Project FY79 SAR Sri Lanka P010129 Kuranagala and Second Rural Development Project FY80 LCR Brazil P006309 Third Minas Gerais Water and Sewerage Project FY80 AFR Congo, Dem. Rep. of P003030 Smallholder Maize Project FY80 AFR Cote d’Ivoire P001127 Northeast Savannah Rural Development Project FY80 AFR Ghana P000856 Volta Agricultural Development Project FY80 AFR Kenya P001270 Second Integrated Agricultural Development Project FY80 AFR Senegal P002306 Small Rural Operations Project FY80 AFR Somalia P002456 Bay Region Agricultural Development Project FY80 AFR Sudan P002578 New Halfa Irrigation Rehabilitation Project FY80 EAP Indonesia P003788 Yogyakarta Rural Development Project FY80 EAP Indonesia P003791 Nucleus Estate and Smallholders IV Project FY80 EAP Indonesia P003792 Nucleus Estate and Smallholders IV Project FY80 EAP Philippines P004472 Samar Island Rural Development Project FY80 LCR Brazil P006303 Second Minas Gerais Rural Development Project FY80 LCR Peru P007964 Puno Rural Development Project FY81 MNA Morocco P005396 Third Water Supply Project FY81 AFR Benin P000075 Borgou Province Rural Development Project Page 32 32 FY81 AFR Burundi P000180 Kirimiro Rural Development Project FY81 AFR Nigeria P002046 Kano Agricultural Development Project FY81 AFR Nigeria P002047 Bauchi State Agricultural Development Project FY81 AFR Sierra Leone P002397 Third Eastern Integrated Agricultural Development Project FY81 AFR Sudan P002581 Blue Nile Pump Schemes Rehabilitation Project FY81 LCR Brazil P006310 Ceara Second Rural Development Project FY81 LCR Brazil P006311 Piaui Rural Development Project FY81 LCR Ecuador P007062 Puerto IIa Chone Rural Development Project FY81 MNA Tunisia P005638 Northwest Rural Development Project FY81 MNA Yemen, Republic of P005777 Second Southern Uplands Rural Development Project FY81 SAR Sri Lanka P010151 Second Rural Development Project FY82 AFR Burkina Faso P000263 Third Rural Development Fund FY82 AFR Burundi P000184 Third Ngozi Integrated Rural Development Project FY82 AFR Madagascar P001494 Second Village Livestock and Rural Development Project FY82 AFR Malawi P001614 Third National Rural Development Program FY82 AFR Nigeria P002049 Sokoto Agricultural Development Project FY82 ECA Portugal P008638 Tras-Os-Montes Rural Development Projects FY82 ECA Turkey P008940 Erzurum Rural Development Project FY82 LCR Brazil P006318 Maranhao Rural Development Project FY82 LCR Brazil P006320 Northwest Region Development Program (Phase II) Mato Grosso Rural Development Project FY82 LCR Brazil P006321 Amazonas Agricultural Development Projec FY82 LCR Colombia P006774 Second Integrated Rural Development Project FY82 LCR Ecuador P007063 Esmeraldas Rural Development Project FY82 LCR Mexico P007567 Third Integrated Rural Development Project (PIDER III) FY83 AFR Benin P000082 Zou Province Rural Development Project FY83 AFR Central African Republic P000448 Cotton Area Rural Development Project FY83 AFR Malawi P001616 Fourth National Rural Development Project FY83 AFR Sudan P002587 Gezira Rehabilitation Project FY83 AFR Togo P002842 Second Rural Development Project in Cotton Areas FY83 EAP Sri Lanka P010186 Third Rural Development Project FY83 LCR Brazil P006326 Second Bahia Rural Development Project FY83 LCR Peru P007979 Alto Mayo Rural Development Project FY83 MNA Morocco P005404 Oulmes - Rommani Agricultural Development Project FY84 MNA Yemen, Republic of P005872 Seiyun Regional Water Supply Project FY84 LCR Haiti P007289 Second Rural Development Project in the North FY84 MNA Yemen, Republic of P005789 Central Highlands Agricultural Development Project FY85 AFR Cameroon P000360 Second Rural Development Fund (FSAR II) FY85 AFR Ethiopia P000720 Drought Recovery Program FY85 AFR Somalia P002464 Northwest Region Agricultural Development (Phase II) Program FY85 AFR Sudan P002617 Drought Recovery Program Project FY85 LCR Brazil P006345 Northeast Rural Development Project NRDP Sergipe FY85 LCR Brazil P006380 Second North East Rural Development Project -NRDP- FY85 MNA Morocco P005422 Health Development Project FY85 MNA Yemen, Republic of P005794 Wadi Al Jawf Agricultural Development Project FY86 AFR Nigeria P002062 Nigeria - Multi-state Agricultural Development Project FY86 EAP Malaysia P004274 Malaysia - Land Settlement Infrastructure Project FY86 LCR Brazil P006432 Brazil - Fifth Northeast (Pernambuco) Rural Development Project FY86 LCR Colombia P006794 Colombia - Health Services Integration Project FY87 AFR Nigeria P002086 Southern Borno Agricultural Development Project FY87 LCR Brazil P006351 Third (Bahia) Northeast Rural Development Project FY87 LCR Brazil P006369 Fourth (Piaui) Northeast Rural Development Project FY87 LCR Brazil P006420 Northeast (Ceara) Rural Development Project FY87 LCR Brazil P006425 Northeast Alagoas Rural Development Project FY87 LCR Brazil P006426 Northeast (Minas Gerais) Rural Development Project Page 33 33 FY87 LCR Brazil P006433 Seventh Northeast (Maranhao) Rural Development Project FY87 LCR Brazil P006445 Northeast (Paraiba) Rural Development Project FY87 SAR Nepal P010269 Third Rural Development Project FY88 AFR Congo, Republic of P003085 Third Water Supply Project FY88 LCR Colombia P006836 Water Supply and Sewerage Project FY88 AFR Benin P000090 Second Borgou Rural Development Project FY88 AFR Lesotho P001390 Land Management and Conservation Project FY88 AFR Sudan P002608 Southern Kordofan Agricultural Development Project FY88 ECA Cyprus P008365 Southern Conveyor Project For Water Resources Development (Phase II) FY88 LCR Bolivia P006442 Itaparica Resettlement and Irrigation Project FY88 EAP Sri Lanka P010307 Health and Family Planning Project FY89 AFR Nigeria P002100 Second Multistate Agricultural Development Project FY89 AFR Nigeria P002124 Third Multistate Agricultural Development Project FY89 AFR Sao Taome P002540 Multi-sector Project FY89 AFR Somalia P002494 Central Rangelands Research and Development Project (Phase II) FY89 AFR Sudan P002601 Southern Kassala Agriculture Project FY89 EAP China P003551 Shaanxi Agricultural Development Project FY89 LCR Brazil P006308 Southern States Water Supply and Sewerage Project FY90 AFR Cote d’Ivoire P001151 Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Adjustment Program FY90 AFR Guinea P001065 National Rural Infrastructure Project FY90 AFR Malawi P001642 Infrastructure Project FY90 AFR Mali P001744 Agricultural Sector Adjustment - Investment Project FY90 AFR Somalia P002466 Farahaane Irrigation Rehabilitation Project FY90 EAP Lao People's Dem. Rep. P004195 Upland Agricultural Development Project FY90 LCR Bolivia P006182 Social Investment Fund Project FY91 AFR Sao Taome P002548 Multi-sector Project II FY91 MNA Egypt, Arab Republic of P005158 Social Fund Project FY91 SAR India P010362 Andhra Pradesh Cyclone Emergency Reconstruction Project FY91 AFR Mali P001727 Second Health, Population and Rural Water Supply Project FY91 AFR Zambia P003242 Social Recovery Project FY91 LCR Argentina P006028 Public Enterprise Reform Education Project FY91 LCR Colombia P006858 Rural Development Investment Program Project FY91 LCR Haiti P007321 Economic and Social Fund Project FY91 LCR Honduras P007389 Social Investment Fund Project FY91 LCR Mexico P007647 Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Project FY91 MNA Algeria P004937 Pilot Public Health Management Project FY91 MNA Jordan P005317 Emergency Recovery Project FY91 SAR India P009958 Agricultural Development Project (Tamil Nadu) FY91 SAR Sri Lanka P010368 Poverty Alleviation Project FY92 LCR Ecuador P068739 Second Social Development Health and Nutrition Project FY92 AFR Mozambique P001781 Agricultural Services Rehabilitation and Development Project FY92 AFR Nigeria P002109 Multi-State Water I FY92 AFR Rwanda P002261 Food Security and Social Action Project FY92 AFR Sudan P002645 Emergency Drought Recovery Project FY92 AFR Zimbabwe P003330 Emergency Drought Recovery Project FY92 LCR Brazil P006454 Rondonia Natural Resource Management Project FY92 LCR Brazil P006505 Mato Grosso Natural Resource Management Project FY92 LCR Ecuador P007115 Rural Development Project FY92 LCR Guyana P007254 Health, Nutrition and Sanitation FY92 LCR Honduras P007394 Second Social Investment Fund FY93 AFR Kenya P001369 Emergency Drought Recovery Project FY93 AFR Mozambique P001796 Rural Rehabilitation Project FY93 EAP Indonesia P003999 Groundwater Development Project FY93 ECA Albania P008264 Rural Poverty Alleviation Project FY93 LCR Bolivia P006200 Second Social Investment Fund FY93 LCR Ecuador P007087 Second Social Development Fund: Health and Nutrition FY93 LCR Guatemala P007220 Social Investment Fund Project Page 34 34 FY93 LCR Honduras P007392 Honduras - Nutrition and Health Project FY93 SAR India P010408 Bihar Plateau Development Project FY94 LCR Ecuador P007106 Third Social Development Project FY94 AFR Ghana P000961 Agricultural Sector Investment Project FY94 EAP Indonesia P003937 Integrated Swamps Development Project FY94 EAP Lao People's Dem. Rep. P004207 Luang Namtha Provincial Development Project FY94 LCR Guyana P007257 Water Supply Technical Assistance and Maintenance Project FY94 LCR Peru P008062 Social Development and Compensation Fund Project FY94 MNA Morocco P005435 Fifth Water Supply Project FY94 MNA Tunisia P005721 Agricultural Sector Investment