Water and Sanitation Program: Technical Paper 103171 The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Guy Hutton and Mili Varughese January 2016 The Water and Sanitation Program is a multi-donor partnership, part of the World Bank Group’s Water Global Practice, supporting poor people in obtaining affordable, safe, and sustainable access to water and sanitation services. Authors Guy Hutton and Mili Varughese Contact us For more information, please visit www.wsp.org The Water and Sanitation Program is a multi-donor partnership, part of the World Bank Group’s Water Global Practice, supporting poor people in obtaining affordable, safe, and sustainable access to water and sanitation services. WSP’s donors include Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, and the World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are entirely those of the author and should not be attributed to the World Bank or its affiliated organizations, or to members of the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The material in this publication is copyrighted. Requests for permission to reproduce portions of it should be sent to wsp@worldbank.org. WSP encourages the dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission promptly. © 2016 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / World Bank © 2016 Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) www.wsp.org | www.worldbank.org/water SKU K8543 The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Guy Hutton and Mili Varughese January 2016 Contents Acknowledgments............................................................................. vii Executive Summary���������������������������������������������������������������������������ix Objective of This Study..............................................................ix Approach..................................................................................ix Results......................................................................................ix Conclusions............................................................................. xii Abbreviations.....................................................................................xv I. Introduction................................................................................ 1 II. Approach.................................................................................... 3 III. Results........................................................................................ 7 Summary of Key Findings.......................................................... 7 Global Capital Costs.................................................................. 8 Regional Capital Costs............................................................ 12 Costs of Operating and Sustaining Services............................ 17 Service Affordability................................................................. 19 IV. Conclusions and Recommendations...................................... 21 Appendix A: Service Indicators and Data Sources......................... 23 Appendix B: WASH Service Coverage Levels by MDG Region...... 24 Appendix C: Countries Included in This Study................................ 29 Appendix D: Cost Estimation Methods............................................ 31 Appendix E: Unit Costs by Country................................................. 37 References........................................................................................ 43 Figures ES.1: Costs of Safely Managed WASH Services Exceed Basic Services by Three Times........................................... x ES.2: Wide Variation between World Regions in Capital Costs as a Proportion of Gross Regional Product...............xi ES.3: Constant Financing Needs: As Investment Needs Decline to Serve the Unserved, O&M Goes Up.................. xii 3.1: Costs of Safely Managed WASH Services Exceed Basic Services by Three Times........................................... 8 3.2: Costs of Safely Managed Urban WASH Services Exceed Basic Services by Three Times............................... 9 3.3: Costs of Safely Managed Rural WASH Services Exceed Basic Services by Almost Four Times..................... 9 www.wsp.org iii The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Contents 3.4: Large Ranges Result on Capital Cost When Alternative Input Values Are Used for Three Types of Costing Uncertainty...................................................... 11 3.5: A Higher Proportion of Global Costs Are Accounted for by the Two Lower Wealth Quintiles............................... 11 3.6: Capital Spending Requirements as a Percent of Global Product Reduce under Higher Economic Growth Scenarios............................................................. 12 3.7: Large Regional Variations in Costs of Basic WASH Services.............................................................. 13 3.8: Large Regional Variations in Costs of Safely Managed Water and Sanitation Services........................... 14 3.9: Large Regional Variations in Costs of Meeting Targets 6.1 & 6.2............................................................... 15 3.10: Wide Variation between World Regions in Capital Costs as a Proportion of Gross Regional Product............. 16 3.11: Strong Relationship between Country Income Level and the Cost of Achieving SDG Targets 6.1 and 6.2 as a Percentage of GDP................................................... 17 3.12: Lower-Middle Income Countries Dominate Global Costs, Followed by Middle-Income Countries................... 18 3.13: Constant Financing Needs: As Investment Needs to Extend Services Decline, O&M Goes Up........................... 18 3.14: Cost per Person Served Is Strongly Related to Income and Service Level................................................. 19 3.15: Wide Variation of Cost of Basic WASH Services as a Proportion of Poverty Income Level........................... 20 Tables 2.1: Percentage of Population Coverage and Millions of People to Serve to Achieve Universal Access to Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene by 2030, 140 Countries................. 4 2.2: Variables Determining Cost Results and Their Degree of Uncertainty................................................. 5 3.1: Estimated Annual Global Costs of Meeting SDG Targets 6.1 and 6.2........................................................... 10 A.1: Data Sources for Levels of WASH Services....................... 23 B.1: Projected WASH Service Coverage in 2015 for Proposed Post-2015 Service-Level Definitions with Urban-Rural Breakdown................................................... 24 B.2: Population by MDG Region, 2015 and 2030, with Urban-Rural Breakdown............................................ 25 B.3: Total Population to Serve from 2015 to 2030 to Reach Universal Access to Water Supply with Rural-Urban Breakdown................................................... 26 iv Water and Sanitation Program The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Contents B.4: Total Population to Be Reached from 2015 to 2030 with Sanitation Services with Urban-Rural Breakdown...... 27 B.5: Total Population to Reach from 2015 to 2030 with Universal Hand-washing Practice with Urban-Rural Breakdown................................................... 28 C.1: Countries Included in This Study by MDG Region and World Bank Income Level.......................................... 29 D.1: Technology Options Modeled under Baseline and in Sensitivity Analysis by Service........................................... 32 D.2: Assumptions Used to Fill Gaps in Cost Data Available by WASH Service............................................... 33 E.1: Capital Costs per Person Served in 2015, Including Hardware and Software, with Urban-Rural Breakdown..... 38 www.wsp.org v Acknowledgments This study is a collaborative effort by the World Bank, the (UN-Water), Gerard Payen (United Nations Secretary United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World General’s Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation), Health Organization (WHO), and a range of sector part- Federico Properzi (UN-Water), and Chris Williams (Water ners engaged in the post-2015 process revolving around the Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council). new Sustainable Development Goal framework. The task team leader is Guy Hutton, senior economist at the Water The task team is thankful to the following sector colleagues and Sanitation Program (WSP) at the World Bank, sup- who supported the study by providing inputs on unit costs: ported by Mili Varughese, WSP operations analyst. In addi- Faustin Ekah Ekwele (UNICEF), Catarina Fonseca tion, the team consists of Eddy Perez, Jema Sy, Luis Andres, (International Water and Sanitation Centre, The and Chris Walsh. Rifat Hossain (WHO) from the WHO/ Netherlands), Orlando Hernandez (FHI 360, United UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply States), Kannan Nadar (UNICEF), Pavani K. Ram and Sanitation conducted the coverage forecasts in 2015 for (University of Buffalo, United States), Tom Slaymaker the baseline. (UNICEF), Elizabeth Tilley (EAWAG, Switzerland), and Jane Wilbur (WaterAid, United Kingdom). In addition, the During the course of the study, the methods were reviewed following World Bank colleagues provided inputs on unit by Tom Slaymaker (UNICEF, formerly WaterAid), Andrew costs: Naif Mohammed Abu-Lohom, Rokeya Ahmed, Cotton (Loughborough University), Rifat Hossain (WHO), Blanca Lopez Alascio, Vandana Bhatnagar, Claire Chase, and Pete Kolsky (University of North Carolina, Chapel Yolande Coombes, Alexander V. Danilenko, Charles Hill). The draft report was reviewed by the following World Delfieux, Jozef Draaisma, Michel Duret, Kebede Faris, Bank staff (in alphabetical order): Luis Albert Andres, Juliana Menezes Garrido, Peter M. Hawkins, Shubhra Jain, Richard Damania, Marianne Fay, Kirsten Hommann, Ravikumar Joseph, Phyrum Kov, Craig P. Kullmann, William Kingdom, Joel Kolker, Libbet Loughnan, Margaret Manish Kumar, Maraita Listyasari, Esther Loening, Iain Miller, Claudia Sadoff, Sudipto Sarkar, Antonio Rodriguez Menzies, Ricardo Miranda, Deo Mulikuza Mirindi, Abdul Serrano, and Jyoti Shukla. The following sector partners Motaleb, Ngoni R. Mudege, Harriet Nattabi, Patrice provided inputs: Catarina de Albuquerque (executive chair, Joachim Nirina Rakotoniaina, Emily C. Rand, Mohammad Sanitation and Water for All), Jamie Bartram (University Farhanullah Sami, Wendy Sarasdyani, Antonio Rodriguez of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), Clarissa Brocklehurst Serrano, Deviariandy Setiawan, Upneet Singh, Susanna (consultant), Bruce Gordon (WHO), Francois Guerquin Smets, and Nguyen Quang Vinh. www.wsp.org vii Executive Summary A goal dedicated to clean water and sanitation was recently As a step toward safely managed services, the costs of endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly as part ­ achieving lower-level services are also estimated because of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework many ­ countries still have to provide basic WASH to their for 2015–2030 that has followed the UN’s Millennium populations. Basic water supply includes an improved Development Goals (MDGs). Drinking water, sanitation, community water source within a 30-minute round-trip; and hygiene form a central part of the clean water and sani- basic sanitation includes an improved toilet; and basic tation goal (SDG 6) and are reflected especially in targets hygiene includes a hand-washing station with soap and 6.1 to 6.3. They are also recognized for their role in reduc- water for every household. The costs of ending open def- ing health risks as part of the good health and well-being ecation through simple, traditional, lower-cost latrines are goal (SDG 3) in targets 3.3 and 3.9. also estimated. The means by which the SDGs will be achieved are spelled Estimates of populations to be served in rural and urban out in SDG 17 in 19 different targets covering financing, areas by 2030 are based on coverage estimates of WASH technology, capacity building, trade, and systemic issues. services for 2015 (as the baseline year), taking into account Although these issues are all key interrelated components of population growth and internal migration. The majority of the delivery mechanism, each requires a detailed assessment the world’s low- and middle-income countries are included, in order for countries to understand how the ambitious as well as selected high-income countries that have low goals and targets laid out in the SDGs can be achieved over coverage of basic WASH services. The 140 countries the next 15 years. included represent 85 percent of the world’s population. The costs estimated are those for capital investment, pro- Objective of This Study gram delivery, operations, and major capital maintenance This study assesses the global costs of meeting the water, to sustain the life span of the infrastructure created. sanitation, and hygiene (WASH)-related targets of SDG 6. Because this study requires multiple input parameters, It is intended to serve as a vital input to determining the each of which has data weaknesses, the resulting estimates financing needs to achieve them. Two targets are assessed: carry a high degree of uncertainty. Thus a range is pre- (1) achieving universal and equitable access to safe and sented on all calculated costs to reflect variations in the affordable drinking water for all (target 6.1); and (2) achiev- selected parameters. ing access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and ending open defecation (target 6.2). Thus this Results study presents only a partial analysis of the clean water and The major results are presented here as three key findings. sanitation goal, but it can serve as a basis for cost studies of other targets. Finding 1. Current levels of financing can cover the capi- tal costs of achieving universal basic service for drinking Approach water, sanitation, and hygiene by 2030, provided This study estimates the costs of extending two levels of resources are targeted to the needs. WASH services to unserved households. The proposed Extending basic WASH services to the unserved will cost indicators for targets 6.1 and 6.2 aspire to ”safely managed” $28.4 billion (range: $13.8 to $46.7 billion) per year WASH services1—for water supply this means an on-plot from 2015 to 2030, or 0.10 percent (range: 0.05 to water supply for every household and for sanitation it 0.16 percent) of the global product (GP)2 of the 140 includes a toilet with safe management of fecal waste. countries included (GP140). This financing requirement 1 Because the proposed indicator for target 6.2 includes safely managed sanitation services, the cost estimates of reaching the WASH-related targets cover only the first two water targets (6.1 and 6.2). 