Loan FY94 MNA Tunisia P005733 Northwest Mountainous Areas Development Project FY94 SAR Pakistan P010456 Social Action Program FY95 AFR Chad P038505 Supplemental Credit to the Social Development Action Project FY95 AFR Malawi P001667 National Water Development Project FY95 AFR Zambia P003210 Second Social Recovery Project FY95 EAP Cambodia P037088 Social Fund Project FY95 EAP China P003639 Southwest Poverty Reduction Program Project FY95 EAP Indonesia P034891 Village Infrastructure Project FY95 ECA Albania P008273 Rural Development Project FY95 LCR Argentina P006018 Second Provincial Development Project FY95 LCR Brazil P035717 Rural Poverty Alleviation Project Bahia FY95 LCR Brazil P038884 Rural Poverty Alleviation Program Ceara FY95 LCR Brazil P038885 Rural Poverty Alleviation Program Sergipe FY95 LCR Mexico P007702 Second Decentralization and Regional Development Project FY95 LCR Panama P007846 Rural Health Project FY95 MNA Algeria P038695 Mascara Emergency Reconstruction Project FY95 MNA Tunisia P005680 Water Supply and Sewerage Project FY95 SAR India P010461 Second Madras Water Supply Project FY96 AFR Angola P000061 Social Action Project FY96 AFR Eritrea P039264 Community Development Fund Project FY96 AFR Ethiopia P000764 Water Supply Development and Rehabilitation Project FY96 AFR Ethiopia P000771 Social Rehabilitation and Development Fund Project FY96 AFR Kenya P001331 Arid Lands Resource Management Project FY96 AFR Malawi P001668 Social Action Fund FY96 EAP China P003649 Shanxi Poverty Alleviation Project FY96 MNA Armenia P035768 Social Investment Fund Project FY96 LCR Brazil P037828 Parana Rural Poverty Alleviation and Natural Resources Management Project FY96 LCR Honduras P037709 Third Social Investment Fund Project FY96 LCR Nicaragua P038916 Second Social Investment Fund FY96 MNA Algeria P004978 Social Safety Net Support Project FY96 MNA Egypt, Arab Republic of P043102 Second Social Fund Project FY96 MNA Morocco P041303 Emergency Drought Recovery Project FY96 MNA Yemen, Republic of P043109 Public Works Project FY96 EAP Pakistan P010478 NWFP Community Infrastructure and National Housing Authority (NHA) Strengthening Project FY96 EAP Pakistan P010482 Balochistan Community Irrigation and Agriculture Project FY97 MNA West Bank and Gaza P047110 Community Development Project FY97 AFR Ghana P041150 Village Infrastructure Project FY97 EAP Indonesia P040521 Second Village Infrastructure Project FY97 EAP Philippines P037079 Agrarian Reform Communities Development Project FY97 LCR Belize P039292 Social Investment Fund Project FY97 LCR Brazil P038896 Rural Poverty Alleviation Program (Rio Grande do Norte) FY97 LCR Brazil P043871 Northeast Rural Poverty Alleviation Program Piaui FY97 LCR Jamaica P039029 Social Investment Fund Project FY97 LCR Panama P007837 Social Investment Fund Project FY97 LCR Peru P040125 Second Social Development and Compensation Fund Project FY97 MNA Algeria P043724 Rural Employment Project Page 35 35 FY97 MNA Yemen, Republic of P041199 Social Fund for Development Project FY97 MNA Yemen, Republic of P048522 Emergency Flood Rehabilitation Project FY97 SAR India P044449 Rural Women's Development and Empowerment Project FY98 LCR Guatemala P049386 Reconstruction and Local Development Project FY98 MNA Egypt, Arab Republic of P040858 Sohag Rural Development Project FY98 AFR Angola P045644 Post Conflict Social Reconstruction Project FY98 AFR Benin P035645 Social Fund Project FY98 AFR Benin P057345 Borgou Pilot Rural Support Project FY98 AFR Comoros P044824 Social Fund Project FY98 AFR Mali P035617 Project to Support Grassroots Initiatives to Fight Hunger and Poverty FY98 AFR Mozambique P039015 National Water Development Project FY98 AFR Senegal P002365 Urban Development and Decentralization Program Project FY98 AFR Zimbabwe P045031 Community Action FY98 EAP Indonesia P045337 Kacamatan Development Fund FY98 EAP Indonesia P040061 Bengkulu Regional Development Fund FY98 EAP Philippines P051386 SZOPAD Social Fund Project FY98 EAP Philippines P004595 Community Based Resources Management Project FY98 ECA Georgia P039929 Social Investment Fund Project FY98 LCR Argentina P049269 Third Social Protection Project FY98 LCR Brazil P035728 Bahia Water Resources Management Project FY98 LCR Brazil P038895 Federal Water Resources Management Project FY98 LCR Brazil P051701 Northeast Rural Poverty Alleviation Program Maranhao FY98 MNA Egypt, Arab Republic of P049166 East Delta Agricultural Services Project FY98 EAP Pakistan P037835 Second Social Action Program Project FY99 EAP Philippines P058842 Mindanao Rural Development Project FY99 ECA Romania P049200 Social Development Fund FY99 ECA Tajikistan P008860 Second Poverty Alleviation Project FY99 AFR Ghana P000970 Trade and Investment Gateway Project FY99 AFR Guinea P050732 Village Communities Support Program FY99 AFR Madagascar P064305 Third Social Fund FY99 AFR Malawi P049599 Second Social Action Fund Project FY99 AFR Togo P052263 Pilot Social Fund FY99 EAP Cambodia P050601 Second Social Fund Project FY99 EAP Cambodia P058841 Northeast Village Development Project FY99 EAP China P063123 Yangtze Flood Emergency Rehabilitation Project FY99 EAP China P046564 Gansu and Inner Mongolia Poverty Reduction Project FY99 EAP Lao People's Dem. Rep. P042237 Provincial Infrastructure Project FY99 EAP Vietnam P004845 Mekong Delta Water Resources Project FY99 ECA Albania P051309 Community Works Project FY99 ECA Azerbaijan P065504 Pilot Reconstruction Project FY99 ECA Moldova P044840 Social Investment Fund Project FY99 LCR Argentina P006058 Fourth Social Protection Project FY99 LCR Bolivia P057030 Regulatory Reform Sector Adjustment Credit FY99 LCR Guatemala P040198 Second Social Investment Fund Project FY99 LCR Guatemala P049386 Reconstruction and Local Development Project FY99 LCR Guatemala P054462 Land Fund Project FY99 LCR Honduras P048651 Fourth Social Investment Fund FY99 LCR Nicaragua P040197 Third Social Investment Fund Project FY99 MNA Egypt, Arab Republic of P040858 Sohag Rural Development Project FY99 MNA Egypt, Arab Republic of P052705 Third Social Fund Project FY99 MNA Morocco P005519 Lakhdar Watershed Management Pilot Project FY99 SAR Bangladesh P050745 Arsenic Mitigation Water Supply Project FY99 SAR India P041264 Integrated Watershed Development Project (Hills II) FY99 SAR Pakistan P049791 Poverty Alleviation Fund Page 36 36 FY00 AFR Burkina Faso P035673 Community-Based Rural Development Project FY00 AFR Angola P056393 Second Social Action Fund Project FY00 AFR Burundi P064510 Second Social Action Project (BURSAP) FY00 AFR Mali P041723 National Rural Infrastructure Program FY00 AFR Senegal P057996 National Rural Infrastructure Project FY00 AFR Sierra Leone P040649 Community Reintegration and Rehabilitation Project FY00 AFR Zambia P063584 Social Investment Fund (ZAMSIF) FY00 EAP Indonesia P059477 Second Water Supply and Sanitation for Low Income Communities Project FY00 EAP Philippines P058842 Mindanao Rural Development Project FY00 ECA Armenia P057952 Second Social Investment Fund Project (SIF II) FY00 ECA Poland P058202 Rural Development Project FY00 ECA Tajikistan P058898 Rural Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project FY00 LCR Brazil P006449 Ceara Integrated Water Resource Management Project FY00 LCR Columbia P068762 Community Works and Employment Project FY00 LCR Honduras P069772 Supplemental Credit to the Social Investment Fund FY00 LCR St. Lucia P054939 Poverty Reduction Fund Project FY00 MNA Tunisia P035707 Water Sector Investment Project FY00 MNA Yemen, Republic of P068830 Second Social Fund For Development FY00 SAR India P045049 Andhra Pradesh District Poverty Initiatives Project FY00 SAR India P059242 Madhya Pradesh District Poverty Initiatives Project FY00 SAR Sri Lanka P058070 North-East Irrigated Agriculture Project FY01 LCR Ecuador P039437 Poverty Reduction & Local Rural Development Project FY01 AFR Burkina Faso P035673 Community-Based Rural Development Project FY01 AFR Madagascar P055166 Community Development Fund Project FY01 AFR Niger P061558 Water Sector Project FY01 AFR Nigeria P069086 Community-based Poverty Reduction Project. FY01 AFR Rwanda P064965 Rwanda-Rural Sector Support Project FY01 AFR Senegal P041566 Social Development Fund Project FY01 AFR Tanzania P065372 Social Action Fund FY01 EAP Cambodia P073310 Second Social Fund Project FY01 EAP Lao People's Dem. Rep. P065973 Agricultural Development Project (Tamil Nadu) FY01 EAP Vietnam P062748 Community-Based Rural Development Project FY01 ECA Bosnia- Herzegovina P070995 Community Development Project FY01 LCR Belize P073924 Supplemental Loan Social Investment Fund FY01 LCR Brazil P050772 Land-Based Poverty Alleviation Project FY01 LCR Brazil P050881 Rural Poverty Reduction Project - Piaui FY01 LCR Honduras P064895 Fifth Social Investment Fund Project FY01 LCR Nicaragua P064906 Poverty Reduction and Local Development Project FY01 MNA Lebanon P071113 Community Development Project FY01 MNA Morocco P056978 Irrigation Based Community Development Project FY02 AFR Eritrea P044675 Community Development Program FY02 AFR Niger P069569 LKD Public Expenditure Adjustment Credit FY02 ECA Azerbaijan P055131 Second Structural Adjustment Credit Project FY02 ECA Romania P057960 Rural Development Project (First Phase) FY02 ECA Romania P068808 Social Development Fund Program (Phase II) FY02 ECA Ukraine P069858 Social Investment Fund FY02 LCR Brazil P043869 Santa Catharina Natural Resources Management and Rural Poverty Reduction Project FY02 LCR Brazil P074085 Sergipe Rural Poverty Reduction Project FY02 LCR Brazil P066170 Rural Poverty Reduction Project -Rio Grande do Norte (02) FY02 LCR Ecuador P039437 Poverty Reduction and Local Development Project (PROLOCAL) FY02 MNA Lebanon P074042 Ba'albeck Water and Wasterwater Project FY02 MNA Morocco P073531 Support for the Social Development Agency Project FY03 SAR Pakistan P082977 Poverty Alleviation Fund (02) FY03 AFR Burundi P081511 Social Action Program (BURSAP) Supplemental Grant FY03 AFR Ethiopia P077457 Ethiopia Social Rehabilitation and Development Fund - Supplemental Credit Page 37 37 FY03 AFR Ethiopia P081773 Emergency Drought Recovery Project FY03 AFR Malawi P073309 Supplemental Malawi NWDP FY03 AFR Malawi P075911 Third Social Action Fund FY03 AFR Niger P065991 Community Action Program Project FY03 AFR Sierra Leone P079335 National Social Action Project FY03 AFR Tanzania P074072 Poverty Reduction Support Credit FY03 AFR Uganda P002952 Northern Uganda Social Action Fund FY03 AFR Uganda P073671 Second Poverty Reduction Support Credit FY03 AFR Uganda P077477 Second Local Government Development Project FY03 EAP Cambodia P071146 Rural Investment and Local Governance Project FY03 EAP Indonesia P079156 Third Kecamatan Development Project FY03 EAP Philippines P071007 Second Agrarian Reform Communities Development Project FY03 EAP Philippines P077012 Kalahi - CIDDS- Kapitbisig Laban sa Kahirapan- Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services FY03 ECA Albania P077297 Second Community Works Project FY03 ECA Bulgaria P069532 SIEP Social Investment and Employment Promotion Project FY03 ECA Georgia P074361 Second Social Investment Fund Project FY03 ECA Moldova P074469 Pilot Water Supply and Sanitation Project FY03 LCR Argentina P073578 Jefes de Hogar (Heads of Household) Program Project FY03 LCR Guyana P073851 GY Poverty Red. Support Credit I (PRSC) FY03 LCR Mexico P060686 Municipal Development in Rural Areas FY03 SAR Pakistan P071454 AJK Community Infrastructure & Services Project Page 38 38 Annex 4: Stratified sample Stand-alone (“dedicated”) projects From a population of an estimated 52 dedicated RWSSH projects from the period 1978 to 2003, 35 had ICRs. From this sub-population of 35 the following 20 dedicated RWSSH projects were sampled, using stratification techniques such that the distribution of sampled projects ’ time-period, project size (US$), and region mirrored that of the parent population. 4.A: Sampled stand- alone (“dedicated”) Bank-supported rural water supply, sanitation, and/or hygiene projects Multi-sector projects The population of non-dedicated projects containing identifiable RWSSH components for the period 1978- 2003 consisted of 345 projects, of which 121 had ‘substantial’ RWSSH components 19 and for which ICRs were available. These multi-sector projects were sorted into two groups: ‘rural development projects’ and secondly ‘social development’ projects. From each of these two sub-populations 20 projects were sampled by again stratifying according time-period, project size and region, thereby ensuring that the sample would form a close representation of the original population. 19 Defined as projects in which the proportion of total lending allocated to RWSSH amounted to at least 5% of the total IBRD/IDA commitment. FY78 LCR Nicaragua P007759 Rural Water and Sanitation Project FY83 AFR Zambia P003184 Rural Water Supply Project FY84 AFR Mali P001715 Rural Water Supply Project FY85 EAP China P003438 Rural Water Supply Project FY85 LCR Brazil P006359 Technical Assistance and Pilot Rural Water Supply FY86 AFR Burundi P000192 Rural Water Supply Project FY86 SAR India P009858 Kerala Water Supply and Sanitation Project FY87 AFR Rwanda P002222 Second Water Supply Project FY90 MNA Yemen P005884 Tarim Water Supply Project FY91 SAR Pakistan P010366 Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project FY92 EAP China P003587 Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project FY93 EAP Indonesia P003990 WSSLIC I Water Supply and Sanitation for Low Income Countries FY93 LCR Paraguay P007920 Third Water Supply and Sanitation Project FY93 SAR India P010418 Karnataka Rural Water Supply and Environmental Sanitation Project FY94 AFR Benin P000121 Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project FY94 AFR Uganda P002957 Small Towns Water and Sanitation Project FY96 LCR Bolivia P006206 Rural Water and Sanitation Project FY96 SAR India P010484 Uttar Pradesh/Uttaranchal Rural Water Supply & Sanitation Project FY97 SAR Nepal P010516 Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project FY98 MNA Morocco P040566 Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project Page 39 39 4.B: Sampled stand- alone (“dedicated”) Bank-supported rural water supply, sanitation, and/or hygiene projects Rural Development Projects with Rural Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Components FY78 AFR Malawi P001604 Shire Valley Agricultural Consolidation Project FY78 LCR Brazil P006286 Ceara Rural Development Project FY78 MNA Morocco P005381 Fes-Karia-Tissa Agriculture Project FY79 AFR Rwanda P002200 Second Mutara Agricultural and Livestock Development Project FY80 AFR Senegal P002306 Small Rural Operations Project FY81 LCR Brazil P006310 Ceara Second Rural Development Project FY85 AFR Cameroon P000360 Second Rural Development Project (FSAR II) FY85 LCR Brazil P006380 Second North East Rural Development Project FY88 ECA Cyprus P008365 Southern Conveyor Project for Water Resources Development FY89 EAP China P003551 Shaanxi Agricultural Development Project FY91 MNA Algeria P004937 Pilot Public Health Management Project FY92 AFR Sudan P002645 Emergency Drought Recovery Project FY93 AFR Mozambique P001796 Rural Rehabilitation Project FY93 SAR India P010408 Bihar Plateau Development Project FY94 MNA Tunisia P005721 Agricultural Sector Investment Loan FY95 EAP Indonesia P034891 Village Infrastructure Project FY95 LCR Brazil P035717 Rural Poverty Alleviation Project Bahia FY96 AFR Kenya P001331 Arid Lands Resource Management Project FY96 SAR Pakistan P010478 NWFP Community Infrastructure and National Housing Project FY98 AFR Benin P057345 Benin Borgou Pilot Rural Support Project Social Development Projects with Rural Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Components FY91 AFR Zambia P003242 Social Recovery Project FY91 LCR Haiti P007321 Economic and Social Fund Project FY91 LCR Honduras P007389 Social Investment Fund Project FY91 MNA Egypt P005158 Social Fund Project FY93 LCR Guatemala P007220 Social Investment Fund Project FY94 LCR Ecuador P007106 Third Social Development Fund FY95 AFR Zambia P003210 Second Social Recovery Project FY96 AFR Malawi P001668 Social Action Fund FY96 AFR Eritrea P039264 Community Development Fund Project FY96 ECA Armenia P035768 Social Investment Fund Project FY96 LCR Honduras P037709 Third Social Investment Fund FY99 LCR Nicaragua P038916 Third Social Investment Fund FY97 LCR Belize P039292 Social Investment Fund Project FY97 LCR Peru P040125 Second Social Development and Compensation Fund Project FY97 MNA Yemen P041199 Social Fund for Development Project FY99 AFR Madagascar P064305 Third Social Fund FY99 ECA Albania P051309 Community Works Project FY98 AFR Mali P035617 Project to Support Grassroots Initiatives FY98 AFR Zimbabwe P045031 Community Action FY00 AFR Sierra Leone P040649 Community Reintegration and Rehabilitation Page 40 40 Annex 4: Population and sample profiles 1. Stand-alone Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Projects (n=35) Population Sample Regional Distribution # % # % AFR 8 22.9% 6 30% EAP 5 14.3% 3 15% ECA 1 2.9% 0 0% LAC 7 20.% 4 20% MENA 5 14.3% 2 10% SAR 9 25.7% 5 25% Time Distribution # % # % 1978-1987 15 42.9% 8 40% 1988-1995 13 37.1% 8 40% 1996-2003 7 20.0% 4 20% RWSSH Comp. Distribution # % # % < $10 million 2 5.7% 2 10% $10-$50 million 20 57.1% 12 60% > $50 million 13 37.1% 6 30% 2. Rural Development (n=84) Population Sample Regional Distribution # % # % AFR 33 39.3% 8 40% EAP 10 11.9% 2 10% ECA 5 6.0% 1 5% LAC 18 21.4% 4 20% MENA 12 14.3% 3 15% SAR 6 7.1% 2 10% Time Distribution # % # % 1978-1987 32 38.1% 8 40% 1988-1995 39 46.4% 9 45% 1996-2003 13 15.5% 3 15% RWSSH Comp. Distribution # % # % < $10 million 56 66.7% 13 65% $10-$50 million 27 32.1% 7 35% > $50 million 1 1.2% 0 0% Page 41 41 3. Social Development (n=37) Population Sample Regional Distribution # % # % AFR 16 43.3% 8 40% EAP 1 2.7% 0 0% ECA 2 5.4% 2 10% LAC 14 37.8% 8 40% MENA 4 10.8% 2 10% SA 0 0% 0 0% Time Distribution # % # % 1978-1987 0 0% 0 0% 1988-1995 14 37.8% 7 35% 1996-2003 23 62.2% 13 65% RWSSH Comp. Distribution # % # % < $10 million 28 75.7% 16 80% $10-$50 million 7 18.9% 3 15% > $50 million 2 5.4% 1 5% Page 42 42 Annex 5: Historical overview of RWSSH at the World Bank Urban approaches to rural water supply: During the 1960s and 70s investments in water supply (by governments, bi-laterals and international agencies) were concentrated on projects which aimed to bring developing- country services “up” to western standards using conventional technologies. Investments were