2 Global product is the global equivalent of the gross domestic product (GDP) at the country level. www.wsp.org ix The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Executive Summary Figure ES.1: Costs of safely managed WASH services exceed basic services by three times Annual Global Capital Costs of Different WASH Service Levels, 140 Countries 140 122.8 120 100 $, billions per year 86.9 80 77.2 60 60.9 45.6 49.3 46.7 40 37.6 32.5 31.5 28.4 29.4 20 4.2 19.5 2.6 11.6 13.8 3.6 6.9 8.6 2.0 2.7 3.6 1.6 0 End OD Water Sanitation Hygiene WASH Water Sanitation WatSan Basic service, universal access Safely managed service, universal access Note: Ending open defecation, or open defecation–free, has a target year of 2025. ** Safely managed sanitation costs are those for safe excreta management alone; they exclude latrine costs. WASH = water, sanitation, and hygiene; OD = open defecation; WatSan = water and sanitation. is equivalent, in order of magnitude, to the 0.12 percent Finding 2. The capital investments required to achieve the of global product spent to serve the unserved with water supply, sanitation, and hygiene SDGs (targets 6.1 improved water supply and sanitation during the MDG and 6.2) amount to about three times the current invest- period. The costs by service are shown in figure ES.1. ment levels. The capital financing required to extend safely managed However, this relatively modest average cost as a pro­ water supply and sanitation services to the unserved is portion of global product hides wide variations across approximately 0.39 percent of GP140 (range: 0.26 to countries and income groups. Significantly greater capital 0.55 percent), or a little over three times the historical spending is needed in Sub-Saharan Africa, where slow financing trend of extending access to the unserved progress to date means capital expenditures of 0.64 per- (0.12 ­percent globally). The total capital cost of meeting cent (range: 0.29 to 1.0 percent) of the gross regional targets 6.1 and 6.2 is $114 billion per year (range: product (GRP) would be needed to close the gap, and $74 to $166 billion). This total comprises the annual in Southern Asia, which requires 0.21 percent (range: costs of safe water ($37.6 billion), basic sanitation 0.13 to 0.29 percent) of GRP (shown in figure ES.2). ($19.5 ­ billion), and safe fecal waste management Similarly, some 50 percent of the capital costs of ($49 ­billion), plus hygiene ($2.0 billion). It also includes basic water and sanitation and 58 percent of the capital an estimated 50 percent of households first having basic costs of becoming open defecation–free (ODF) needs to water and simple pit latrines before investing in the be spent on extending coverage to the poorest two wealth higher-level service. Figure ES.1 shows the ranges of these quintiles. numbers. x Water and Sanitation Program The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Executive Summary Figure ES.2: Wide variation between world regions in capital costs as a proportion of gross regional product Costs of Basic and Safely Managed Services as Percentage of Gross Regional Product (GRP) by Region, with Uncertainty Range 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.01 Cost as % of GRP 1.5 1.0 0.85 0.64 0.58 0.5 0.45 0.39 0.36 0.31 0.27 0.23 0.21 0.12 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.02 0 ia ia a ia ia ia A A C ld d ric As As As an As SS C LA pe or C Af ce rn W lo rn rn n er ve n te O he te er st as De es ut th Ea he W So or ut N So SDG targets 6.1 and 6.2 Basic WASH Upper and lower estimates of the cost Upper and lower estimates of the of meeting SDG targets 6.1 and 6.2 cost of achieving basic WASH Note: WASH = water, sanitation, and hygiene; SDG = Sustainable Development Goal; SSA = Sub-Saharan Africa; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; CCA = Caucasus and Central Asia. See table 2.2 for details on upper and lower values on variables varied in sensitivity analysis. Gross regional product is based on the aggregated GDP of countries in each region. An economic growth rate of 5 percent is assumed across all regions. Finding 3. Sustained universal coverage requires more the costs of operating the new infrastructure built will than capital inflows: financial and institutional strength- exceed the annual capital cost requirements to meet those ening will be needed to ensure that capital investments remaining unserved (see figure ES.3). In order to ensure translate into effective service delivery. sufficient and quality spending on operations and mainte- Although capital costs reflect immediate financing needs nance, institutions and regulations need to be strength- and are an urgent priority, it is critical to consider the ened. Tariff policies will also need to be strengthened, ongoing finances required to ensure the proper operation but affordability will remain a critical issue, especially in of these services because they represent a growing finan- low-income countries and communities where even the cial commitment over time. As the year 2030 approaches, operational costs of basic WASH can add up to more than www.wsp.org xi The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Executive Summary Achieving a higher level of service— Figure ES.3: Constant financing needs: as investment needs called here “safely ­managed” water decline to serve the unserved, O&M goes up Time Series of Total Annual Costs to Achieve SDG Targets 6.1 and 6.2, Comparing and sanitation services—requires Capital and O&M Costs: 2015–29 additional financing on the order of 250 three times current spending. This value only covers extending safely managed services to the currently 200 unserved (in 2015). Although it will be challenging to achieve such financing volumes in many lower- $, billions per year 150 income countries, the significant additional health, service access time, 100 environmental, and economic bene- fits that result from safe drinking water and sanitation must be taken 50 into account. Additional investments can be well worth their cost if the 0 appropriate hardware and software are chosen. 20 21 22 29 16 18 19 23 26 28 15 24 25 17 27 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 O&M Captial Because of the lower coverage of Note: O&M = operations and maintenance. WASH services among lower-income groups, a significant share of public funds should target poor and margin- 5 percent of the poverty income levels. If operational costs alized population groups. Donors cannot be covered by tariffs, policy makers and service should also reconsider which countries they support. providers should be aware of the increasing burden on Donors and public financiers alike should also rethink limited grant financing and (cross-) subsidies to operate which subpopulations and service levels they support, the services. which requires making tough choices between achieving basic WASH for the unserved versus bringing better ser- Conclusions vices to those already with basic services. Meanwhile, The global costs of achieving universal basic WASH by the national governments should provide the policy environ- year 2030 are achievable under current overall sector spend- ment for equitable tariff structures that strike a balance ing. However, financing challenges remain in some regions between securing the additional financing to enable service and countries where current spending is insufficient to meet extension and operations while enabling poorer popula- the SDG targets by 2030. In particular, resources need to be tions to gain to access services. shifted to basic sanitation and hygiene in countries where the service gap is greatest. Because of the shifts in population to The ushering in of the new development framework, the urban areas and the higher unit costs in towns and cities, urban Sustainable Development Goals, has been accompanied areas account for 70 percent of the capital expenditure require- by a major new focus on sustainability. Recent documen- ments to achieve universal access to basic WASH. However, tation and statistics have shone a light on the high levels allocations of public funds should be based not only on of breakdown or nonuse of wells, latrines, and piped resource requirements, but also on the proportion of costs that systems, as well as inefficiently delivered services. Thus ­ can be recovered from customers, which tends to be greater in financing mechanisms and management approaches urban areas (excluding slums and poor neighborhoods). should be designed and implemented to ensure the quality xii Water and Sanitation Program The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Executive Summary and sustainability of new infrastructure, thereby reducing institutional strengthening and regulation, and improved unit costs. monitoring and evaluation. These measures will increase the efficiency of services, provide cost savings, raise This report reveals the cost implications of adopting differ- demand for services, and stimulate the market. These ent service levels for both water supply and sanitation. The aspects are largely covered under what has been called the overall costs are shown to be higher if a household, com- “means of implementation,” which is covered in SDG 17, munity, or service area opts to provide lower levels of service but will need further definition of what components are before making greater investments to reach a higher level of prioritized. service. On the other hand, in the short term a lower service level may be the only option because of lack of investment Because of the many uncertainties in the underlying data and financing in the short or medium term. Infrastructure methodological choices, the cost estimates reported in this development should therefore be appropriately sequenced, study should be used with caution. The ranges on costs pro- taking into account the public financing available, the vided should be used alongside the baseline numbers. For dynamics of urban growth, and the population’s demand national policy making and resource allocation, countries are for services before engaging financiers and providers. Where encouraged to conduct their own costing studies or invest- possible, economies should be sought when combining the ment plans based on local unit costs, the mix of technologies, delivery of drinking water, ­sanitation, and hygiene services and the program delivery mechanisms likely to be chosen. to reduce the service costs. Numbers should be provided with a geographical breakdown such as by subnational level and rural, urban, and periurban Understanding costs is an important part of planning and area. Countries should also conduct an in-depth analysis of implementing services to reach universal coverage, but the specific factors that influence costs such as securing bulk financing should be viewed as part of a broader strengthen- water, providing wastewater drainage as well as sewerage sys- ing of the services system that includes development of tems, and defining effective behavioral change programs to technology, private suppliers and providers, policy reform, reach the hard to reach and sustain hygienic practices. www.wsp.org xiii Abbreviations GDP Gross domestic product GP Gross product GP140 Combined gross product of 140 countries included in the study GRP Gross regional product JMP Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation (WHO/UNICEF) LIC Low-income country LMIC Lower-middle-income country MDG Millennium Development Goal MICS Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey OD Open defecation ODF Open defecation free O&M Operations and maintenance SDG Sustainable Development Goal UN United Nations UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund WASH Water, sanitation, and hygiene WHO World Health Organization All dollar amounts are U.S. dollars unless otherwise indicated. www.wsp.org xv I. Introduction The United Nations Conference on Sustainable For the water goal, the following six time-bound targets Development held in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012 sparked have now been adopted by UN member states: a global dialogue on the development framework that will follow the UN’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). 6.1  By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to The new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were rati- safe and affordable drinking water for all. fied by UN member states at the UN General Assembly in By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equita- 6.2  September 2015 (UN General Assembly 2015). An inte- ble sanitation and hygiene for all and end open grated water goal was developed and promoted by a wide defecation, paying special attention to the needs range of stakeholders (UN-Water 2014), and now water is of women and girls and those in vulnerable represented in the SDG framework with a dedicated water situations. and sanitation goal (SDG 6), and it is included as well in By 2030, improve water quality by reducing 6.3  the health, disaster risk management, and environmental ­ pollution, eliminating dumping, and minimizing targets of other goals. the release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and In 2011 an ongoing consultative process on water, sanita- substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse tion, and hygiene (WASH) was convened by the WHO/ globally. UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply By 2030, substantially increase water use efficiency 6.4  and Sanitation (JMP). That process led to the proposal of a across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals series of WASH targets and indicators for the post-2015 and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity period (WHO and UNICEF 2013). The targets proposed and substantially reduce the number of people suf- by WASH sector stakeholders3 expanded on MDG target fering from water scarcity. 7c on drinking water and sanitation. They called for the 6.5  By 2030, implement integrated water resources elimination of open defecation and universal access to basic management at all levels, including through trans- drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene services not only at boundary cooperation as appropriate. home but also in institutional settings, including schools By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosys- 6.6  and health care facilities. They also called for the addition of tems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, ­rivers, a higher service threshold relevant to all countries: “safely aquifers, and lakes. managed” drinking water and sanitation services. In addi- tion, the JMP proposal integrated aspects of the 2010 UN Indicators for these targets have been proposed to, and resolution calling for the human right to clean drinking ­ evaluated by, an Inter-Agency Expert Group on SDG water and sanitation. Specifically, it called for the progres- Indicators (IAEG-SDGs) established by the UN Statistical sive elimination of inequalities through faster progress in Commission. Until March 2016, these indicators will be the delivery of services to the poor and marginalized com- discussed in terms of their achievability and measurability. pared with the general population and for services that are The coverage calculations used in this report are therefore both affordable and sustainable. Most of the key elements based on the indicators proposed by the JMP to the IAEG- of the ­targets proposed by WASH sector stakeholders have SDGs as follows: been incorporated into the wording of the SDG targets Target 6.1: Indicator 6.1.1 “Percentage of population proposed by UN member states. using safely managed drinking water services”4 3 http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/Fact_Sheets_4_eng.pdf. 4 UN-Women has proposed a second indicator for review by the UN Statistical Commission: “6.1.2 Average weekly time spent in water collection (including waiting time at public supply points), by sex, age, location and income.” This indicator is included in safely managed water services because the service level for indicator 6.2.1 is piped water in the household. Thus the costs of this indicator are not estimated separately. www.wsp.org 1 The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Introduction Target 6.2: Indicator 6.2.1 “Percentage of population and financial feasibility of the goals and targets will be a using safely managed sanitation services” fundamental one in order for member states to support and Target 6.2: Indicator 6.2.2 “Population with a hand implement them. Thus this document reports estimates of washing facility with soap and water in the household” the costs of achieving the WASH-related targets in the pro- posed clean water and sanitation goal, using the indicators Universal access to drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene just listed as well as lower service levels along the lines of the by 2030 is an ambitious objective in view of the current MDG indicators for improved water supply and sanitation. coverage (UNICEF and WHO 2015). Reducing pollution To assess the financing feasibility of the targets, the costs of caused by untreated sewage and poorly managed fecal sludge extending services to meet the targets are compared with and increasing the reuse of treated wastewater will require the current and future incomes as well as with the historic concerted efforts not only in developing countries but also expenditure to achieve MDG target 7c. To complement in high-income countries. Furthermore, because the understanding of the global costs of the targets, this study unserved populations are poorer and it is more difficult to presents costs in disaggregated form in order to reveal where reach or to change their behavior, the effectiveness, afford- the major financing needs are—for example, capital versus ability, and sustainability of reaching these populations recurrent, rural versus urban, water versus sanitation versus remain a massive challenge. hygiene, and by world region and wealth grouping. Estimating the global costs of achieving universal coverage Many factors will influence the planning, financing, and of WASH ­ services is, however, a difficult task and entails a implementation of the large number of goals and targets in number of uncertainties. Thus the numbers presented here the SDG framework, but a good understanding of the costs are informed estimates. 