focused on urban centers and technological development was limited to wastewater treatment and pipe technology. Throughout the 70s however evidence was growing that this approach left many people unserved. Groundbreaking work carried out in Africa showed not only that “new’ systems failed to reach many rural communities it also proved that traditional supplies were becoming increasingly scarce and unreliable in many rural areas 20 . The decade – new technologies for rural areas: The Mar del Plata Conference in 1978 proved to be a turning point and paved the way for a shift in thinking about rural water supply, sanitation and hygiene. The International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade (IDWSS), spanning the years from 1981-1990, shone an international spotlight on poor rural and urban communities who remained unserved by conventional water supply projects. The Bank responded in two ways: · firstly by launching the UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program which, with Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs) in Africa and Asia, helped to develop, test, demonstrate and scale up the use of new innovative low-cost technologies; and · secondly by increasing lending to rural water supply, sanitation and hygiene, initially through rural development projects. The earliest dedicated RWS investments became effective in 1978 (for Paraguay and Nicaragua). The work of the TAG and others in the international community provided the Bank with a range of new technologies and ideas on how to make investments in RWSSH more effective. A mid- decade review carried out by the Bank in 1987 examined the Bank’s operations up to that year and made a number of recommendations which, if they had been implemented, would have had a significant impact 21 . The primary recommendation, which does seem to have been acted on in part, concerned the fact that most of the lending up to that point had taken place as part of Rural Development operations. The authors concluded that: “To improve project performance, the Bank should exercise caution about continuing to finance these services as subcomponents unless there is an adequate policy and institutional framework in place. Without such a framework there is little chance of achieving a substantial rate of return on the component” (p66) Coincidentally 1987 was also the year that saw the approval of the first Social Development Fund – and multi-sector instrument which aimed to build local capacity through increased decision making and control over investments. Since that time, there has been a dialogue in the Bank which explores whether water and sanitation investments made under Social Development Funds are actually subject to appropriate institutional and financial rules 22 . The 1987 study, which looked at Bank projects and the literature, drew a number of conclusions about rural water supply and sanitation that remain largely unchallenged today. These included the findings that: · rural families are willing and able to pay for water supply and sanitation improvements; 20 White, G.F., D.J. Bradley, A.U. White (1972) Drawers of Water – Domestic Water Use in East Africa University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London 21 Churchill, A.A. with D. Ferranti, R.Roche, C.Tager, A.Walters and A.Yazer (1987) Rural Water Supply and Sanitation – Time for a Change World Bank Discussion Papers Nr 18. 22 See for example the World Bank/ BNWP (2002) Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Toolkit for Multi-sector Projects Rural Water Supply and Sanitation, and Social Funds Thematic Groups Page 43 43 · rural water supply and sanitation projects have significant health benefits when disease transmission is stopped through sanitation and improvements to hygiene; · the public sector is an inefficient provider of services which could better be delivered through local private sector, local authorities and village groups; · there is a strong need to build institutional capacity so that government becomes responsive to local needs, a change which requires more than “modest reforms”; and · appropriate use of technologies is essential. In response, the policy recommendations included: · development of improved cost sharing approaches; · development of innovative financing mechanisms; · increased emphasis on participation and the role of women; · increased emphasis and support for rural sanitation; · development of innovative partnerships with the private sector; and · increased financial support for capacity building and institutional development. The end of decade review echoed many of these findings and concluded that progress and continuing success depend most on responding to demand 23 . It was acknowledged that, although the shift in technological approaches had been vital, this alone was insufficient to promote sustainable access at scale. What appeared to be needed were new institutional models which supported sustainable investments and effective long-term operation and maintenance. The UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program began at that time to focus more on institutional development issues while project design shifted focus also. The 1990s – Demand Responsive Approaches and Community Driven Development: The early 1990s saw the development of a new generation of rural water supply, sanitation and hygiene projects. These projects were subject to rules and institutional approaches which taken together were loosely termed the “demand responsive approach” or “DRA”. While interpretation of DRA has varied the basic approach can be summarized as one which: “…advocates that to manage water as an economic good, projects should let consumer demand guide key investment decisions. Specifically, projects should adopt clear and transparent rules that allow users to select the level of service, technology and location of facilities that best fit their needs, with a clear understanding of the costs and responsibilities that these options bear.” 24 A 1997 review of this generation of projects concluded that: 25 · Demand responsiveness increases sustainability – sustainability is higher in communities where a demand-responsive approach was employed; · Most projects do not apply their rules related to demand responsiveness consistently among the communities where they work; · Sustainability is higher when demand is expressed directly by household members, not through traditional leaders of community representatives; · Training for household members and for water committees improves sustainability by building capacity and commitment; · A designated community organization is a necessary component of success; · Inflexibility in technical options and service levels puts systems at risk; 23 Cairncross, S. (1992) Sanitation and Water Supply: Practical Lessons from the Decade World Bank Water and Sanitation Discussion Paper Series Number 9. Other literature of the time echoed this finding and also emphasized the importance of investing in human capital and the need for gendered approaches in the sector. The new developments are usually dated from the Dublin conference in 1990 which emphasized for the first time that water was both a social and an economic good to be managed at the lowest appropriate level . 24 Katz, T. and J. Sara (1997) Making Rural Water Supply Sustainable: Recommendations from a Global Study UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program 25 Katz, T. and J. Sara ibid. Page 44 44 · Accountability and transparency are essential to controlling costs, preventing delays in implementation, and building trust among community members; · Financial policies must link service level to costs, and must provide incentives for projects to reduce costs; and · When choices are not linked to prices, households view contributions to projects as a tax rather than an expression of their demand. The widespread endorsement of the ideas behind DRA is apparent in the terminology of project documents from t his time forward, and is also echoed in the literature of the “Community Driven Development” (“CDD”) approach which was developed in the Bank around the same period, for application across all development sectors. In 2000 an evaluation of the Rural Water Sector for OED acknowledged the challenges inherent in scaling up “DRA-type” projects which emphasize “local involvement in management and design” 2 6 . The report drew on Implementation Completion Reports (ICRs) of 15 projects closed prior to 2000 and concluded that: · most projects did not provide sufficient support for long term operation and maintenance (O&M) of schemes - which has proved more challenging for communities than originally thought; · lack of attention to institutional development has resulted in failures in schemes with the result that governments have had to return to rehabilitate or carry out unscheduled maintenance – this appears to be linked to inadequate cost recovery in many cases; and · a range of levels of service is essential to ensure a good fit between what is offered and what communities need, want and can manage. At about the same time, an analysis of social funds suggested that, while water and sanitation components tended to exhibit fairly good poverty-targeting, this varied with the approach (the correlation was better for simple sanitation than sewerage, for example). The analysis also suggested that investments exhibited varying sustainability – but that several common factors could improve this including: · more formal systems for community-led maintenance; · more reliance on local governments to support social infrastructure; · basing investments on users’ willingness to pay; and · more training in operation and maintenance. In other words, the performance of water and sanitation investments in social funds was impacted by many of the same constraints exhibited in stand-alone sector projects 27 . 2000 onwards: While the rural water sector had been refining DRA and implementing a host of innovative projects, it became apparent that a significant proportion of lending was still taking place in the context of multi-sector projects. Recognizing this, the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Thematic Group developed and published a Toolkit for Rural Water Supply and Sanitation in Multi-sector projects in 2002 28 . Increased emphasis on the use of budgetary support (generally through Poverty Reduction Strategy Credits, mostly focused on Sub-Saharan Africa) also calls into question how rural water supply and sanitation investments can be sustained and access increased at scale outside the ambit of standalone projects 29 . The sector is also increasingly recognizing that hygiene behavior change and building sustained demand for sanitation are both long-term processes and that the private sector has a key role to play in both areas. These conclusions both suggest that “integrated projects” subject to the time-limitations of the Bank’s project cycle 26 Parker, R. and T. Skytta (2000) Rural Water Projects – Lessons from OED Evaluations OED Working Paper Series Nr. 3 27 Rawlings, L., L. Sherburne-Benz, J. Van Domelen (2004) Evaluating Social Funds – A cross Country Analysis of Community Investments World Bank Regional and Sector Studies 28 World Bank/ BNWP (2002) Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Toolkit for Multi-sector Projects Rural Water Supply and Sanitation, and Social Funds Thematic Groups 29 A 2001 review of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (a requirement as a precursor to PRSCs) in the poorest countries of Africa found that while sanitation and water were often cited as a pressing need at the community level, they failed to be addressed in final budgetary recommendations at national level (Water and Sanitation Program – Africa (2002) Water Supply and Sanitation in PRSP Initiatives: A Desk Review of Emerging Experience in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)) Watsan staff acknowledge the challenges of linking sector reform to budgetary support but new approaches are now being developed. A companion piece to this research will explore best-practice in this important area. For a more general analysis of the experience of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers see OED (2004) OED Review of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Process. Page 45 45 may not be the best vehicles for achieving sustained health gains, which require both increased access to water and sanitation, as well as changes in hygienic behaviors 3 0 . Pressure is growing to find solutions which are sustainable at scale. With the commitment of the Bank to supporting developing countries achieve the Millennium Development Goals, scaling up of sustainable investments has become even more important. 30 See for example WSP (2004) The Case for Marketing Sanitation Water and Sanitation Program – Africa Field note and the Handwashing Initiative. Page 46 46 Annex 6: Timeline of major international conventions and agreements related to rural water supply and sanitation Page 47 47 Date Events – Issues Outcomes Quotes – Remarks 1977 UN Conference on Water, Mar del Plata Main issues: assessment of water resources, water use and efficiency Mar del Plata Action Plan ‘Relatively little importance has been attached to water resources systematic measurement. The processing and compilation of data have also been seriously neglected.’ (Recommendation A: Assessment of water resources, Mar del Plata Action Plan). 1981-1990 International Drinking Water and Sanitation Decade ‘The goal of the Decade was that, by the end of 1990, all people should possess and adequate water supply and sullage disposal. This was indeed an ambitious target as it has been estimated that it would have involved the provision of water and sanitation services to over 650,000 people per day for the entire ten day period. Although major efforts were made by government and international organizations to meet this target, it was not achieved.’ (Choguill, C.; Francys, R.; Cotton, A. 1993. Planning for Water and Sanitation.) 1990 Global Consultation on Safe Water and Sanitation for the 1990s, New Delhi Main Issues: safe drinking water, environmental sanitation New Delhi Statement: ‘Some for all rather than more for some’ ‘Safe water and proper means of waste disposal… must be at the center of integrated water resources management’ (Environment and health, New Delhi Statement) 1992 International Conference on Water and the Environment, Dublin Main issues: economic value of water, women, poverty, resolving conflicts, natural disasters, awareness UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED Earth Summit), Rio de Janeiro Main issues: cooperation and participation, water economics, drinking water and sanitation, human settlements, sustainable development, food production, climate change Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development Rio Declaration on Environment and Development Agenda 21 Principle 1: ‘Fresh water is a finite and vulnerable resource, essential to sustain life, development and the environment’ Principle 2: ‘Water development and management should be based on a participatory approach, involving users, planners and policy-makers at all levels’ Principle 3: ‘Women play a central part in the provision, management and safeguarding of water’ Principle 4: ‘Water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recognized as an economic good’ (Guiding principles. The Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development) ‘establishing a new and equitable global partnership through the creation of new levels of cooperation among States, key sector societies and people’ (Rio Declaration) ‘The holistic management of freshwater… and the integration of sector water plans and programs within the framework of national economic and social policy, are of paramount importance for action in the 1990s and beyond.’ (Section 2, Chapter 18, Agenda 21) The guiding principle in the achievement of Agenda 21 is: ‘community management of services, backed by measures to strengthen local institutions in implementing and sustaining water and sanitation programmes’. 1997 First World Water Forum, Marrakech Main issues: water and sanitation, management of shared waters, preserving ecosystems, gender equity, efficient use of water Marrakech Declaration ‘to recognize the basic human needs to have access to clean water and sanitation, to establish an effective mechanism for management of shared waters, to support and preserve ecosystems, to encourage the efficient use of water.’ (Marrakech Declaration) 2000 Second World Water Forum, The Hague Main issues: water for people, water for food, water and nature, water in rivers, sovereignty, interbasin transfer, water education World Water Vision: Making Water Everyone’s Business · ‘Involve all stakeholders in integrated management; · Move to full-cost pricing of water services; · Increase public funding for research and innovation; · Increase cooperation in international water basins; · Massively increase investments in water; (Vision Statement and Key Messages, World Water Vision) UN Millennium Declaration ‘We resolve…to halve, by the year 2015… the proportion of people who are unable to reach of afford safe drinking water.’ (19, UN Millennium Declaration) 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, Rio+10, Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development ‘We recognize that poverty eradication, changing consumption and production patterns, and protecting and Page 48 48 Page 49 49 Annex 7: The first World Bank-supported rural water supply and sanitation projects – Nicaragua ‘Rural Sanitation Project’ – Approved 29-Nov-1977 Objectives and Project Design: The World Bank’s first free- standing rural water project was approved in fiscal 1978, and sought to improve basic sanitation services in three regions of Nicaragua, by providing a fairly integrated program of water supply, latrines, sanitary house improvements, and health education. The basic concept of this project was to provide water in standpipes with hand pumps, using mechanized systems only when no other solution was feasible, and making community involvement and participation the basic condition for project execution. The project was the first Bank operation of its kind in Nicaragua and the capacity of the Borrower to implement the Rural Sanitation Proj ect was overestimated. The project was amended, restructured and reduced in scope. After the restructuring, project execution improved considerably and coordination among institutions was strong. Development Outcome and Impact: The number of villages att ended to was 170 instead of the about 550 envisaged at appraisal, with a corresponding reduction in the number of people who benefited (85%). The project reached the poorer smaller villages with an average population of about 124 inhabitants and provided a n integrated sanitation and related health services program. On the other hand, the latrine program exceeded by 84% the appraisal target but no latrines were rehabilitated. The communities were organized and trained to be responsible for their contribution to the project and the operation and maintenance of the facilities. Village participation and contribution was good, reaching an estimated 20% of the total cost, exceeding the minimum 15% in the appraisal report. The average per capita cost of the water services was US$55 which is relatively low for Latin American standards. Lessons Learned: More time should have been spent on project preparation, pre-appraisal and restructuring to design a project more adjusted to the capacity of the implementing agency. Bank supervision should have been more frequent than once per year to allow additional time to review progress in the field as well as at the central office. This would have enabled the Bank to help resolve problems at an early stage and provide guidance to the Borrower. – Paraguay Rural Water Supply Project’ – Approved 13-Dec-1977 Objectives and Project Design: The Rural Water Supply Project, for which Loan 15022-PA was made in December 1977, was the first Bank loan for community water supply in the country. The project was to: (i) improve the level of sanitary services in rural communities in Paraguay; (ii) install piped water supplies and individual waste disposal facilities in 42 communities in three provinces in Paraguay; (iii) provide equipment, technical assistance and training for the National Service of Environmental Sanitation (SENASA), the executing agency; and (iv) establish an educational and promotional program in basic public health in the project area. Community participation was encouraged by the establishment of a Sanitation Committee (‘Junta’) in each village and a system of reimbursement to SENASA by each Junta covering a deposit against construction costs, O&M expenses, and a renewals provision, all financed by agreed tariffs to consumers. Development Outcome and Impact: The service levels attained as a result of the project exceeded expectations: 47 communities benefited from the project, compared to the estimated 42, servicing 82,000 people. The juntas are meeting the financial commitments, from tariffs, which appear to be affordable. The technical assistance required by the Bank as a loan condition did much to improve SENASA’s management ability, though accounting was a continuing weak spot. After a major reorganization in 1994, SENASA matured into an effective agency. Because of the attention paid in project planning to community participation, affordable tariffs and financial provision by the juntas towards the costs of operation, maintenance and renewals, the project benefits appear to be sustainable. Lessons Learned include (a) the importance of ensuring the availability of water sources before initiating subprojects, and of using adequate socio-economic surveys before assessing a rural community’ s ability to contribute towards project costs; and (b) the need to avoid optimism in assessing the time and effort needed to build up an effective institution. The World Bank Group, (1987). Paraguay: Rural Water Supply Project – Project Performance Audit Report No. 6873. Washington D.C. Page 50 50 Annex 8: The World Bank’s RWSSH assistance program in Paraguay Summary of the impact evaluation study “ Community-based Rural Water Systems and the Development of Village Committees. ” This impact evaluation study tries to assess the impacts of the World Bank’s assistance program on the performance of Paraguay ’s rural water sub-sector. The fundamental objective of the projects was to mitigate precarious living and health conditions in rural communities by providing safe water supply and sanitation facilities. The loans have financed the work of the National Environmental Sanitation Service (SENASA) with juntas de saneamiento, nonprofit committees legally constituted to manage water and sanitation within towns and villages of 400 to 4,000 inhabitants. Each Bank loan has followed the same community- based strategic approach, requiring that each participating village operate and maintain its water system. Achievements, Outcomes and Development Impact . Bank support for the rural water subsector in Paraguay has made a significant difference in the lives of rural families in a large geographic area. These loans have led to the establishment of 275 functioning community-based water, raising the coverage of rural areas from around 1% to about 20% over a 20-year period. SENASA records show that more than 210,000 sanitary units have been constructed in rural areas, not all of which are in the project area or were built with Bank assistance. In addition, SENASA delivered 952 training courses on health and hygiene and on water system management, benefiting approximately 160,000 individuals. SENASA helped create 424 local organizations, all of which will ultimately operate systems that deliver potable water to their communities. The RWS projects have also created employment and leadership opportunities for women in rural villages; improved income distribution and local coordination capacity; reduced disparity between rich and poor in terms of basic household amenities; improved environmental hygiene; strengthened the private sector; and at the household level, produced time and energy savings and productivity gains due to health improvements. Measurable Impacts: - An OED review of Ministry of Health data for a 10-year period compared hospital visits for five villages that had received potable water through the project with five others that had not: deaths due to diarrhea were seven times higher in unserved villages. - Similarly, a study of 150 villages found that over 95 percent of recent (self-reported) stomach distress had occurred in households that had not received potable water through the projects. Institutional Development and O&M: The institutional development achieved is impressive: the hundreds of juntas that have been established in rural villages are stable and growing; and their members and directors have been trained to operate reasonably complex water delivery systems. Not one junta has ceased to deliver services once its water system became operational. Threats to Sustainability: - The greatest immediate threat to sustainability of the committees is excess consumption, commercial use, and misuse of water. - Of concern in the intermediate term is that tariffs and fees for connection and disconnection do not reflect the true cost of operations in most juntas. Tariffs need to be set at sustainable levels. - Cost recovery and financial management are also serious issues. - Weak juntas need additional administrative help over the short term. - Loan mechanisms should be in place for existing and new juntas to cover water metering The World Bank Group, (1998). Paraguay: Impact Evaluation Report: Community-based Rural Water Systems and the Development of Village Committees. Rural Water Supply Project (Loan 1502 PA), Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project II- III (Loans 2014, and 3519 PA). Report No. 17923. Washington D.C. Page 51 51 Annex 9: Summaries of previous reviews of Bank-supported RWSSH projects 1. – Rural Water Supply and Sanitation: Time for a Change – Churchill, A.A. with D. Ferranti, R. Roche, C. Tager, A. Walters and A. Yazer, 1987 2. – Sanitation and Water Supply: Practical Lessons for the Decade – Cairncross, S., 1992 This mid-decade review, – the International Water Supply and Sanitation Decade-, carried out by the Bank in 1987 examined the Bank’s operations up to that year, drawing attention to main issues and problems, and formulating policy implications and recommendations concerning the Bank’s ‘Role’ in RWS. The paper stressed that the design and implementation of replicable programs for rural water and sanitation require four essential policy elements: 1. cost recovery – assumption: rural families are willing and able to pay for water supply and sanitation services; 2. consumer participation – assumption: unless consumers actively participate in the selection of service levels, and in decisions associated with cost recovery, they will not accept ownership; 3. involvement of women; 4. public and private supply of services – assumption: often times, the public sector is an inefficient provider of services, which could better be delivered through local private sector, local authorities and village groups. Regarding the benefits of RWS interventions, the paper emphasized the economic benefits next to the traditionally stressed health benefits. Additionally, concerning institutional development , it concluded there is a strong need to build institutional capacity so that Governments become more responsive to local needs, a change which requires ‘modest reforms’. Finally, it was stressed that appropriate use of