2 Water and Sanitation Program II. Approach To estimate the costs of meeting the water, sanitation, The safely managed sanitation costs presented are and hygiene (WASH) targets in the Sustainable for the service chain from extraction through con- Development Goals (SDGs), the study combined the veyance to safe treatment and disposal. They exclude unit costs per capita of WASH services with the popula- latrine costs because the latter are included in basic tions remaining to be served with different service levels. sanitation. The total population to be served from 2015 to 2030 was • The WASH-related targets within the SDG proposals, broken down into 15 equal annual tranches to allow esti- based on the proposed indicators just listed: safely man- mation of a time series of capital investment as well as aged water supply (indicator 6.1.1), ending open operations and maintenance (O&M) needs. Population defecation and providing safely managed sanitation estimates took into account population growth (using services (indicator 6.2.1), and hand washing6 the United Nations medium variant on population indicator 6.2.2). Target 6.3 is not costed separately (­ growth per country) as well as rural-urban migration because safely managed fecal waste is already pro- until the year 2030. The WASH targets included in the posed in indicator 6.2.1. study are the following, based on the proposed indicators and service ladder by the Joint Monitoring Programme Service definitions and indicators proposed for the new for Water Supply and Sanitation (JMP) for SDG WASH WASH targets are provided in appendix A (WHO and monitoring:5 UNICEF 2013). Current coverage figures under these defi- • Universal access to basic WASH services. “Basic” ser- nitions and the unserved population to be reached to vices correspond closely to the existing definitions of achieve universal coverage by 2030 appear in table 2.1 (see “improved” water and sanitation under Millennium appendix B for regional estimates). Coverage has been pro- Development Goal (MDG) 7c, except that basic jected to the year 2015 using 2013 estimates and trends drinking water includes only improved sources under the new definitions.7 within a 30-minute round-trip (WHO and UNICEF 2013), and basic hygiene is defined as a hand-­ The 140 countries included in this study represent 6.12 washing station in the household with soap and billion (84 percent) of the world’s projected 7.3 billion water present. This service level is included in the population in 2015 and 7.15 billion (85 percent) of the cost study because a large number of countries have world’s projected 8.4 billion population in 2030. The still not achieved universal access to basic WASH majority of the world’s low- and middle-income countries (UNICEF and WHO 2015). are included, as well as a few selected high-income coun- • Universal access to safely managed water and sanita- tries with low coverage of basic WASH services (see tion services. “Safely managed” drinking water is appendix C). In 2015, 43 percent of the population in defined as an improved source located on the prem- the included countries live in urban areas, rising to ises, available when needed, and free of fecal and 56 percent in 2030 (based on the UN’s medium-variant priority chemical contamination. Safely managed population projections). Additions to the population sanitation is defined as an improved facility that is through population growth are assumed not to have basic not shared with other households and where excreta WASH coverage. In line with WASH sector proposals, are safely disposed of in situ or treated off-site. wealth quintiles with lower baseline coverage in 2015 are 5 http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/JMP-WASH-Post-2015-Brochure.pdf. 6 Hygiene in the household means hand washing with soap in line with the JMP-led proposal. Menstrual hygiene management is excluded because of the difficulty in estimating coverage levels and intervention costs at the household level. 7 Coverage data on basic safe water and basic sanitation were available for all countries. For hand washing, coverage data were available for 40 countries and extrapolated to the remaining countries. For safe sanitation data on treated sewage and fecal sludge management, rates were sourced from research studies in selected countries. See appendix A for details. www.wsp.org 3 The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Approach Table 2.1: Percentage of Population Coverage and Millions of People to Serve to Achieve Universal Access to Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene by 2030, 140 Countries Water Sanitation Hygiene Basic water Safely managed Any a Basic sanitation Safely managed Hand washing water sanitation Urban Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Current coverage 87 76 68 20 72 76 46 26 34 82 50 (percent, 2015) Population to serve 1,396 892 1,977 2,554 1,121 1,721 1,727 3,214 2,095 1,674 3,154 by 2030 (millions) 2,278 4,531 1,121 3,448 5,309 4,828 Source: Joint Monitoring Programme for current coverage, UN Statistics Division for population growth until 2030 (medium variant) a. Simple or traditional pit latrines to end open defecation. See Annex A for definitions of ‘basic’ and ‘safely managed’. assumed to be served at a faster rate to achieve universal scenarios, and in the baseline 50 percent of households are coverage (WHO and UNICEF 2013). assumed to go straight to a higher level of service, while the remaining 50 percent pass through unimproved sanitation To achieve universal coverage of basic or safely managed or basic water before a higher-level service is attained. services, populations will be able to choose from different hardware options or technologies. In such a global study, it The total cost estimates include the resources required to is not possible to predict exactly which technologies will be put in place, operate, and maintain a WASH service for chosen by governments and service providers, or by the those without the service in 2015. The costs of maintaining households they serve. For the purposes of this study, a mix access for those already served by a given service level in of lower-cost technology options were selected for basic 2015 are excluded from the calculations. A distinction is WASH. These included community wells for water supply, made between upfront capital investment costs, regular improved latrines for sanitation, and a basin with water and operational costs, and major capital maintenance costs. soap for practicing hand washing. Higher-cost options such Cost data were obtained through an extensive search of the as piped water and sewerage were included as options under peer-reviewed published literature, project documents, and safely managed services. Appendix D provides the distribu- agency reports. For larger countries, unit costs were vali- tions assumed. dated by in-country experts and adjusted where a discrep- ancy was found with the country experience. For countries The costs of meeting the WASH-related SDG targets by lacking data on unit costs, cost data were extrapolated from 2030 will depend on the pathway for scaling up services. the most similar country with cost data, adjusting for the Realistically, many households will first become open difference in income level (using purchasing power parities defecation–free with an unimproved toilet facility and only ­ as the basis for adjustment). Appendix D provides further later upgrade to a latrine that safely isolates waste. However, details on the costing methods and costing studies sourced, not all households will pass through a lower service level— and appendix E lists the capital costs per person by country for example, in India the major share of households are for each service. likely to receive an improved toilet under the national gov- ernment Swachh Bharat Abiyan (Clean India Mission). Because of the large number of variables needed to Similarly, many households, especially in rural areas, are ­ calculate global costs and weaknesses in the underlying likely to receive an improved water supply from a commu- data as well as assumptions, there is considerable nity source before being upgraded to a household water ­ uncertainty in the resulting cost numbers. Table 2.2 is a supply (for example, piped supply or an on-plot well). Thus summary of the degree of uncertainty of different param- the results are presented under lower- and upper-cost eters or assumptions used in the costing study, and it 4 Water and Sanitation Program The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Approach Table 2.2: Variables Determining Cost Results and Their Degree of Uncertainty Variable Data or assumption used in baseline Level of uncertaintya Underlying population and coverage statistics 1. Population growth, UN’s medium variant for rural and urban areas Moderate uncertainty, including about the 2015–30 level of urbanization 2. WASH service Indicators for each target are still under review. Low uncertainty definition Indicators proposed by the JMP (see appendix A) have been reviewed by the UN Statistics Commission. 3. Target levels Universal coverage of basic and safely managed Low uncertainty WASH services, and also reduction by half of those unserved by safe sanitation, reflect the target levels adopted by the UN General Assembly (UNGA). 4. Coverage levels in JMP estimates were projected to 2015 for basic WASH Low to moderate uncertainty for basic water 2015 and safely managed drinking water. For safe sanitation, and sanitation. Higher uncertainty for hand estimates were sourced from literature. washing, safely managed drinking water, and safely managed sanitation. 5. Unserved 15 equal annual tranches provided with services from Moderate uncertainty. The rate of progress population to 2015 to 2030. will vary by country. be served 6. Technologies used One lower and one higher technology assumed for High uncertainty. Cost range estimated to provide services basic WASH and for safe sanitation, with 50 percent based on 100 percent of population using of the unserved population assumed to receive each low-cost technology to 100 percent one (see appendix D). population of using high-cost technology. Cost and economic assumptions (see appendix D for further details) 7. Costs included Capital costs, software costs, capital maintenance Low to moderate uncertainty. costs, and operating costs. These costs cover major cost categories, but exclude financing costs (interest charges) and may underestimate the costs of behavior change and of accessing and safeguarding bulk water. 8. Unit cost data Cost data available mainly for capital costs for all Moderate uncertainty. No range provided services and for operating costs for safe water. because of lack of data on what the range Assumptions used for capital maintenance costs and might be per country. for operating costs of basic WASH. 9. Life span of Technology replaced after 8 years (latrines), 10 years Moderate uncertainty. These life spans are technology (dug wells), and 20 years (septic tank, boreholes, justified by the inclusion of capital treatment plants, and pipes). maintenance costs. 10. Updating pre-2015 First, update costs to 2015 in local currency using Moderate uncertainty as costs of services cost data to 2015 inflation rate. Second, convert 2015 costs in local may increase at different rate from inflation currency to U.S. dollars. rate. 11. Discounting of Discount rate of 5 percent chosen for baseline results Moderate uncertainty. Range: 3 to 8 future costs because it falls in the middle of range commonly used. percent used in sensitivity analysis. 12. Extrapolation of Transfer costs using the U.S. dollar as the common High uncertainty. Alternative method of unit costs for currency, adjusting for difference in the gross domestic adjustment uses differences between countries with product (GDP) per capita at purchasing power parity countries in absolute U.S. dollar values of no data values. This is the preferred method because the major GDP per capita. components of WASH services are not imported (labor and locally made materials). Note: WASH = water, sanitation, and hygiene; JMP = Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. a. Parameters that varied in sensitivity analysis appear in boldface. www.wsp.org 5 The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Approach highlights three variables (6, 11, and 12) with a moderate as the full costs of regulation. Moreover, because of or high degree of uncertainty that were varied in a sensi- the paucity of cost data on what is needed to change tivity analysis. In addition, some costs may have been behavior and ensure service sustainability, the software underestimated because of lack of data on some aspects. costs used for this study may underestimate the true costs, For the piped water supply, the cost of accessing bulk especially for delivering services to the “last mile” popula- water in the future may have been underestimated,8 as well hardest to reach populations). tions (­ 8 This is partially because current consumption patterns are at unsustainable levels and because climate change and climate variability will lead to higher future costs of access and storage of bulk water. 6 Water and Sanitation Program III. Results It is critical that anyone using the results of a global costing Sub-Saharan Africa, where the slow progress to date study notes the data uncertainties and methodological means capital expenditures of 0.64 percent (range: 0.29 to assumptions involved in producing global results. In addi- 1.0 percent) of the gross regional product (GRP) would be tion to indicative “best estimates,” this study also presents needed to close the gap, and in Southern Asia, which upper and lower values, taking into account the three requires capital expenditures of 0.21 percent (range: 0.13 to ­ methodological uncertainties as shown in bold font in col- 0.29 percent) of GRP (shown in figure 3.10). Similarly, umn 3 of table 2.2. Upper values reflect the costs of higher-­ some 50 percent of the capital costs of basic water and sani- technology options, using official exchange rates for tation and 58 percent of the capital costs of becoming open cross-country cost data extrapolations and a discount rate defecation–free (ODF) need to be spent on extending of 3 percent. Lower values reflect the costs of lower-­ ­ coverage to the poorest two wealth quintiles. technology options, using a discount rate of 8 percent. The database of unit costs was not extensive enough to enable Finding 2. The capital investments required to achieve selection of reliable ranges on unit costs. Thus this is a the water supply, sanitation, and hygiene Sustainable further source of uncertainty not taken into account in the ­ Development Goals (SDGs)—targets 6.1 and 6.2—will ranges presented. It also should be noted that the estimates amount to about three times the current investment levels. represent 140 countries and exclude 40 developing coun- The capital financing required to extend safely managed tries (mainly with small populations) and 45 developed water supply and sanitation services to the unserved is countries (see appendix C). All the major sources of uncer- approximately 0.39 percent of GP140 (range: 0.26 to 0.55 tainty are shown in table 2.2. percent). This represents a little over three times the histori- cal financing trends of extending access to the unserved (of Summary of Key Findings 0.12 percent globally). The total capital cost of meeting tar- Several key findings emerged from this study: gets 6.1 and 6.2 are $114 billion per year (range: $74 to $166 billion). This total comprises the costs of safe water Finding 1. Current levels of financing can cover the capi- ($37.6 billion per year), basic sanitation ($19.5 billion per tal costs of achieving universal basic service for water, year), and safe fecal waste management ($49 billion per sanitation, and hygiene by 2030, provided resources are year), plus hygiene ($2 billion per year). It also includes the targeted to the needs. assumption that an estimated 50 percent of households will Extending basic water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) first have basic water and simple pit latrines before invest- services to the unserved will cost $28.4 billion (range: ments are made in the higher-level service in order to take $13.8 to $46.7 billion) per year from 2015 to 2030, or into account likely investments in lower service levels before 0.10 ­ percent (range: 0.05 to 0.16 percent) of the global a higher-level service is attained. Figure 3.1 shows the ranges product (GP)9 of the 140 countries included (GP140). This on these numbers. financing requirement is equivalent, in order of magnitude, to the 0.12 percent global product spent to serve the Finding 3. Sustained universal coverage requires more unserved with an improved water supply and sanitation than capital inflows; financial and institutional strength- during the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) ening will be needed to ensure that capital investments period. The costs by service are shown in figure 3.1. This translate into effective service delivery. relatively modest average cost as a proportion of the global Although capital costs reflect immediate financing product hides wide variations across countries and income needs and are an urgent priority, it is critical to con- groups. Significantly greater capital spending is needed in sider the ongoing financing required to ensure the proper 9 Global product is the global equivalent of the gross domestic product at the country level. www.wsp.org 7 The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Results operations of these services because they represent a grow- Global Capital Costs ing financial commitment over time. As the year 2030 Capital costs are presented by total, urban, and rural break- approaches, the costs of operating the new infrastructure downs in figures 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3, respectively. The figures built will exceed the annual capital cost requirements to include capital costs, both initial costs and replacement meet those remaining unserved (see figure 3.13). In order costs at the end of the hardware’s life span. to ensure sufficient and quality spending on operations and maintenance, institutions and regulations need to be Total Costs strengthened. Tariff policies will also need to be strength- The estimated annual capital costs of extending services to ened, but affordability will remain a critical issue, espe- the unserved to achieve universal basic WASH access are cially in low-income countries and communities where $28.4 billion (range: $13.8 to $46.7 billion) per year even the operational costs of basic WASH can add up to from 2015 to 2030, or an average of 0.10 percent (range: more than 5 percent of the poverty income levels. If opera- 0.05 percent to 0.16 percent) of the gross product of the 140 tional costs cannot be covered by tariffs, policy makers and countries included (GP140) over the period 2015–30.10 The service providers should be aware of the increasing burden costs of safely managed WASH services are three times the on limited grant financing and (cross-) subsidies to oper- costs of basic services. Details are shown in figure 3.1. Safely ate the services. managed water and sanitation11 services would cost an Figure 3.1: Costs of Safely Managed WASH Services Exceed Basic Services by Three Times Annual Global Capital Costs for Different WASH Service Levels, 140 Countries 140 122.8 120 100 $, billions per year 86.9 80 77.2 60 60.9 45.6 49.3 46.7 40 37.6 32.5 31.5 28.4 29.4 20 4.2 19.5 2.6 11.6 13.8 3.6 6.9 8.6 2.0 2.7 3.6 1.6 0 End OD Water Sanitation Hygiene WASH Water Sanitation WatSan Basic service, universal access Safely managed service, universal access Note: Ending open defecation, or becoming open defecation–free, has a target year of 2025. WASH = water, sanitation, and hygiene; OD = open defecation; WatSan = water and sanitation. 