technologies is essential. However, given the fact that sanitation services do not appear to be of high priority to most rural dweller, and the public sector can try to stimulate demand, direct investment should be limited to high-priority urban areas. Based on these findings, the paper included the following recommendations for future Bank policy: · development of improved cost sharing approaches; · development of innovative financing mechanisms; · increased emphasis on the participation and the role of women; · increase emphasis on the economic benefits of RWS, next to benefits from improved health; · development of innovative partnerships with the private sector; · increased financial support for capacity building and institutional development; and · Bank financing of RWS in the form of subcomponents of rural development projects should be continued only in those cases where there exists an adequate policy framework. Churchill, A.A. with D. Ferranti, R. Roche, C. Tager, A. Walters and A. Yazer, (1987). Rural Water Supply and Sanitation: Time for a Change. The World Bank Group, Washington D.C. Page 52 52 3. – Learning What Works: A 20 Year Retrospective View on International Water and Sanitation Cooperation – Black, M., 1998 This review provides an analysis of experience gained during the International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade's effort to provide low-cost waste disposal facilities to poor communities in developing countries. The principal lesson is that progress and continuing success depend most on responding to consumer demand. It was acknowledged that, although the shift in technological approaches had been vital, alone this was insufficient to promote sustainable access at scale. What appeared to be needed were new institutional models which supported sustainable investments and effective long-term operation and maintenance by emphasizing consumer demand. Government departments and agencies typically have little experience with the techniques of marketing, and donor agencies may have little patience with the time and effort required to achieve success. Commu nity contact and consumer education are essential. It is useful to begin promotion and education efforts with an established cadre of community workers and to build the program on the sanitation solutions the target community has used in the past, aiming for sustained growth rather than rapid coverage. Important linkages with housing, water supply, drainage, solid waste disposal, and land tenure must be considered in planning and executing a program. Equally important, interactions and complementarily with water supply and health education can significantly increase the total benefit to a community. Equipment choice, installation, financing, maintenance strategies, and cost recovery are important considerations that must be dealt with afresh in each locality. It is important to test several options and approaches in the communities where they will be used. It is also vital to offer consumers a range of choices and allow them to choose the one they prefer and are willing to pay for. Cairncross, S. (1992) Sanitation and Water Supply: Practical Lessons from the Decade World Bank Water and Sanitation Discussion Paper Series Number 9. The World Bank Group, Washington D.C. This comprehensive review of developments which have guided thinking and action in the water sector, since the UNDP- World Bank Water and Sanitation Program’s inception in 1978, analyzes how the program and the sector have been affected by, and responded to, these developments. The report begins with a historical introduction and is then divided in three main sections, each covering a phase of the 20-year period, while focusing on the period’s main project activities, principal lessons and its respective evolution in international thinking. · Part I: “The Appropriate Technology Phase, 1978-1988” – looks at the Program’s first decade of activity. Key issues are urban sanitation and community water supplies, and program activities included the low-cost water supply and sanitation project, and ‘the handpumps project’. The key lesson learned during this phase was that identifying low-cost hardware solutions was only the first step and that these approaches take time to prevail. Moreover, there was the growing recognition that a system consisting of various separate installations required a very different structure of operational management than one typically undertaken. Communities would have to take on some measure of responsibility and therefore would have to feel a strong sense of ownership of services. · Part II: “From ‘Hardware’ to ‘Software’, 1988-1994” – discusses the shift in emphasis from appropriate technologies to a greater concern with institutional and service management issues. During this period, the Program focus was on sustainability, community participation and the role of women, and institution-building and human resources development. Activities included the ‘International Training Network’ (ITN), ‘Scaling up’, demonstration projects, the promotion of participation, etc. Main lessons learned recognized the extreme complexity of creating functional systems of community management for water and sanitation. · Part III: “Promoting the New Agenda, 1994-1998” – traces the further evolution of the Program’s scope and agenda. It looks at capacity building, the growing urban sanitary crisis, and the shift towards a more demand-responsive approach to service provision. Program activities were concerned with learning, urban sanitation, and demand responsiveness on a global scale. Black, M . (1998). Learning What Works: A 20 Year Retrospective View on International Water and Sanitation Cooperation. UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, Washington D.C. Page 53 53 4. – Sanitation, Health and Hygiene in World Bank Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Projects – Europe and Central Asia Regional Studies Program, 5. – Rural Water Projects. Lessons from OED Evaluations – Parker, R. and Skytta, T., 2000 The review was carried out by the ECA Regional Studies program for the express purpose of making RWSS projects more health-results oriented. The authors of the study reviewed professional literature on best practices and lessons learned in RWSS and all available reports on RWSS projects or project components. They interviewed Bank TTLs on the current status of activities in implementation as well as internationally recognized experts outside the Bank. Finally, fieldwork was conducted to assess the performance of the hygiene, sanitation, and health component of a RWSS project in implementation (the Ghana RWSS). The key findings of the review are listed below: · Examples of completed WB RWSS projects with documented health impacts are very rare. Most projects report improved health as an impact but very few have baseline information sufficient to make this claim. · Non-water sector projects with RWSS components are often well placed to implement the hygiene, sanitation, and health promotion activities that would enhance the benefits of the water supply investment. They tend to adopt approaches to project design and implementation that differ from RWSS projects. · Most of the RWSS projects in implementation with hygiene, sanitation, and health components include the key ingredients for success with the exception of a well-defined monitoring and evaluation program. · Participation of beneficiaries and stakeholders and use of the demand responsive approach have been increasing in the World Bank RWSS projects. · Bank-wide, it is very rare for policy issues or training related to strengthening of the public health policies, institutions, and staff to be included in RWSS projects. The study’s recommendations focus on improving hygiene, sanitation, and health aspects of RWSS. 1. The first recommendation is directed to operational staff at the Bank; if health benefits are an objective of a RWSS project or component, included hygiene, sanitation and health interventions. 2. The second recommendation, also directed to operations staff, underlines the importance of monitoring and evaluation: when the project gets underway, immediately set up a monitoring and evaluation program. 