10 These baseline results of cost as a percentage of the gross product are presented under a realistic assumption of economic growth in low- and middle-income countries of 5 percent. According to the World Bank, in low- and middle-income regions the gross domestic product (GDP) growth rates averaged 5.8 percent from 2000 to 2013. All future costs and GDP are discounted at 5 percent per year. 11 This includes safe management of fecal waste (safe extraction, conveyance, treatment sanitation), but it excludes latrine costs. 8 Water and Sanitation Program The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Results additional $86.9 billion (range: $70 to Figure 3.2: Costs of Safely Managed Urban WASH Services Exceed $122 billion) per year, or 0.30 percent Basic Services by Three Times Annual Global Capital Costs for Different WASH Service Levels in Urban Areas, (range: 0.21 to 0.40 percent) of GP140. 140 Countries 90 A large portion of the world’s popula- tion is still far from having ”safely 80 79.2 managed” services, and so the costs of 70 achieving safely managed services will $, billions per year 60 depend on the pathway taken to 55.0 50 50.0 achieve this high level of services. 40 39.4 Table 3.1 presents the costs of differ- 29.2 30 33.1 31.2 ent pathways to extending safely man- 22.7 23.8 aged services to achieve SDG targets 20 20.3 20.1 13.7 1.3 19.3 6.1 and 6.2. If unserved populations 10 9.1 9.9 5.5 1.1 2.9 6.1 0.9 go straight to receiving safely managed 0 Water Sanitation Hygiene WASH Water Sanitation WatSan services, the cost would be in the range Basic service, universal access Safely managed service, of $71 to $158 billion per year (base- universal access line $108 billion). If all unserved pop- Note: Safely managed sanitation costs are those for safe excreta management alone; they exclude latrine costs. ulations pass through lower-level WASH = water, sanitation, and hygiene; WatSan = water and sanitation. services, the cost would be $11 billion a year more, as high as 0.41 percent of GP140 (range: 0.27 to 0.58 percent). Under a ­ baseline assumption halfway between these two extremes, the global Figure 3.3: Costs of Safely Managed Rural WASH Services Exceed costs of achieving targets 6.1 and 6.2 Basic Services by Almost Four Times Annual Global Capital Costs for Different WASH Service Levels in Rural Areas, are approximately $114 billion (range: 140 Countries $74 to $166 billion) per year. This 45 corresponds to 0.39 percent of GP140 ­ 43.6 40 (range: 0.26 to 0.55 percent) or approximately three times the historic 35 32.0 spending on extending services to the $, billions per year 30 27.2 underserved. If the target for safely 25 managed fecal waste were less ambi- 21.4 20 18.2 tious and sought to reduce by 50 per- 16.4 15 13.8 cent those unserved by treated 13.5 10 9.8 10.0 11.4 wastewater (in line with target 6.3), 4.2 8.2 5 2.5 5.9 1.2 the costs would be $92 billion (range: 3.6 1.4 0.9 3.9 2.7 0.7 2.5 0.7 $63 to $131 billion) per year or 0.31 0 End OD Water Sanitation Hygiene WASH Water Sanitation WatSan percent of GP140 (range: 0.21 to 0.45 Basic service, universal access Safely managed service, percent). Thus it will be important to universal access strike the right balance between going Note: Ending open defecation, or becoming open defecation–free, has a target year of 2025. Safely managed straight to higher-level services (which sanitation costs are those for safe excreta management alone; they exclude latrine costs. See table 2.2 for might save some costs in the longer ranges of the three selected variables. WASH = water, sanitation, and hygiene; OD = open defecation; WatSan = water and sanitation. term but will have financial and tech- nical constraints in the shorter term) www.wsp.org 9 The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Results Table 3.1: Estimated Annual Global Costs Of Meeting Sdg Targets 6.1 And 6.2 Service-level pathway and target Unit Lower Mid Upper 1. Direct service pathway to safely managed services for all $, billions per year 71.1 108.4 157.9 Proportion of GP140 0.245% 0.373% 0.510% 2. Indirect service pathway via ODF and basic water for all, $, billions per year 77.4 118.9 173.7 to safely managed services for all Proportion of GP140 0.267% 0.409% 0.565% 3. Mixture of direct and indirect pathways (50 percent $, billions per year 74.3 113.7 165.8 each of nos. 1 and 2) (baseline) Proportion of GP140 0.256% 0.391% 0.537% 4. Same as no. 3 except based on a less ambitious target to $, billions per year 62.5 92.4 131.1 reduce by 50 percent those without safely managed fecal Proportion of GP140 0.213% 0.315% 0.447% waste Note: SDG = Sustainable Development Goal; ODF = open defecation–free; GP = gross product. and going through lower-level services first (which are more $43.6 ­billion) per year. Ending open defecation would cost affordable and bring socioeconomic benefits). $3.6 billion (range: $2.7 to $4.2 billion) per year over a shorter time period, until 2025. Similar to urban areas, at Urban Areas $18.2 billion per year, the capital costs of universal access In urban areas, the costs of universal basic WASH amount to safely managed sanitation (conveyance and treatment of to $20.3 billion (range: $9.9 to $33.1 billion) per year, waste) exceed the $13.8 billion per year needed for safely with roughly two-thirds contributed by sanitation (see managed water in rural areas. Together, the cost of toilet ­ figure 3.2). Providing safely managed water and sanitation and the cost of safe excreta management yield a total of $24 services to the world’s urban population would cost almost billion (range: $14 to $37 billion) per year in rural areas. three times that of providing basic WASH services at $55 Meeting SDG targets 6.1 and 6.2 in rural areas would cost billion (range: $39 to $79 billion) per year. At $31.2 billion $41.3 billion (range: $26 to $58 billion) per year. per year, the capital costs of universal access to safely man- aged sanitation (conveyance and treatment of waste) exceed Overall Uncertainty Range the costs of safely managed water in urban areas of $23.8 Because of the many uncertainties in the underlying data billion. The costs of safely managed sanitation are in addi- and methodological choices outlined in table 2.2, these cost tion to the costs of basic sanitation—that is, for latrines or estimates should be used with caution. For national policy toilets. Thus adding the cost of toilets to the cost of safe making and resource allocation, countries are encouraged to excreta management yields a total of $44.9 billion (range: conduct their own costing studies or investment plans based $26.2 to $72.7 billion) per year in urban areas. Meeting on local unit costs and the mix of technologies and program SDG targets 6.1 and 6.2 in urban areas would cost $72.4 delivery mechanisms likely to be chosen. Figure 3.4 presents billion a year (range: $48 to $108 billion). the overall results of the sensitivity analysis conducted on global capital costs, showing the upper and lower global cost Rural Areas values for three of the important assumptions known to In rural areas, the cost of basic WASH amounts to influence the global cost estimates. When these assumptions billion (range: $3.9 to $13.5 billion) per year, with $8.2 ­ are varied over their plausible range, the resulting impact on over half contributed by sanitation (see figure 3.3). global capital cost is about 50 percent around the baseline Providing safely managed water and sanitation services result, from $14 to $47 billion per year for basic WASH. The to the world’s rural population would cost four times variation in cost as a percentage of GP140 is between 0.05 basic WASH services at $32.0 billion (range: $21.4 to and 0.16 percent. For safely managed water and sanitation, 10 Water and Sanitation Program The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Results the range is relatively smaller, from Figure 3.4: Large Ranges Result on Capital Cost When $61 to $123 billion per year. The costs Alternative Input Values are Used for Three Types of Costing Uncertainty of meeting targets 6.1 and 6.2 vary Variations in Baseline Costs for Annual Global Capital Costs between $74 and $166 billion. However, these ranges reflect the most 180 165.8 extreme values these three variables are 160 likely to take. 140 122.8 $, billions per year 120 113.7 Cost by Income Quintile 100 86.9 Because coverage data were available 80 74.3 60.9 by wealth quintile for most coun- 60 46.7 tries, the costs of achieving universal 40 28.4 access to basic WASH could be com- 13.8 20 pared for wealth groupings. The esti- 0 mates reflect the same technology Lower Baseline Upper Lower Baseline Upper Lower Baseline Upper choice for the richer and poorer Basic WASH Safely managed service, Achieving SDG targets water and sanitation 6.1 and 6.2 quintiles and therefore the same unit cost. Also, wealth quintiles are Note: Safely managed sanitation costs are for safe excreta management alone; they exclude latrine costs. WASH = water, sanitation, and hygiene; SDG = Sustainable Development Goal. defined at the country level rather than the global level. Thus aggregat- ing the bottom 40 percent across countries does not indicate the poor- est 40 percent globally. Figure 3.5 Figure 3.5: A Higher Proportion of Global Costs are Accounted shows the proportion of the total for by the Two Lower Wealth Quintiles costs of basic WASH services con- Proportion of Total Costs of Basic WASH Services Contributed by Lower Two and tributed by the lower two wealth Bottom Wealth Quintiles quintiles. Based on the current 60 inequalities in service distribution, approximately 50 percent of the total 50 costs are incurred providing WASH services to the poorest 40 percent of 40 % of total costs the population (on a per country def- 30 inition basis) and 27 percent of the total costs are incurred providing 20 WASH services to the poorest 20 percent of the population. For rural 10 areas becoming open defecation– 0 free, 58 percent of the costs are Expected Inequalities Expected Inequalities incurred by the lower two wealth population in current population in current growth population growth population quintiles. Over a 15-year perspective that includes population growth and Lower two wealth quintiles Bottom wealth quintile migration, the proportion of costs Water Sanitation Hygiene WASH ODF required for each wealth quintile bal- Note: WASH = water, sanitation, and hygiene; ODF = open defecation–free. ances out because new population is added to each wealth quintile. www.wsp.org 11 The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Results serve the unserved. This does not Figure 3.6: Capital Spending Requirements as a Percent of equate with three times the level of Global Product Reduce under Higher Economic Growth Scenarios overall WASH spending because many Global Costs of Achieving Different Service Levels as a Percent of GP140 under funds are spent on sustaining access to Economic Growth Rates of 0 to 5 Percent the population already served, but 0.7 three times the commitment on extending access to the unserved with 0.6 “improved’ services (according to the Cost as % of global product 0.5 MDG definition). 0.4 Approximate global spending on basic Comparison with GP140 at Different 0.3 WASH during MDG Rates of Economic Growth period—0.12% of global product Costs as a proportion of GP140 were 0.2 estimated over the 15-year period 0.1 under different rates of economic growth. Rates from 0 to 5 percent are 0 shown in figure 3.6, with ranges based 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 on the variables adjusted in the sensi- Basic WASH Safely managed services, Achieving SDG targets water and sanitation 6.1 and 6.2 tivity analysis. At 0 percent economic Rate of economic growth growth, capital costs as a proportion of Upper Baseline Lower GDP are 0.14 percent of GP140 for Note: Safely managed sanitation costs are for safe excreta management alone; they exclude latrine costs. basic WASH, falling to around GP = gross product; WASH = water, sanitation, and hygiene; SDG = Sustainable Development Goal. 0.10 percent at 5 percent economic growth. For safely managed water and sanitation, the costs are 0.41 percent Comparison with Historical Spending of GP140 at 0 percent economic To assess the feasibility of meeting the WASH targets, this growth, falling to 0.29 percent of GP140 at 5 percent eco- study contrasted these figures with the approximate spending nomic growth. To meet the WASH-related SDG targets, the on capital investment globally to extend access during the capital cost falls from 0.54 percent of GP140 at 0 percent eco- 15-year MDG period. A previous study that estimated what nomic growth (range: 0.47 to 0.61 percent) to 0.39 ­ percent it would cost to meet MDG target 7c from 2000 to 2015 of GP140 at 5 percent economic growth (range: 0.33 to (Hutton and Haller 2004) assessed alongside the global prog- 0.44 percent). ress that was made towards the water and sanitation targets in 2015 reveals that about 0.12 percent of GP140 was spent Regional Capital Costs annually over the last 15 years on improved water supply and A regional breakdown provides a greater understanding of sanitation.12 Thus from a financial perspective, achieving uni- the geographical targeting needed for capital investment. versal basic WASH within 15 years is feasible based on the Figure 3.7 presents a breakdown of the annual capital financial commitments of the last 15 years and a comparison costs of basic WASH services by UN regional categorization with the historical capital expenditure. To achieve WASH- used for MDG reporting and by urban and rural area. related targets 6.1 and 6.2, a little over three times the level of Two regions clearly dominate the capital investment financial commitment would be needed, from 0.12 percent needs for basic WASH in both urban and rural areas: to 0.39 percent (range: 0.26 to 0.55 percent) of GP140 – to ­Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for $11.3 billion (range: $5.1 to 12 The figure 0.12 percent is based on the global progress toward the MDG water supply and sanitation targets, using a previous study that estimated the costs of reaching the targets from 2000 to 2015 (Hutton 2004). 12 Water and Sanitation Program The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Results Figure 3.7: Large Regional Variations in Costs of Basic WASH Services Annual Capital Costs of Basic WASH Services by MDG Region with Urban-Rural Breakdown Basic water 7,000 6,000 5,000 $, millions per year 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,466 936 930 931 990 581 1,000 324 234 185 119 45 23 47 0 0 Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural LAC SSA Northern Africa Western Asia Southern Asia Southeastern Asia Eastern Asia Basic sanitation and ODF 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,713 $, millions per year 4,000 3,192 3,000 1,952 2,049 2,010 2,000 1,302 1,777 1,865 1,389 1,000 451 675 172 124 76 190 215 146 71 70 30 1 0 Urban Rural Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Rural Rural San ODF San ODF San ODF San ODF San ODF San ODF San ODF LAC SSA Northern Africa Western Asia Southern Asia Southeastern Asia Eastern Asia Lower Baseline Upper Note: Data label refers to baseline estimate. See appendix C for regional abbreviations and groupings. Hygiene costs and some regions with small costs are omitted. WASH = water, sanitation, and hygiene; MDG = Millennium Development Goal; ODF = open defecation–free; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; SSA = Sub-Saharan Africa. www.wsp.org 13 The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Results Figure 3.8: Large Regional Variations in Costs of Safely Managed Water and Sanitation Services Annual Capital Costs of Safely Managed Water and Sanitation Services by MDG Region with Urban-Rural Breakdown Safely managed water 12,000 10,000 7,337 8,000 $, millions per year 6,000 5,018 4,563 3,295 3,568 4,000 2,959 3,269 1,028 2,000 1,077 1,320 930 783 639 460 0 Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural LAC SSA Northern Africa Western Asia Southern Asia Southeastern Asia Eastern Asia Lower Baseline Upper Safely managed sanitation 12,000 10,000 7,685 8,000 $, millions per year 6,371 6,187 6,342 6,158 6,000 4,073 4,000 2,332 1,654 1,456 1,552 2,000 1,205 553 714 650 0 Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural LAC SSA Northern Africa Western Asia Southern Asia Southeastern Asia Eastern Asia Lower Baseline Upper Note: Data label refers to baseline estimate. See appendix C for regional abbreviations and groupings. Some regions with small costs are omitted. MDG = Millennium Development Goal; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; SSA = Sub-Saharan Africa. 