3. The third recommendation is addressed to the Bank as an institution: require that all projects with investments in RWS and a goal of improved health, include hygiene, sanitation, & health interventions. Klees, R. with J. Godinho, M. Lawson-Doe, S. Adulin (?). Sanitation, Health and Hygiene in World Bank rural Water Page 54 54 6. – Efficient Sustainable Services for All? An OED Review of the World Bank’s Assistance to Water Supply and Sanitation – OED, 2003 The review was carried out by the ECA Regional Studies program for the express purpose of making RWSS projects more health-results oriented. The authors of the study reviewed professional literature on best practices and lessons learned in RWSS and all available reports on RWSS projects or project components. They interviewed Bank TTLs on the current status of activities in implementation as well as internationally recognized experts outside the Bank. Finally, fieldwork was conducted to assess the performance of the hygiene, sanitation, and health component of a RWSS project in implementation (the Ghana RWSS). The key findings of the review are listed below: · Examples of completed WB RWSS projects with documented health impacts are very rare. Most projects report improved health as an impact but very few have baseline information sufficient to make this claim. · Non-water sector projects with RWSS components are often well placed to implement the hygiene, sanitation, and health promotion activities that would enhance the benefits of the water supply investment. They tend to adopt approaches to project design and implementation that differ from RWSS projects. · Most of the RWSS projects in implementation with hygiene, sanitation, and health components include the key ingredients for success with the exception of a well-defined monitoring and evaluation program. · Participation of beneficiaries and stakeholders and use of the demand responsive approach have been increasing in the World Bank RWSS projects. · Bank-wide, it is very rare for policy issues or training related to strengthening of the public health policies, institutions, and staff to be included in RWSS projects. The study’s recommendations focus on improving hygiene, sanitation, and health aspects of RWSS. 1. The first recommendation is directed to operational staff at the Bank; if health benefits are an objective of a RWSS project or component, included hygiene, sanitation and health interventions. 2. The second recommendation, also directed to operations staff, underlines the importance of monitoring and evaluation: when the project gets underway, immediately set up a monitoring and evaluation program. 3. The third recommendation is addressed to the Bank as an institution: require that all projects with investments in RWS and a goal of improved health, include hygiene, sanitation, & health interventions. Klees, R. with J. Godinho, M. Lawson-Doe, S. Adulin (?). Sanitation, Health and Hygiene in World Bank rural Water Objectives of the Study – Study Scope and Methods . This Operations Evaluation Department (OED) study, which is primarily a desk review, updates the findings of the 1992 OED review of the Water Supply and Sanitation (WSS) sector. It is based on an analysis of existing OED databases, data generated by OED project performance assessment reports (PPARs), and data obtained throu gh electronic mail surveys. The evaluation is divided into four main areas, and the first area of the review is the most applicable to the RWS, namely the portfolio review. The portfolio review comprises 304 water supply and sanitation projects of which 142 dedicated and 162 non-dedicated, representing the totality of projects approved in the 1990-2001 period. Internal consistency of dedicated projects. It is reasonable to expect consistency between stated objectives, loan components, and loan conditionality. However, the analysis indicated that such internal consistency is not always the case: objectives are often quite general and lack legal covenants to underpin project implementation. Policy consistency between dedicated and non -dedicated projects. Policy consistency between dedicated and non- dedicated projects is similarly lacking. For example, private sector participation with regulation seems to be pursued only under dedicated projects. Likewise, policy and strategy reform ranks considerably higher among the objectives, components, and conditionality for dedicated projects. The reason could be that non-dedicated projects covers a number of sectors and each sector may receive less attention than it would in stand-alone projects. Assuming the trend towards a growing share of non-dedicated sector lending continues, the challenge of ensuring policy consistency across the entire water supply and sanitation sector will intensify Evaluation of Sector Objectives: 1. ‘Providing Service-For-All’. The overarching sector objective is to provide ‘service-for-all’ and is practically a universal component of both dedicated and non-dedicated projects. It is less often listed as an objective , showing up in only about one-quarter of either category of projects. 2. ‘Providing Sustainable Service’ . A number of objectives aim at ensuring sustainable and safe services. Four of the six most frequent –project- objectives contribute to improving sustainability: institutional development, better cost recovery, private sector participation, and regulatory reform. A clear distinction emerges between dedicated and non-dedicated projects, where dedicated projects pay greater attention to those aspects that underpin sustainability. Page 55 55 7. – Evaluating Social Funds: A Cross-Country Analysis of Community Investments – Rawlings, L.B., with L. Sherburne-Benz, J. van Domelen, 2003 3. ‘Providing Efficient Service’ Service efficiency matters since lower costs facilitate sustainability when beneficiaries pay tariffs to pay for costs. However, higher efficiency does not appear among the six most important project objectives. Project Performance – Ratings of OED Dedicated projects: The OED outcome ratings for closed projects show an increase from satisfactory ratings of 58% in the 80s to 64% in the 1990s. Project ambitions/complexity have increased over time and it has become more difficult for projects to achieve satisfactory outcome ratings. The OED ratings of institutional development impact have stabilized. Additionally, 40% of the projects have a sustainability rating of ‘likely’ approximately 25% have an ‘unlikely’ rating, and the remaining 35% having ‘uncertain’ or ‘not rated’ sustainability. Sustainability is undoubtedly the most difficult aspect to rate in a consistent fashion, and is also the most difficult to use in comparisons with corresponding ratings for other sectors. Non -dedicated projects: The corresponding ratings of outcome, IDI, and sustainability are not readily available for WSS investments financed under non-dedicated projects because ratings are not provided for individual components under multi-sector projects. Nevertheless, a sample of 41 non-dedicated projects was selected for textual analysis to infer ratings –results only indicative-. 46% of non-dedicated projects would have an outcome rating of ‘satisfactory’, compared to 60% for dedicated projects. Further, only 7% for non-dedicated projects were rated ‘substantial’ for IDI compared to 32% of the dedicated projects. Finally, 24% of the non-dedicated projects were rated as having a ‘likely’ sustainability, compared to 40% of the dedicated projects. The difference in ratings could be explained by the fact that dedicated projects include objectives such as cost-recovery, policy reform, private sector participation, and regulatory reform more frequently than non-dedicated projects do. OED, (2003). Efficient, Sustainable Services for All? An OED Review of the World Bank’s Assistance to Water Supply and Sanitation, The World Bank Group, Washington D.C. The study seeks to answer four questions that summarize the fundamental issues in the international debate about the capacity of social funds (SFs) to improve beneficiaries' living conditions: Do SFs reach poor areas and households? Do SFs deliver sustainable investments? Do SFs affect living standards? How cost-efficient are SFs compared with other delivery mechanisms? The evaluation assesses subprojects identified and implemented between 1993-1999, a period when longer-term objectives began to supplant the funds' original emergency mandates. Impact Evaluation Results: Water and Sanitation. Social fund investments in water have…. - increased access to water, raising coverage and reducing time and distance to the nearest water source - resulting in positive, significant changes in health outcomes in three of the four cases studies, including < 5 child mortality impacts. (Bolivia: impact on diarrhea; impact on < 5 child mortality (reduction 40% - 105 to 61/1000) – (Peru: deaths children < 5 were 33/1000 for SF households versus 60/1000 in control group ) Social fund investments in sewerage have… - increased access to sanitation, although connection rates remain low - resulted in positive impacts on health outcomes (diarrhea) in one of the two cases studied Social fund investments in latrines have… - increased access to sanitation and resulted in positive health impacts in one of the two cases Conclusions and Recommendations Key design issues for social funds - social funds will need to define more closely their poverty targeting expectations - building in mechanisms for community participation and management have large pay-offs - moving from emergency to longer-term requires continued adjustment of procedures and criteria Recommendations for evaluations - evaluations should be carried out across public sector programs to assess comparative effectiveness - impact evaluations should be but one evaluation component Lessons of the role of social funds within poverty alleviation strategies - social funds have met the broad objectives they were designed to address - the imitations of social funds are also clear – they cannot substitute for effective sector policies and cannot fulfill all the investment financing needs of all poor communities Rawlings, L. with L. Sherburne-Benz, J. van Domelen (2003). Evaluating Social Funds: A Cross Country Analysis of Community Investments. Page 56 56