14 Water and Sanitation Program The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Results $17.6 ­billion) per year and Southern Asia for $5.7 billion costs, Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for 31 percent of the (range: $3.5 to $8.0 billion) per year.13 However, urban global costs of meeting the targets ($35.5 billion per investments are globally important in three other regions— year), followed by Southern Asia with 22 percent Latin America and the Caribbean, Southeastern Asia, and ($24.5 billion per year), Eastern Asia with 14 percent Eastern Asia—with sanitation dominating water supply. ($15.9 billion per year), Latin America and the Caribbean with 12 percent ($14.0 billion per year), and South- Figure 3.8 is a breakdown by MDG region and urban and rural eastern Asia with 9 percent ($10.4 billion per year). In area for safely managed water and sanitation. Among regions, terms of rural costs, Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for an there is a more equal division compared with that for basic even bigger proportion of these costs at 38 percent, fol- WASH, although, overall, Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern lowed by Southern Asia at 33 percent. In terms of urban Asia remain the two regions with the highest costs. In Sub- costs, Latin American and the Caribbean and Eastern Saharan Africa, the costs of safely managed water and sanita- Asia become relatively more important, although Sub- tion are $24.7 billion per year and in Southern Asia $18.5 Saharan Africa still dominates. billion per year. The Latin America and the Caribbean and Eastern Asia regions also have very significant urban sanitation When compared with the gross product of each region, the capital investment needs, followed by urban water supply. results vary significantly around the global averages. The regional and global costs of basic and safely managed ser- The annual capital costs of meeting SDG targets 6.1 and vices as a proportion of the gross product are shown in 6.2 are shown in figure 3.9. Of the $114 billion overall ­ figure 3.10, with an indication of the uncertainty levels Figure 3.9: Large Regional Variations in Costs of Meeting Targets 6.1 & 6.2 Annual Capital Costs of Meeting SDG Targets 6.1 and 6.2 by MDG Region with Urban-Rural Breakdown 30,000 25,000 19,629 $, millions per year 20,000 15,820 15,000 13,417 13,392 12,208 11,105 10,000 7,181 3,414 2,340 5,000 2,539 3,237 1,841 2,498 1,702 1,293 855 0 Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural SSA Northern Africa Western Asia Southern Asia Southeastern Eastern Asia Developed LAC Asia Lower Baseline Upper Note: Data label refers to baseline estimate. See appendix C for regional abbreviations and groupings. Some regions with small costs are omitted. SDG = Sustainable Development Goal; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; SSA = Sub-Saharan Africa. 13 The figures cited include basic hygiene, which is not shown in figure 3.7. www.wsp.org 15 The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Results based on changing cost assumptions on three major types GRP for basic WASH. For countries contributing the largest of costing uncertainty as previously described (see table 2.2). share of global costs, the estimated capital costs of basic WASH in the first year as a proportion of current GDP vary: The region with the highest capital costs to achieve universal 0.035 percent, China; 0.078 percent, Mexico; 0.19 percent, basic WASH as a proportion of gross regional product Indonesia; 0.27 percent, India; 0.63 percent, Nigeria. (GRP) is Sub-Saharan Africa, with basic WASH costing 0.64 percent (range: 0.29 to 1.0 percent) of GRP. The other Meeting the WASH-related SDG targets will require region well above the world average is Southern Asia, with ­ considerably more capital resources in all regions. In some capital costs of 0.21 percent (range: 0.13 to 0.29 percent) of regions, the capital cost seems feasible, varying from Figure 3.10: Wide Variation Between World Regions in Capital Costs as a Proportion of Gross Regional Product Costs of Basic and Safely Managed Services as a Percentage of Gross Regional Product (GRP) by MDG Region, with Uncertainty Range 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.01 Cost as % of GRP 1.5 1.0 0.85 0.64 0.58 0.5 0.45 0.39 0.36 0.31 0.27 0.23 0.21 0.12 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.02 0 ia ia ca a a ia A A C ld d i ni As As As As SS C LA pe ri or a C Af ce n W lo n rn n er er er ve n O te st er th st De es ea th Ea u W So or th N u So SDG targets 6.1 and 6.2 Basic WASH Upper and lower estimates of the cost Upper and lower estimates of the of meeting SDG targets 6.1 and 6.2 cost of achieving basic WASH Note: Data label refers to baseline estimate. MDG = Millennium Development Goal; WASH = water, sanitation, and hygiene; SDG = Sustainable Development Goal; SSA = Sub-Saharan Africa; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; CCA = Caucasus and Central Asia. See table 2.2 for details on upper and lower values on variables varied in sensitivity analysis. Gross regional product is based on the aggregated GDP of countries in each region. An economic growth rate of 5 percent is assumed across all regions. 16 Water and Sanitation Program The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Results grouping. Figure 3.12 shows the distri- Figure 3.11: Strong Relationship Between Country Income Level and bution of the global costs of providing the Cost of Achieving SDG Targets 6.1 and 6.2 as a Percentage of GDP basic WASH services and of meeting 10 SDG targets 6.1 and 6.2 by World 9 Bank income grouping. Interesting to 8 note is that for all services, except 7 urban water supply, the costs of serv- Costs as % of GDP 6 ing populations in lower-middle- 5 income countries dominate the costs of serving the populations in all other 4 income groupings. The costs of serving 3 Global average the population in low-income coun- 0.39% 2 tries account for 23 percent of the 1 global costs of basic WASH and 18 0 percent of meeting targets 6.1 and 6.2. $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 On the other hand, rural costs have a GDP (at PPP) higher share in low-income countries: Note: SDG = Sustainable Development Goal; GDP = gross domestic product; PPP = purchasing power parity. 45 percent of global basic rural water supply costs. Because the majority of developed countries are excluded, they 0.12 percent of GRP in countries classified as high income, are underrepresented in this study. 0.15 percent of GRP in Eastern Asia, to 0.23 percent of GRP in Latin America and the Caribbean (see figure 3.10 Costs of Operating and Sustaining Services for ranges). However, in some regions considerably more In addition to progressive investment in capital over the funds as a proportion of gross income are required, mainly 15-year period to 2030, significant funds are needed to oper- in Asia (0.45 percent of GRP in Southeastern Asia to 0.85 ate and maintain water and sanitation services. Indeed, the percent of GRP in Southern Asia) and in Africa (0.58 per- financing required for operations and maintenance (O&M) cent of GRP in Northern Africa to 2.0 percent of GRP in increases over time as the capital stock is extended. Figure 3.13 Sub-Saharan Africa). Even these regional averages hide con- shows indicative spending on capital investment compared siderably greater variation at the country level. Figure 3.11 with that on the increasing O&M required to provide basic shows that the costs of achieving SDG targets 6.1 and 6.2 and safely managed services from 2015 to 2030. The esti- as a proportion of GDP at the country level. Each country mates are based on linear growth in coverage, with 15 equal is represented by a point. All countries with costs in excess tranches of unserved population gaining access each year. of 3 percent of GDP are in Africa. For countries contribut- ing the largest share of global costs, the capital costs of A major observation is that, despite the discounting of meeting SDG targets 6.1 and 6.2 in the first year as a pro- future costs at 5 percent per year, the spending require- portion of current GDP is estimated to vary: 0.20 percent, ments are increasing over time because of the growing China; 0.27 percent, Brazil; 0.29 percent, Mexico; 1.0 per- needs for O&M as infrastructure is added and more cent, India; 1.7 percent, Nigeria. ­ services are provided. For basic WASH, the global O&M costs increase gradually from $4.2 billion (range: Distribution of Costs among Country Income $3.1 to $5.6 billion) in 2015 to $31.1 billion (range: Groupings $14.3 to $55.3 billion) in 2030 (see left-hand graphic in After looking at reporting by the MDG regions, which are figure 3.13). To achieve SDG targets 6.1 and 6.2, the geographical, it is useful to look at how the costs of basic global O&M costs must increase gradually from WASH services are distributed among countries by income $18.0 ­billion (range: $14.0 to $23.6 billion) in 2015 to www.wsp.org 17 The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Results Figure 3.12: Lower-Middle Income Countries Dominate Global Costs, Followed by Middle-Income Countries Distribution of Costs of Providing Water and Sanitation and Meeting SDG Targets 6.1 and 6.2 by Income Grouping with Urban-Rural Breakdown 100 90 80 70 % of global costs 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 R U R T U R T U R T U R T U R T U R T U R T End Water Sanitation Hygiene WASH Water Sanitation OD Basic WASH Safely managed services SDG targets 6.1 and 6.2 High income Middle-upper income Lower-middle income Low income Note: Safely managed sanitation costs are for safe excreta management alone; they exclude latrine costs. SDG = Sustainable Development Goal; R = rural; U = urban; T = total; OD = open defecation; WASH = water, sanitation, and hygiene. Figure 3.13: Constant Financing Needs: As Investment Needs to Extend Services Decline, O&M Goes Up Time Series of Total Costs from 2015 to 2029 to Achieve SDG Targets 6.1 and 6.2, Comparing Capital and O&M Costs Basic WASH SDG targets 6.1 and 6.2 200 $, billions per year 150 100 50 0 28 29 28 29 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 O&M Capital Note: SDG = Sustainable Development Goal; O&M = operations and maintenance; WASH = water, sanitation, and hygiene. 18 Water and Sanitation Program The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Results $128.8 billion (range: $96.7 to $166.7 billion) in 2030— and 184 utilities had a ratio of from 0.80 to 0.99. The see right-hand graphic in figure 3.13. By 2029, spending remaining 57 percent of utilities had operating cost ratios of on O&M for the newly served from 2015 to 2029 will between 1.0 and 2.0. Although the IBNET database is more outweigh capital costs by 1.4 times for basic WASH and representative of middle-income countries than low-income 1.6 times for safely managed WASH services. countries, it does indicate very diverse practices related to cost recovery. Thus it is critical when choosing capital investments to take the financing of O&M costs into account. Although ideally Service Affordability O&M costs will be covered by tariffs paid by households, Global costs give the major financiers insights into where not all populations will be able to afford such tariffs, and the financing priorities are, whereas the cost per person thus targeted financing will be needed for those households served indicates the likely affordability to the population of (see next section on affordability). According to data different service levels. Countries can have very different extracted from the International Benchmarking Network policies on financing the capital and recurrent costs of water for Water and Sanitation Utilities (IBNET) database,14 there supply and sanitation services, and these policies can also is globally a very large spread of rates of cost recovery on differ among geographical areas and population groups operating costs. In 2012, of 839 utilities with an operating within the same country. Larger capital expenditures do cost ratio of between 0 and 2.0, 43 percent did not fully tend to be financed from public or donor funds, but house- recover their costs—that is, they had an operating cost ratio holds are likely to pay part or the full cost of the recurrent of between 0 and 0.99. Of these, 73 utilities had a ratio of (O&M) costs. less than 0.50, 102 utilities had a ratio of from 0.50 to 0.79, As shown in figure 3.14, annual costs per person are strongly related to a country’s income level. Urban Figure 3.14: Cost per Person Served is Strongly Related to Income and Service Level areas also have a higher cost per per- Costs of Water and Sanitation per Person Served per Year (Capital and O&M) by son than rural areas. For sanitation, Service and Country Income Grouping this is partly explained by the assumed 40 37.0 higher-technology requirements in urban areas. Figure 3.14 also shows Cost per person served per year ($) 35 that the costs of basic sanitation 30 18.9 exceed those of basic water, especially 9.9 25 12.4 in urban areas. Hand washing is 20.3 20 17.2 19.9 the lowest-cost service. In rural areas, 9.5 12.1 15 14.0 the annual cost per person of 2.4 4.7 13.0 12.1 12.6 basic WASH is approximately $11 in 10 8.1 6.2 6.6 7.0 6.7 1.9 2.1 7.9 low-income countries (LICs) and 5 2.6 2.5 2.2 1.5 1.5 1.4 4.2 $9 in lower-­ middle-income coun- 0 tries (LMICs), whereas in urban areas Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural the costs are approximately $19 in Basic water Basic sanitation Basic hygiene Safely managed Safely managed LICs and $18 in LMICs. A cost water sanitation of $11 for basic WASH corresponds Low income Lower-middle income Upper-middle income to less than 2 percent of the average Note: O&M = operations and maintenance. income in low-income ­ countries. However, because of the highly 14 The IIBNET collects data on a wide range of performance indicators from over 1,000 utilities across over 100 countries (http://www.ib-net.org). www.wsp.org 19 The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Results Figure 3.15: Wide Variation of Cost of Basic WASH Services as a Proportion of Poverty Income Level Proportion of Poverty Threshold Income Spent on Basic WASH in Low-Income Sub-Saharan Africa, Separating Capital and O&M Costs and with Urban-Rural Breakdown Urban areas Rural areas % of poverty threshold income 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Bu U ub p. Bu U ub p. fri , D m ria n . os rk ga lic a da ui o M a C nin ui S a, T o Si a-B ma e er is lia M R en e oz w ya Zi mb da ba ue Ta ala e er ia e fri , D m ria n . os rk ga lic a da ui o M a n ui S a, T o Si a-B ma e er is lia Ke ne oz w ya Zi mb da ba ue Ta ala e er ia e as er Be ar Le au as er Be ar Le au ag ig i am had Av zan i ag ig i am had Av zan i ad N al n w ne ne o h K n M bw ag ad N al n w ne ne o h M bw ag G as bi Tog ni G as bi og p e p e c c M R n ca em or l A go Co ibe ca em or o m iq l A go Co ibe o m iq in n a an in n a an Re R Re R ra s ra s F F T C L L M M G G G G tra n tra on o en C en C C C O&M Capital Note: WASH = water, sanitation, and hygiene; O&M = operations and maintenance. Poverty income of $1.90 at purchasing power parity (PPP, 2011) adjusted to 2015 and compared with cost per person expressed in PPP. unequal distribution in incomes, the affordability of  WASH multiple of those shown in the figure 3.15. For safely services needs to be assessed, specifically for the poor. ­ managed water and sanitation, the services are considerably less affordable for poor households.16 Figure 3.15 shows the annual costs of basic WASH services as a proportion of the World Bank’s lower poverty income An affordability analysis carried out using globally available threshold ($1.90 at purchasing power parity – PPP – in data and internationally defined poverty thresholds does year 201115), comparing annual spending requirements on not allow specific conclusions for individual countries, but capital versus O&M costs. The calculations are based on the it does indicate that affordability is likely to be a concern if low-technology cost option for basic services, and include households are expected to pay the full costs of basic WASH water supply, sanitation, and hand washing. When esti- services themselves. For some countries, the O&M costs mated in annual equivalent values, the capital costs are alone might not be affordable for poor households. Thus, slightly higher than the O&M costs in the urban areas of although the results of this analysis are largely illustrative, most countries. In rural areas, the capital costs constitute an they do indicate that country- and location-specific even larger share. In the majority of the low-income African analyses will be required to inform policy makers about ­ countries, the capital and O&M costs combined exceed which populations might find affordability an issue. In view 5 percent of a poor person’s annual income in urban areas. of the concerns highlighted here, poor people need to be In rural areas, capital costs account for at least 2 percent of better targeted with public funds and require a better the poverty percent of poverty income. If higher-­technology ­ selection of quality and affordable technology options than options are chosen for basic WASH, the percentages are a they now have. 15 These values have been updated to 2015 using the average growth of the poverty threshold from 2005 (when it was $1.25 per capita per day) to 2011. 16 Not shown in figure 3.15. 20 Water and Sanitation Program IV. Conclusions and Recommendations This study has presented global cost estimates for achieving With the ushering in of the new development framework, universal access to basic and safely managed water, the Sustainable Development Goals, there is a major new sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services, and it has focus on sustainability. Recent documentation and statistics included selected cost breakdowns to illustrate the have shone a light on the high levels of breakdown or geographical distribution of costs. Although the costs are nonuse of wells, latrines, and piped systems, as well as susceptible to significant uncertainties, indicative ranges inefficiently delivered services. Thus financing mechanisms have been provided. The overall cost numbers suggest that and management approaches should be designed and basic WASH services can be provided under current implemented to ensure the quality and sustainability of financing levels, whereas to achieve safely managed services new infrastructure. In order to ensure sufficient and under Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets 6.1 quality spending on operations and maintenance, and 6.2 significantly augmented financing will be needed. institutions and regulations need to be strengthened. In The global numbers presented hide significant variation addition, national governments should provide the policy among regions (see figure 3.10), and the regional averages environment for equitable tariff structures that strike a hide significant variations among individual countries (as balance between securing the additional financing needed indicated in figure 3.11). to enable service extension and operations while enabling poorer populations to access services. Where possible, The cost breakdowns provided in this study have shown economies should be sought when combining the delivery where financing is needed. The provision of basic WASH of drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene services to services will require 70 percent of the capital expenditure reduce the service costs. in urban areas compared with 30 percent in rural areas. Sixty percent of basic WASH costs are required for basic This study has revealed the cost implications of adopting sanitation compared with 30 percent for basic water supply. different service levels for both water supply and sanitation. Urban sanitation alone accounts for 44 percent of the The overall costs are higher if a household, community, or capital costs of basic WASH globally. Meanwhile, at least service area takes the pathway of seeking lower levels of half of the resources need to be spent on the bottom 40 ­ service before making greater investments to reach a higher percent of the population. Thus the allocation of public and level of service (see table 3.1). On the other hand, in the donor finances should be decided based on where the costs short term a lower service level might be the only option are, the ability of households to pay, and the poverty status because of lack of investment financing. Therefore, before of the unserved populations. engaging financiers and providers, infrastructure develop- ment should be appropriately sequenced, considering the When affordability is considered from the household public financing available, the dynamics of urban growth, perspective, even meeting operations and maintenance and the population demand. Whichever choice is made, (O&M) costs alone can place a significant burden on a WASH services should not be delayed as they are accompa- poor household’s income. Because of affordability nied by significant health, time, environmental, and eco- concerns and the lower coverage of basic WASH services nomic benefits that result from safe water and sanitation. If among the lower-income groups, a significant share of the right intervention is selected and delivered efficiently, public funds should target poor and marginalized these additional investments are well worth their cost population groups. Donors also have to reconsider which (Hutton 2012). countries they support. All this rethinking will require tough choices between achieving basic WASH for the Although understanding costs is an important part of unserved versus bringing better services to those already planning and implementing WASH services to reach with basic services. universal coverage, financing is only part of broader systems www.wsp.org 21 The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Conclusions and Recommendations strengthening that includes technology development, private to provide wastewater drainage as well as sewerage sys- suppliers and providers, policy reform, institutional tems, to implement behavioral change ­ programs to reach strengthening and regulation, and improved monitoring the hard to reach, and to sustain hygienic practices. A sim- and evaluation. Measures in these areas will increase the ple tool is available from the World Bank to allow these efficiency of services, provide cost savings, raise the demand assessments to be made based on the same methodology ­ for services, and stimulate the market. These aspects are described in this report, with adjustment of input data largely covered under what has been termed “means of ­possible.17 These assessments should include, where pos- implementation” in SDG goal 17, but they will require sible, the following components: (1) estimation of the further definition of what components are prioritized. costs of different service options and levels, including the extent to which efficiency savings can be made, such as Because of the many uncertainties in the underlying data economies of scale; (2) assessment of the benefits received and methodological choices associated with this study, the per population subgroup with a distinction between pri- cost estimates reported should be viewed with caution. vate benefit and social benefit, including willingness and The ranges on costs provided should be used with the ability to pay for benefits; (3) an assessment of financing baseline numbers. For national policy making and options and an overall financing strategy; and (4) a con- resource allocation, countries are encouraged to conduct crete investment plan to reach universal access. In the their own costing studies or investment plans, based on investment plan, public and private components should local unit costs and the mix of technologies and program be linked, and the plan should be based on the ­ public delivery mechanisms likely to be chosen. Numbers should financing available and the ability of populations to pay be ­provided with geographical breakdown such as by for services. Efforts should be made to “crowd-in” private rural or urban area and subnational level, as well as an investment, including realistic market assessments to ­ in-depth analysis of the additional costs required to secure determine which market segments are viable for involve- bulk water for drinking and domestic water ­ purposes, ment by the private sector. 17 Visit www.wsp.org 22 Water and Sanitation Program The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Appendix A Appendix A: Service Indicators and Data Sources Table A.1: Data Sources for Levels of WASH Services Service First-level service (“basic WASH”) Higher-level service (“safely managed”) Water Percentage of population using a protected Percentage of population using safely managed drinking community source or piped water with a total water services. Corresponds to population using an collection time of 30 minutes or less for a round-trip, improved drinking water source located on the premises, including queuing. available when needed, and free of fecal and priority chemical contamination (WHO and UNICEF 2012).a Data available for all countries from nationally representative surveys (JMP). Data available on piped water for all countries from nationally representative surveys (JMP). Data adjusted downward for quality (proportion of piped sources unsafe based on published studies). Sanitation Percentage of population not practicing open Percentage of population using safely managed sanitation defecation. services. Percentage of population using a basic private Data available on sewerage for most countries from a sanitation facility. published paper (Baum, Luh, and Bartram 2013) and on fecal sludge management from on-site systems for 12 Data available for all countries from nationally countries (Peal et al. 2014). representative surveys (JMP). Hygiene Percentage of population with hand-washing facilities with soap and water at home. Data available from 42 countries from nationally representative surveys (JMP). Source: WHO and UNICEF 2013. Note: WASH = water, sanitation, and hygiene; JMP = Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. a. Regarding “safely managed” drinking water, the following criteria are stated either in the target or the definition proposed by JMP and its partners: (1) improved drinking water source, (2) on the premises, (3) available when needed, (4) free of fecal and priority chemical contamination. For the purposes of this study, data on on-plot water supplies were sourced from nationally representative surveys and adjusted by the expected proportion of household connections not providing safe water. Thus criteria 1, 2, and 4 are met, whereas criterion 3 is presumed. (On criterion 2, because the question does not ask whether the water source is actually in the household or on-plot, the at-home household supply counts any household that answers that the round-trip is less than five minutes.) More detailed surveys will be needed to ascertain the extent to which these are true. On criterion 4, estimates were adjusted for water quality using results from the study by the World Health Organization (WHO) on the rapid assessment of drinking water quality and from other surveys that report on the proportion of improved water sources (by type) that do not meet WHO guideline for E. coli, fluoride, and arsenic. An assessment of cost against income of different wealth groups enables assessment of affordability, which was conducted in this study (see section “Service affordability”). However, the estimates of water supply coverage presented here did not take into account affordability. Because estimates are not based on adjustments for all criteria, the estimates used for safely managed drinking water services are therefore likely to be optimistic. www.wsp.org 23 The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Appendix B Appendix B: WASH Service Coverage Levels by MDG Region Current service coverage is shown in table B.1. Table B.1: Projected WASH Service Coverage in 2015 for Proposed Post-2015 Service-Level Definitions with Urban-Rural Breakdown Percent Water Sanitation Hygiene Basic Safely managed ODF Basic Safely managed Hand washing MDG region Urban Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Latin America and the Caribbean 95 83 88 48 88 87 64 35 34 92 85 Sub-Saharan Africa 60 42 25 2 66 40 23 33 34 40 16 Northern Africa 94 88 82 48 95 94 87 50 34 92 88 Western Asia 96 79 84 54 100 94 76 41 34 97 92 Caucasus and Central Asia 93 81 75 20 100 95 94 35 34 92 77 Southern Asia 85 83 48 9 51 65 33 6 34 85 49 Southeastern Asia 70 81 46 12 84 81 65 37 34 93 79 Eastern Asia 98 87 90 45 98 86 64 24 34 83 44 Oceania 88 87 69 22 76 84 56 35 34 92 88 Developed countries 98 95 90 54 100 86 79 21 34 99 97 Total (140 countries) 87 76 68 20 72 76 46 26 34 82 50 Source: Unpublished estimates from the Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation (JMP) and published studies, using definitions of access for post-2015 WASH monitoring (see appendix A). Note: WASH = water, sanitation, and hygiene; MDG = Millennium Development Goal; ODF = open defecation–free. 24 Water and Sanitation Program The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Appendix B Population size is shown in table B.2, broken down by rural and urban area. Table B.2: Population by MDG Region, 2015 and 2030, with Urban-Rural Breakdown Millions Total Urban Rural MDG region 2015 Growth 2030 2015 Growth 2030 2015 Growth 2030 Latin America and the Caribbean 601 84 685 478 90 568 123 –6 118 Sub-Saharan Africa 988 434 1,422 372 270 642 616 165 780 Northern Africa 177 33 210 98 28 127 79 5 84 Western Asia 173 43 216 114 39 152 59 5 64 Caucasus and Central Asia 83 12 95 36 8 44 47 3 50 Southern Asia 1,794 292 2,085 624 251 875 1,169 41 1,210 Southeastern Asia 627 89 716 296 101 396 331 –12 319 Eastern Asia 1,430 53 1,483 797 222 1,019 633 –168 464 Oceania 2 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 2 Developed countries 247 –17 230 172 –5 167 75 –13 63 Total (140 countries) 6,122 1,024 7,146 2,988 1,003 3,991 3,134 20 3,154 Source: UN Statistics Division. Note: Rural and urban numbers may not add up due to rounding. MDG = Millennium Development Goal. Some numbers may not add up due to rounding. www.wsp.org 25 The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Appendix B Population to serve18 is based on the new indicator definitions for basic water and sanitation. By 2030, 2.3 billion additional people will need to be covered with basic water and 3 billion additional people will need to be covered with basic sanitation. For water supply, over 900 million of the unserved reside in Sub-Saharan Africa, while for sanitation over 1 billion of the unserved reside in of Sub-Saharan Africa and 1 billion in Southern Asia (see table B.3). Table B.3: Total Population to Serve from 2015 to 2030 to Reach Universal Access to Water Supply with Rural-Urban Breakdown Millions Basic water—universal Safely managed Safely managed water—reduce by 50 percent water—universal MDG region Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total Latin America and the Caribbean 114 19 133 112 32 145 148 61 209 Sub-Saharan Africa 417 521 939 302 385 687 550 767 1,317 Northern Africa 34 15 49 35 26 60 46 47 93 Western Asia 44 19 63 43 19 63 57 34 92 Caucasus and Central Asia 11 12 23 11 21 32 17 41 58 Southern Asia 345 239 584 345 555 900 576 1,103 1,679 Southeastern Asia 189 65 254 155 142 298 263 281 544 Eastern Asia 240 0 240 258 78 335 308 195 503 Oceania 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 Developed countries 2 0 2 7 13 20 12 24 36 World 1,396 892 2,287 1,268 1,271 2,540 1,977 2,554 4,531 Note: Data are based on coverage (Table B1) and population size (Table B2). Rural and urban numbers may not add up due to rounding. MDG = Millennium Development Goal. 18 These estimates different from those in the latest JMP estimates from the JMP 2015 report, because of the difference in service definitions in the 2015 JMP report (UNICEF and WHO 2015) and the ones used in this report. Also, the JMP 2015 report includes additional data sets that may lead to different estimates for 2015. 26 Water and Sanitation Program The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Appendix B Table B.4 shows the population to be reached with sanitation services at the home. Because open defecation is largely a rural phenomenon19 and low-cost toilets are less feasible in urban areas, the analysis focuses exclusively on rural areas. Table B.4: Total Population to Be Reached from 2015 to 2030 with Sanitation Services with Urban-Rural Breakdown Millions Safely managed sanitation—reduce Safely managed ODF Basic sanitation—universal by 50 percent sanitation—universal MDG region Rural Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total Latin America and the Caribbean 18 157 40 197 215 37 252 400 76 476 Sub-Saharan Africa 340 493 639 1132 301 314 615 520 572 1,092 Northern Africa 9 34 16 50 46 29 75 78 57 135 Western Asia 5 45 20 65 60 23 83 106 44 149 Caucasus and Central Asia 3 10 6 16 17 18 35 32 34 66 Southern Asia 626 473 832 1,305 426 415 840 836 815 1,651 Southeastern Asia 60 159 117 276 162 102 263 286 207 493 Eastern Asia 0 329 50 379 440 97 537 826 251 1,077 Oceania 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 Developed countries 0 20 7 27 65 17 81 130 37 168 World 1,062 1,721 1,727 3,448 1,733 1,051 2,784 3,214 2,095 5,309 Note: Data are based on coverage (Table B1) and population size (Table B2). Rural and urban numbers may not add up due to rounding. MDG = Millennium Development Goal; ODF = open defecation–free. 19 In 2012, according to the JMP, 4 percent of urban households in developing regions practiced open defecation compared with 29 percent of rural households. www.wsp.org 27 The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Appendix B Table B.5 shows the number of people targeted to practice hand washing by 2030. Although the rates of hand washing were not available from the large majority of countries, the table shows the best available current estimates. Currently over 2.5 billion people do not wash their hands at critical times—in particular, after defecation. Table B.5: Total Population to Reach from 2015 to 2030 with Universal Hand-washing Practice with Urban-Rural Breakdown Millions Basic hygiene MDG region Urban Rural Total Latin America and the Caribbean 131 15 146 Sub-Saharan Africa 498 681 1,179 Northern Africa 36 15 51 Western Asia 42 11 53 Caucasus and Central Asia 11 14 25 Southern Asia 464 634 1,098 Southeastern Asia 125 64 189 Eastern Asia 415 185 600 Oceania 0.3 0.3 1 Developed countries 1.3 0 1.3 World 1,673 1,620 3,293 Note: Data are based on coverage (Table B1) and population size (Table B2). Rural and urban numbers may not add up due to rounding. MDG = Millennium Development Goal. 28 Water and Sanitation Program The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Appendix C Appendix C: Countries Included in This Study Table C.1: Countries Included in THIS Study by MDG Region and World Bank Income Level Included countries by World Bank income level Upper-middle MDG region Low income Lower-middle Income Income High income Excluded countries Latin Haiti Bolivia, El Salvador, Argentina, Belize, Anguilla, Antigua and America Guatemala, Guyana, Brazil, Colombia, Barbuda, Aruba, and the Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Cuba, Barbados, British Virgin Caribbean Paraguay Dominica, Islands, Cayman Islands, Dominican Chile, Falkland Islands Republic, Ecuador, (Malvinas), French Grenada, Jamaica, Guiana, Guadeloupe, Mexico, Panama, Martinique, Montserrat, Peru, St. Lucia, St. Puerto Rico, St. Kitts and Vincent and the Nevis, The Bahamas, Grenadines, Turks and Caicos Islands, Suriname, Trinidad Uruguay, Virgin Islands and Tobago, (U.S.), Venezuela, RB Sub-Saharan Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Cape Mauritius, Namibia, Equatorial Mayotte, Réunion Africa Botswana, Burkina Verde, Congo, Côte Seychelles, Guinea Faso, Burundi, d’Ivoire, Djibouti, South Africa Central African Ghana, Lesotho, Republic, Chad, Mauritania, Nigeria, Comoros, Democratic São Tomé and Republic of Congo, Príncipe, Senegal, Eritrea, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Sudan, Gabon, Gambia (The), Swaziland, Zambia Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Togo, Uganda, Tanzania, Zimbabwe Northern Arab Republic of Algeria, Libya, Western Sahara (territory) Africa Egypt, Morocco Tunisia Western Asia Syrian Arab Republic, Iraq, Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Republic of Yemen Lebanon, Turkey Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, West Bank and Gaza Caucasus Tajikistan Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Central Kyrgyz Republic, Kazakhstan, Asia Uzbekistan Turkmenistan Southern Afghanistan, Bhutan, India, Islamic Republic of Asia Bangladesh, Nepal Pakistan, Sri Lanka Iran, Maldives www.wsp.org 29 The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Appendix C Table C.1: (continued) Included countries by World Bank income level Upper-middle MDG region Low income Lower-middle Income Income High income Excluded countries South- Cambodia, Myanmar Indonesia, Lao Malaysia, Thailand, Brunei Darussalam, eastern Asia People’s Democratic Timor-Leste Singapore Republic, Philippines, Vietnam Eastern Asia Democratic People’s Mongolia China Hong Kong SAR, China, Republic of Korea Macao SAR, China, Republic of Korea Oceania Federated States of Cook Islands, Fiji, American Samoa, French Micronesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Polynesia, Guam, New Nauru, Niue, Papua Palau, Tonga, Caledonia, Northern New Guinea, Samoa, Tuvalu Mariana Islands, Tokelau Solomon Islands, Vanuatu Developed Moldova, Ukraine Albania; Belarus; Romania, Andorra, Australia, countries Bosnia and Russian Austria, Belgium, Herzegovina; Federation Bermuda, Canada, Bulgaria; Serbia; Channel Islands, Croatia, Macedonia, the Cyprus, Czech Republic, former Yugoslav Denmark, Estonia, Faroe Republic of Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Greenland, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, San Marino, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States Note: Classification using gross national income per capita based on World Bank Atlas method. Low-income: <$1,046; lower-middle income: $1,046–$4,125; upper-middle income, $4,125–$12,745; high income, >$12,746. 30 Water and Sanitation Program The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Appendix D Appendix D: Cost Estimation Methods A quantitative cost model was run at the country level for technologies. In such a global study, it is not possible to 140 low- and middle-income countries.20 The results were predict what technologies will be chosen by governments then aggregated to yield the regional and global totals or and service providers, or the households they will serve. For averages, weighted by country population size. The model monitoring the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) also generated separate estimates for rural and urban areas,21 target on water and sanitation, the Joint Monitoring as well as by wealth quintile.22 In line with the post-2015 Programme on Water Supply and Sanitation (JMP) defined proposal, wealth quintiles with lower starting coverage in “improved” versus “unimproved” technology or service 2015 were assumed to be served at a faster rate to achieve options. For the purposes of this study, for basic WASH universal coverage by 2030. supply a mix of lower-cost technology options were selected (see table D.1). They included community wells for water The total intervention cost consists of all the resources supply, improved latrines for sanitation, and the compo- required to put in place, operate, and maintain water, sani- nents needed for practicing hand washing (basin with soap tation, and hygiene (WASH) services. A distinction is made and water). Higher-cost options such as piped water and between upfront investment or capital costs (“CapEx”), sewerage were included as options under “safely managed” major capital maintenance costs (“CapManEx”), and regu- services. Therefore, because many households will choose lar recurrent costs (“OpEx”) (Fonseca et al. 2010).23 CapEx piped options to gain a service, not least because they are in includes planning and supervision, hardware, construction the coverage area of a utility, the basic WASH costs will and house alteration, protection of water sources, educa- underestimate the likely spending to even meet a basic ser- tion, and behavioral change. CapManEx includes mainte- vice standard. nance of hardware and replacement of parts and renovation or rehabilitation when required to extend the life of the The proposed indicator for Sustainable Development Goal hardware to its expected life span (see table D.2). OpEx (SDG) target 6.2 is safely managed sanitation. The addi- includes the operating materials needed to provide a tional cost of providing services to safely manage excreta service, regulation, ongoing protection, and monitoring of ­ includes the costs of safe extraction or conveyance, treat- water sources, water treatment and distribution, and con- ment, and disposal. tinuous education activities. In the baseline results, only the incremental costs of extending and operating WASH ser- Cost data were obtained by means of an extensive search of vices to those unserved in the baseline year (2015) are the peer-reviewed published literature as well as project presented. documents and agency reports sourced from contacts and the Internet (see reference list at the end of this To achieve universal coverage, populations will be cov- ­ appendix). In addition, the cost data available were sent to ered by some form of basic or safe service that can be experts in 40 countries in order to verify the estimates achieved with a number of different hardware options or found and to request the latest cost estimates available at 20 See appendix C for a list of countries. Countries classified by the World Bank as high income are excluded from the study, except Equatorial Guinea, which was included because it has below 50 percent sanitation coverage, and the Russian Federation, which has closer to 90 percent sanitation coverage but because of its population size still has an important number of child deaths attributed to poor WASH. Several upper-middle-income countries or territories were omitted (Hungary, Western Sahara, the West Bank and Gaza, and several small island states) because of lack of mortality data from the World Health Organization’s most recent burden of disease study. 21 It is recognized that a single rural versus urban breakdown does not reflect the global diversity of settlement types and densities. However, because this study draws on the only global database of drinking water, sanitation, and hand-washing coverage (provided by the Joint Monitoring Programme), it is limited by the singular rural-urban distinction of the JMP‘s data sets. 22 Wealth quintiles are created when populations are split by five equal groups according to their wealth level, which is approximated by a household asset index from survey data. 23 The International Water and Sanitation Centre’s WASHCost project distinguished between (1) capital expenditure, (2) operational costs, (3) capital maintenance, (4) direct support costs, (5) indirect support costs, and (6) loan interest. In this study, direct support costs are included under (1), and (5) and (6) were excluded because of lack of data. www.wsp.org 31 The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Appendix D Table D.1: Technology Options Modeled under Baseline and in Sensitivity Analysis by Service Sensitivity analysis Service Baseline technology assumption Low-cost High-cost Basic water • 50 percent protected community 100 percent protected 100 percent protected borehole/tube well dug well community borehole or • 50 percent protected dug well tube well Safely managed water • Piped water supply on-plot Increased bulk water supply costs Open defecation–free, rural • Simple or traditional latrines Basic sanitation, urban • 50 percent flush toilet to septic tank 100 percent any type 100 percent flush toilet • 50 percent any type of pit latrine of pit latrine to septic tank Basic sanitation, rural • 50 percent pour-flush pit latrine 100 percent dry pit 100 percent pour-flush • 50 percent dry pit latrine latrine pit latrine Safely managed sanitation • 50 percent sewerage with treatment 100 percent FSM with 100 percent sewerage • 50 percent FSM with treatment treatment with treatment Hand washing • 100 percent with mix of hand-washing basin options (varying by region) Note: FSM = fecal sludge management. the country level.24 Technology types were classified accord- ­ evelopment. The price observed in the country with data d ing to the service definitions in Table D.1. Cost data (cost was adjusted for the difference in price levels using GDP per per person or per household) were available for at least one capita expressed at purchasing power parity (PPP).26 service definition for at least half the countries. All unit cost Purchasing power parity as opposed to absolute GDP per data were updated to 2015 prices in U.S. dollars from their capita was used as the basis for conversion because it is reported year using the three-step methodology of the assumed that the majority of inputs are local labor and Disease Control Priorities project (edition 3): locally produced goods. To test the impact of this assump- • Step 1: Data were tabulated in local currency for the tion, costs are presented under a scenario of extrapolation year to which they refer. using difference in GDP per capita at official exchange rates. • Step 2: Costs were updated to 2015 prices using the Unit costs for capital items (including software) are pre- annual gross domestic product (GDP) deflator for sented in appendix E. that country.25 • Step 3: Costs were converted to U.S. dollars using Because cost data can be highly variable between different the exchange rate from early January 2015. studies even in the same country, the results of such a global costing exercise can lead to significant uncertainties in the For countries without data for a given service type and cost results. Only cost studies were considered that detailed level, data were extrapolated from a neighboring or similar the costing methods and indicated adequate data collec- country with comparable price levels or economic tion, sampling approach, and inclusiveness of major cost 24 These countries were selected as representing the highest number of unserved populations for basic water and basic sanitation services. See the acknowledgments for a list of those responding. 25 For the years 2013–15 without data, the GDP deflator for 2012 was used. 26 For example, if the unit cost is $30 in the source country (country A) with a GDP at PPP of $1,000, then the extrapolated unit cost to country B with a GDP at PPP of $500 would be $15. The extrapolation process identified the nearest countries with similar price levels to reduce to the maximum degree possible the distorting effect of the price level adjustment. 32 Water and Sanitation Program The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Appendix D Table D.2: Assumptions Used to Fill Gaps in Cost Data Available by WASH Service Life span of Time until capital Software Capital Operating costs capital items maintenance (as % of maintenance (as (as % of initial Service (years) (years) hardware) % of initial capital) capital) Water supply Safe household piped 20 10 10% 30% NR Basic household piped 20 10 5% 30% NR Borehole or tube well 20 10 5% 30% NR Dug well 10 5 5% 30% NR Sanitation Septic tank, sewerage, treatment facilities 20 10 10% 30% NR Urban basic pit latrine 8 4 10% 30% 5% Rural basic pit latrine 8 4 20% 30% 5% Rural traditional pit latrine (for ODF) 2 5% of cost of a 0% 5% of cost of a basic pit latrine basic pit latrine Hygiene Hand washing 1–5a Half life span Estimated 30% NR separately Note: WASH = water, sanitation, and hygiene; NR = no assumption required because data are largely available on these items, ODF = open defecation–free. a. Variable, depending on type of hardware chosen. items in order to give greater confidence on the accuracy of migration); (2) changes in the environment (e.g., climate the resulting unit cost estimates. change and overuse of water resources); and (3) changes in technological solutions. The unit cost data on capital hardware costs were widely available and reasonably robust. On the other hand, fewer For a utility-run piped water supply, the cost of accessing data were available for four items: (1) life span of hardware bulk water may have been underestimated because the cost and software interventions; (2) program management and data accessed are likely to have underestimated future behavioral change intervention costs (“software” costs) at costs.27 Moreover, because of the paucity of cost data on the initial stages and the recurrent costs to sustain the behav- what it takes to change behavior and ensure service sustain- ioral change; (3) capital maintenance (both in terms of the ability, the software costs used may underestimate the true costs required and how often it is needed); and (4) operat- costs, especially for delivering services to the “last mile” ing costs, in particular for hygiene interventions and for (hardest to reach populations). rural sanitation. The assumptions used to fill these cost data gaps are presented in table D.2. In addition to these uncer- The annual costs were estimated by assuming 15 equal tainties in cost data, uncertainty applies to the lack of infor- population groups for each quintile to reach the target by mation about changes from 2015 to 2030. Three main 2030. The CapEx costs were then estimated for each year, items are largely unknown: (1) changes that might occur in and the annual operations, capital maintenance, and the unit cost of service delivery over time because of changes replacement costs were estimated for all the new popula- in population density (e.g., population growth and tion with service until 2030. To estimate the present value 27 This is in part because current consumption patterns are at unsustainable levels and because climate change and climate variability will lead to higher future costs of access and storage of bulk water. www.wsp.org 33 The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Appendix D of achieving the target by 2030, the costs for each year were General Economics Division, Planning Commission, aggregated following discounting of future costs to the year Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. 2015 using a discount rate of 5 percent. The sensitivity “Millennium Development Goals Needs Assessment & analysis included the discount rate was adjusted from Costing 2009–2015.” Dhaka, 2009. 3 percent to 8 percent. Hanemann, W., and D. Whittington. “The Economic Costs and Benefits of Investments in Municipal Water Cost Studies Used and Sanitation Infrastructure: A Global Perspective.” African Ministers Council on Water (AMCOW). “Second Working Paper 1027, Department of Agricultural and Round of Country Status Overviews on Water Supply Resource Economics, University of California, and Sanitation in 32 Sub-Saharan Countries.” Water Berkeley, 2006. and Sanitation Program, World Bank, Washington, DC, 2011. High Powered Expert Committee (HPEC) for Estimating the Investment Requirements for Urban Infrastructure Allan, S. The WaterAid Bangladesh/VERC 100% Sanitation Services. Report on Indian Urban Infrastructure and Approach: Cost, Motivation and Sustainability. London: Services. New Delhi: Indian Council for Research on London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, International Economic Relations (ICRIER), 2011. 2003. Hutton, G., U-P. Rodriguez, A. Winara, V. A. Nguyen, Borghi, J., L. Guinness, J. Ouedraogo, and V. Curtis. P. Kov, L. Chuan, I. Blackett, and A. Weitz. “Economic “Is Hygiene Promotion Cost-Effective? A Case Study Efficiency of Sanitation Interventions in Southeast in Burkino Faso.” Tropical Medicine and International Asia.” Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in Health 7, No. 11, 2002. Development 4, no. 1: 23–36. 2014. Cairncross, S., and V. Valdmanis. “Water Supply, International Water and Sanitation Center (IRC). IRC Sanitation, and Hygiene Promotion.” In Disease WashCost Projects for India, Ghana, Mozambique and Control Priorities in Developing Countries, 2d ed. Burkina Faso. The Hague: IRC, 2008–13. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2006. Larsen, B. “Hygiene and Health in Developing Countries: Chase, C., and B. Briceno. “Cost and Cost-Efficiency of Defining Priorities through Cost–Benefit Assessments.” Rural Sanitation and Handwashing Promotion: International Journal of Environmental Health Research Activity-Based Costing and Experimental Evidence 13: S37–S46, 2013. from Indonesia, India, Tanzania and Peru.” Working Mayumbelo, K. M. K. “Cost Analysis for Applying Ecosan draft. Water and Sanitation Program, World Bank, in Peri-Urban Areas to Achieve the MDGs—Case Washington, DC, 2014. Study of Lusaka, Zambia.” MSc thesis, MWI 2006–10, Danilenko, A., C. van den Berg, B. Macheve, and UNESCO-IHE, Delft, 2006. L. J. Moffitt. The IBNET Water Supply and Ministry of Cities, Government of Brazil. “Indicadores de Sanitation Blue Book 2014: The International Custos de Referência e de Eficiência Técnica para Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation análise técnica de engenharia de infraestrutura de Utilities Databook. Washington, DC: World Bank, saneamento nas modalidades abastecimento.” Technical 2014. Note SNSA No. 492/2010_ RESUMO_01/2011, Brasilia, 2011. Doyen, J. “A Comparative Study on Water Well Drilling Costs in Kenya.” Unpublished report. Research Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. commissioned by UNDP­ Water and Sanitation “Guidelines for Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban).” Program, World Bank, Washington, DC, 2003. New Delhi, 2014. 34 Water and Sanitation Program The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Appendix D Ministry of Water and Environment, Government of Trémolet, S., P. Kolsky, and E. Perez Financing On-Site Uganda. “Water and Sanitation Sector Performance Sanitation for the Poor—A Six Country Comparative Report.” Kampala, 2007. Review and Analysis. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2010. Parkinson, J., K. Tayler, J. Colin, and A. Nema. Technology Options for Urban Sanitation in India—A Guide to Uandela, A. “Presentation on Costs of Hygiene Decision Making. New Delhi: Water and Sanitation Interventions in Mozambique.” IRC WashCost Program and Ministry of Urban Development, Mozambique, 2011. Government of India, 2008. WaterAid. The Water and Sanitation Millennium Pinfold, J., and N. Horan. “Measuring the Effect of a Development Targets in Nepal: What Do They Mean? Hygiene Behaviour Intervention by Indicators of What Will They Cost? Can Nepal Meet Them? Behaviour and Diarrhoeal Disease.” Transactions Kathmandu: WaterAid Nepal, 2004. of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene World Bank. “East Asia and Pacific Service Delivery 90, 1996. Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation.” Water and Sanitation Program, World Bank, Robinson, A. Global Expenditure Review: Water Supply Washington, DC, 2015. and Environmental Sanitation. Woking, UK: Plan International, 2009. ______. “Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Cambodia.” Water and Sanitation Saade, C., M. Bateman, and D. Bendahmane. The Story Program, World Bank, Washington, DC, 2011. of a Successful Public Private Partnership in Central America: Handwashing for Diarrheal Disease Prevention. ______. “Economic Assessment of Sanitation Arlington, VA: BASICS II, EHP, UNICEF, USAID, Interventions in Indonesia.” Water and Sanitation and World Bank, 2001. Program, World Bank, Washington, DC, 2011. Schuen, R., J. Parkinson, and A. Knapp. Study for ______. “Economic Assessment of Sanitation Financial and Economic Analysis of Ecological Interventions in Lao People’s Democratic Republic.” Sanitation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Nairobi: Water and Sanitation Program, World Bank, World Bank, 2009. Washington, DC, 2013. ______. “Economic Assessment of Sanitation Shuchen, M., T. Yong, and L. Jiayi. Rural Water Supply Interventions in Philippines.” Water and Sanitation and Sanitation in China: Scaling Up Services for the Program, World Bank, Washington, DC, 2011. Poor. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2004. ______. “Economic Assessment of Sanitation Sijbesma, C., and T. Christoffers. “The Value of Hygiene Interventions in Vietnam.” Water and Sanitation Promotion: Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Interventions Program, World Bank, Washington, DC, 2012. in Developing Countries.” Health Policy and Planning 24: 418–27, 2009. ______. “Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Yunnan Province, People’s Republic of Strukova, E. “Honduras: Health Costs of Environmental China.” Water and Sanitation Program, World Bank, Damage.” Working paper, World Bank, Washington, Washington, DC, 2012. DC, 2007. ______. “El Salvador—Monitoring Country Progress in Trejos, A. I. Z. Approach to Cost Information in the WASH Drinking Water and Sanitation (MAPAS).” Water and Sector in Colombia. The Hague: International Water Sanitation Program, World Bank, Washington, DC, and Sanitation Center (IRC), 2010. 2014. www.wsp.org 35 The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Appendix D ______. “Honduras—Monitoring Country Progress in No: 30467-CHA, World Bank, Washington, DC, Drinking Water and Sanitation (MAPAS).” Water and 2004. Sanitation Program, World Bank, Washington, DC, ______. “Panama—Monitoring Country Progress in 2014. Drinking Water and Sanitation (MAPAS).” Water and ______. “Implementation Completion Report of Sanitation Program, World Bank, Washington, DC, the Second Shanghai Sewerage Project.” Report 2014. 36 Water and Sanitation Program The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Appendix E Appendix E: Unit Costs by Country www.wsp.org 37 38 Table E.1: Capital Costs per Person Served in 2015, Including Hardware and Software, with Urban-Rural Breakdown The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene U.S. dollars Water Sanitation Hand-washing Unim- Advanced—full excreta management station, soap, Basic Advanced proved Basic improved (incremental off-site) water Urban Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Tube Tube Unim- Latrine Sewer- Septic Pit latrine Pit well/ well/ proved with Wet Wet age with tank with sew- ­latrine bore- Dug bore- Dug Piped Piped pit septic pit pit Dry pit treat- with erage and with Country hole well hole well on-plot on-plot ­latrine tank latrine latrine latrine ment FSM treatment FSM Urban Rural Afghanistan 30.2 8.7 19.0 11.8 215.0 77.0 4.4 29.7 20.5 20.5 8.6 50.4 13.5 63.2 49.5 1.7 0.6 Albania 156.1 62.4 39.1 19.5 176.7 39.1 23.4 286.4 22.2 22.2 17.7 135.3 103.9 101.2 66.6 1.3 1.1 Algeria 56.4 79.2 49.5 17.2 306.2 306.2 29.7 376.2 129.7 129.7 22.4 508.7 131.8 128.4 166.6 1.7 1.4 Angola 112.2 32.6 250.1 26.9 216.3 398.8 16.8 243.3 40.6 40.6 23.0 351.6 238.6 642.4 94.4 0.9 0.8 Argentina 245.9 87.6 106.9 19.0 263.4 338.7 32.8 416.1 101.1 101.1 24.8 562.6 145.8 142.0 93.5 1.8 1.5 Armenia 33.0 23.2 33.0 23.2 156.1 108.5 17.3 197.3 29.5 29.5 12.1 308.5 247.5 75.0 97.4 1.0 0.8 Azerbaijan 286.4 102.0 63.8 22.2 288.7 63.8 38.2 468.0 36.2 36.2 28.9 221.1 169.8 165.4 214.6 2.2 1.8 Bangladesh 38.9 11.2 24.4 17.5 276.3 98.9 5.7 132.0 6.9 6.9 5.7 64.8 17.3 81.2 63.6 2.2 0.8 Belarus 294.3 104.9 65.6 22.8 405.4 405.4 39.3 481.0 37.2 37.2 29.7 227.2 174.5 170.0 111.9 2.2 1.8 Belize 544.8 36.5 387.2 36.5 908.1 817.2 18.8 200.0 100.4 100.4 14.2 318.3 83.6 453.2 105.7 1.1 0.9 Benin 49.4 23.5 114.9 5.0 60.9 17.8 10.0 57.8 34.5 34.5 11.2 151.2 56.7 310.0 44.5 12.4 12.4 Bhutan 116.5 22.9 32.5 22.9 263.5 296.6 17.1 86.6 60.7 60.7 33.2 194.3 51.9 243.5 190.7 6.6 2.4 Bolivia 102.4 26.5 26.0 18.3 109.7 141.1 13.7 68.4 42.1 42.1 9.6 121.7 195.2 59.2 38.9 0.8 0.6 Bosnia and Herzegovina 160.9 57.3 35.9 17.9 221.7 221.7 21.5 263.0 20.4 20.4 16.2 124.2 95.4 93.0 61.2 1.2 1.0 Botswana 261.9 93.3 113.8 20.3 489.7 225.4 20.0 505.9 227.0 227.0 113.6 591.0 155.3 1,335.9 196.3 2.0 1.6 Brazil 251.2 89.5 56.0 19.4 346 346 33.5 425.1 103.3 103.3 25.3 574.8 148.9 145.1 95.5 1.9 1.6 Bulgaria 266.3 94.9 59.4 20.6 366.9 366.9 35.5 435.3 33.7 33.7 26.8 205.6 157.9 153.9 101.2 2.0 1.7 Appendix E Burkina Faso 45.1 21.5 62.8 4.6 75.6 114.9 10.2 41.9 31.5 31.5 10.2 138.0 51.7 421.6 40.6 12.4 11.3 Burundi 31.9 3.2 31.2 2.2 49.2 127.5 1.5 62.0 19.4 19.4 10.5 218.8 24.4 133.4 19.2 4.2 2.2 Cambodia 23.7 18.0 23.7 18.0 132 39.5 5.6 50.8 22.6 22.6 11.2 282 85.2 45.1 75.6 0.4 0.3 Water and Sanitation Program Cameroon 101.8 35.6 88.4 9.7 243.4 106.4 15.2 87.5 61.7 61.7 49.0 147.5 85.8 469.3 67.4 18.8 0.9 Cape Verde 27.2 19.1 27.2 22.9 218.0 63.9 14.3 325.8 124.7 124.7 31.1 311.2 199.0 546.5 159.4 48.8 4.7 Central African Republic 25.0 2.5 24.5 1.7 124.7 113.9 5.3 102.4 11.6 11.6 10.6 51.0 19.1 104.5 15.0 10.8 1.7 Chad 112.4 27.4 84.3 5.9 429.9 392.6 11.7 58.8 40.1 40.1 28.4 175.7 65.9 360.2 51.7 15.8 0.7 China 50.5 35.5 44.3 15.4 200.5 61.5 26.5 155.0 43.5 43.5 36.1 197.4 154.9 176.5 75.6 1.5 1.2 www.wsp.org The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Colombia 206.7 73.6 46.1 16.0 284.7 284.7 27.6 349.8 85.0 85.0 37.5 161.8 122.6 119.4 78.6 1.6 1.3 Comoros 43.0 20.5 44.9 39.4 342.1 235.1 3.5 50.3 30.0 30.0 16.8 641.3 49.3 269.9 38.8 6.0 0.8 Congo, Dem. Rep. 30.9 3.1 51.4 2.1 154.3 30.9 10.1 280.7 71.0 71.0 10.2 335.4 23.6 129.3 18.6 13.4 2.1 Congo, Rep. 161.9 77.1 194.7 20.9 168.3 310.4 20.0 189.4 147.8 147.8 29.6 319.2 185.7 500.0 145.9 32.0 2.8 Cook Islands 39.0 27.4 39.0 27.4 365.7 365.7 20.5 251.0 34.9 34.9 14.4 364.7 91.1 136.3 115.1 1.2 1.0 Costa Rica 231.8 82.6 51.7 25.8 319.3 282.9 30.9 328.7 165.0 165.0 23.4 2,149.1 137.4 744.8 173.7 1.7 1.5 Côte d’Ivoire 113.1 39.6 242.7 10.8 455.1 394.4 15.2 151.7 75.9 75.9 15.2 455.1 95.3 521.4 74.9 20.9 20.9 Cuba 196.0 69.8 49.8 35.0 222.5 239.2 15.0 302.3 31.7 31.7 19.8 153.5 371.3 113.2 74.5 1.5 1.2 Djibouti 112.5 39.4 76.0 10.7 546.8 121.6 6.7 81.9 57.8 57.8 18.7 277.9 1,399.4 519.0 74.5 11.5 1.5 Dominica 167.6 59.7 460.0 43.4 1,078.9 971.0 22.4 258.4 79.9 79.9 16.9 131.2 99.4 538.4 125.6 1.3 1.0 Dominican Republic 195.4 69.6 536.4 50.6 1,258.1 1132.3 26.1 301.3 93.2 93.2 19.7 447.2 115.9 627.9 146.5 1.5 1.2 Ecuador 174.9 62.3 39.0 19.5 240.9 240.9 23.3 123.4 83.4 83.4 17.6 400.3 103.7 101.0 66.5 1.3 1.1 Egypt, Arab. Rep. 185.2 66.0 41.3 14.3 255.1 255.1 24.7 313.4 108.1 108.1 18.7 423.8 109.8 107.0 328.7 1.4 1.2 El Salvador 500.9 33.6 356.0 33.6 457.7 751.5 17.3 183.9 92.3 92.3 13.1 660.4 247.2 664.2 97.2 1.0 0.8 Equatorial Guinea 563.4 200.7 125.2 43.6 1,146.3 335.9 20.0 920.7 181.6 181.6 102.9 435.0 334.1 500.0 422.3 4.2 3.5 Eritrea 73.9 15.7 30.3 4.3 218.0 48.5 6.7 449.4 290.7 290.7 48.5 110.8 558.0 206.9 29.7 4.6 0.3 Ethiopia 83.7 17.8 34.3 4.8 246.9 54.9 7.6 508.9 329.2 329.2 54.9 125.5 631.9 234.4 33.7 7.4 0.3 Fiji 33.7 34.4 33.7 14.8 316.2 316.2 17.7 175.0 30.2 30.2 13.4 315.4 78.7 117.8 99.5 1.0 0.8 Gabon 286.7 114.6 628.0 24.9 654.7 191.9 20.0 621.6 103.7 103.7 58.8 898.3 190.8 1,034.0 241.2 2.4 2.0 Gambia, The 46.0 21.9 22.3 4.7 111.3 44.5 9.3 95.3 17.8 17.8 8.1 152.9 52.7 288.5 41.4 12.7 1.2 Georgia 30.4 21.4 30.4 21.4 143.9 100.0 16.0 181.8 27.2 27.2 21.7 284.3 228.1 69.2 89.7 0.9 0.7 Ghana 149.2 52.3 72.6 14.2 268.2 250.4 3.5 311.7 109.1 109.1 7.0 335.6 125.8 688.1 98.8 27.5 27.5 Grenada 192.1 49.8 42.8 49.8 678.0 264.6 25.6 272.4 91.6 91.6 19.4 439.6 113.9 617.3 144.0 1.4 1.2 Guatemala 121.9 43.4 27.2 13.6 167.9 167.9 16.3 101.7 47.2 47.2 12.3 278.9 232.3 391.6 91.3 0.9 0.8 Guinea 77.6 16.5 40.9 4.5 323.6 156.0 7.0 36.6 38.2 38.2 6.1 60.9 39.0 217.3 31.2 9.6 0.9 Appendix E Guinea-Bissau 76.8 16.3 40.5 4.4 320.3 154.4 7.0 36.2 37.8 37.8 6.0 60.3 38.6 215.1 30.9 9.5 0.9 Guyana 109.5 28.4 27.8 19.6 386.3 150.8 14.6 185.2 45.0 45.0 10.2 250.5 208.6 63.2 41.6 0.8 0.7 Haiti 28.4 7.4 7.2 5.1 183.1 164.8 3.8 43.9 32.8 32.8 6.3 263.8 47.7 91.4 21.3 0.2 0.2 Honduras 296.3 19.9 247.0 49.4 493.9 444.5 10.2 118.3 102.9 102.9 7.7 711.3 128.6 246.5 57.5 0.6 0.5 India 82.2 23.7 19.3 10.1 107 32.8 11.7 61.1 42.8 42.8 23.4 137.1 36.6 171.8 134.5 4.7 1.7 Indonesia 142.3 56.9 35.6 17.8 161 35.6 21.3 261.0 20.2 20.2 16.1 123.3 94.7 141.7 119.7 1.2 1 Iran, Islamic Rep. 232.0 92.8 58.0 29.0 429.2 429.2 34.7 425.6 32.9 32.9 28.5 395.0 105.4 494.9 387.5 13.4 4.9 Iraq 226.1 90.4 56.6 28.3 418.2 418.2 33.9 414.7 148.1 148.1 27.8 384.9 150.5 482.3 377.6 13.1 4.8 table continues next page 39 40 Table E.1: (continued) The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Water Sanitation Hand-washing Unim- Advanced—full excreta management station, soap, Basic Advanced proved Basic improved (incremental off-site) water Urban Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Tube Tube Unim- Latrine Sewer- Septic Pit latrine Pit well/ well/ proved with Wet Wet age with tank with sew- ­latrine bore- Dug bore- Dug Piped Piped pit septic pit pit Dry pit treat- with erage and with Country hole well hole well on-plot on-plot ­latrine tank latrine latrine latrine ment FSM treatment FSM Urban Rural Jamaica 573.7 38.5 407.7 38.5 956.3 860.6 19.8 229.0 199.2 199.2 15.0 339.9 88.1 477.3 111.3 1.1 0.9 Jordan 175.4 70.1 43.9 15.2 324.4 324.4 26.3 321.7 114.9 114.9 21.6 298.6 116.7 374.1 292.9 10.1 3.7 Kazakhstan 98.4 69.3 98.4 69.3 466.1 324.0 51.7 633.6 88.1 88.1 42.5 299.3 229.9 224.0 147.4 2.9 2.4 Kenya 62.5 29.8 42.8 8.1 116.1 43.9 24.4 671.0 43.6 43.6 24.4 158.6 70.3 392.1 56.3 8.7 1.1 Kiribati 22.3 14.9 28.6 21.0 96.9 73.8 4.1 40.9 13.8 13.8 5.6 73.6 18.4 27.5 23.2 0.2 0.2 Korea, Dem. People’s Rep. 28.7 8.3 29.1 16.2 98.5 56.5 4.2 47.9 35.8 35.8 30.8 69.6 24.5 28.0 46.9 0.2 0.2 Kyrgyz Republic 25.0 19.0 25.0 19.0 139.4 41.7 7.2 87.7 23.9 23.9 9.7 118.6 90.0 102.0 79.9 0.4 0.3 Lao PDR 57.9 38.6 57.9 38.6 177.6 96.5 10.7 46.3 23.4 23.4 5.3 177.6 134.8 71.3 119.6 0.6 0.5 Lebanon 286.9 102.2 63.9 22.2 472.8 472.8 38.3 468.8 167.4 167.4 28.9 435.1 170.1 545.2 426.9 14.8 5.4 Lesotho 97.1 34.0 74.4 9.2 567.4 390.1 14.5 83.5 49.8 49.8 10.3 261.6 81.8 447.6 64.3 9.9 1.3 Liberia 36.3 3.6 80.5 2.5 226.3 109.1 4.9 346.6 26.7 26.7 3.5 469.1 27.8 152.0 21.8 6.1 6.1 Libya 357.5 127.4 155.4 27.7 405.8 436.3 50.0 605.0 208.7 208.7 36.0 818.1 212.0 679.5 634.5 2.7 2.2 Macedonia, FYR 175.7 70.3 44.0 15.3 271.6 271.6 26.3 322.3 24.9 24.9 19.9 152.2 116.9 113.9 75.0 1.5 1.2 Madagascar 38.5 18.3 40.2 2.6 306.0 210.4 7.8 70.9 31.9 31.9 15.0 141.1 44.1 241.4 34.7 5.4 0.7 Malawi 32.3 3.2 23.3 2.2 103.6 31.1 4.4 129.5 35.1 35.1 12.9 221.4 24.7 135.0 19.4 14.0 2.2 Malaysia 346.8 138.7 86.8 30.1 467.9 325.3 51.9 636.1 88.4 88.4 36.4 300.5 230.8 345.4 291.7 2.9 2.4 Maldives 173.5 69.4 43.4 15.1 234.1 162.7 26.0 318.2 44.2 44.2 18.2 295.3 78.8 370.1 145.9 10.0 3.6 Mali 45.3 21.6 91.7 4.6 229.3 172 9.2 80.3 34.4 34.4 9.2 114.7 50.9 284.2 40.8 12.5 1.2 Marshall Islands 44.6 29.8 28.9 22.0 147.6 147.6 8.3 81.7 14.1 14.1 5.8 147.2 36.8 55.0 46.5 0.5 0.4 Appendix E Mauritania 84.0 40.0 164.9 10.9 425.0 257.7 17.1 154.6 51.5 51.5 20.6 516.6 94.4 526.7 75.6 23.2 2.2 Mauritius 256.1 102.4 64.1 32.0 289.7 240.1 38.3 469.6 65.3 65.3 26.9 648.5 170.4 1,465.8 427.6 2.2 1.8 Mexico 275.1 98.0 61.3 21.3 713.8 335.7 36.7 390.0 106.5 106.5 27.7 215.3 163.1 158.9 104.6 2.1 1.7 Water and Sanitation Program Micronesia, Fed. Sts. 42.8 28.5 27.7 21.1 141.6 141.6 7.9 78.4 13.5 13.5 5.6 141.2 35.3 52.8 44.6 0.4 0.4 Mongolia 140.4 56.1 35.1 17.6 158.9 131.7 21.0 257.6 34.5 34.5 15.9 156.4 122.7 139.9 59.9 1.2 1.0 Montenegro 239.2 85.2 53.3 18.5 329.5 329.5 31.9 391.0 30.3 30.3 24.1 184.7 141.9 138.2 90.9 1.8 1.5 www.wsp.org The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Morocco 107.2 42.9 30.5 21.5 424.6 697.1 40.4 203.6 70.2 70.2 11.2 275.3 229.3 228.6 213.5 0.9 0.8 Mozambique 42.2 26.4 30.1 26.4 229.4 157.7 5.9 42.2 86.0 86.0 11.3 430.1 33.1 181.0 26.0 4.0 2.9 Myanmar 52.3 34.9 52.3 34.9 160.4 87.1 9.7 110.2 32.3 32.3 16.0 160.4 43.0 138.0 108.0 0.5 0.5 Namibia 144.2 57.7 70.3 34.6 277.9 512.4 21.6 312.6 52.2 52.2 29.6 365.1 96.0 825.4 121.3 1.2 1.0 Nauru 28.1 19.8 28.1 19.8 263.5 263.5 14.8 180.8 25.1 25.1 10.3 262.7 65.6 98.2 82.9 0.8 0.7 Nepal 34.1 9.8 86.8 19.3 77.1 86.8 5.0 61.3 42.6 42.6 36.6 56.9 15.2 142.5 55.8 1.9 0.7 Nicaragua 295.0 19.8 245.9 49.2 491.7 442.5 10.2 160.8 140.0 140.0 80.0 708.1 128.1 245.4 57.2 0.6 0.5 Niger 37.8 3.8 91.8 2.6 188.6 172.2 5.1 25.8 57.4 57.4 28.7 77.1 28.9 158.0 22.7 6.3 0.3 Nigeria 154.6 44.9 20.8 20.0 190.4 55.8 20.0 180.8 118.6 118.6 59.8 304.7 177.3 477.3 139.3 38.8 1.9 Niue 44.0 31.0 44.0 31.0 413.3 413.3 23.2 283.6 39.4 39.4 16.2 412.1 102.9 154.0 130.1 1.3 1.1 Pakistan 71.4 26.9 16.8 32.2 161.4 181.7 4.3 53.1 48.4 48.4 8.6 119.1 31.8 149.2 116.8 4.0 1.5 Palau 224.7 89.8 56.2 19.5 600.5 600.5 33.6 412.1 57.3 57.3 23.6 598.8 149.5 223.8 189.0 1.9 1.6 Panama 289.0 115.5 72.3 36.1 368.1 395.8 43.3 500.1 133.4 133.4 32.7 415.4 192.3 187.4 123.3 2.4 2.0 Papua New Guinea 37.8 15.1 39.1 28.8 101.0 101.0 5.7 55.9 9.6 9.6 4.3 1,102.3 25.1 37.6 31.8 0.3 0.3 Paraguay 134.4 34.8 30.0 15.0 185.1 185.1 17.9 227.4 130.6 130.6 13.5 159.7 79.7 77.6 51.1 1.0 0.8 Peru 175.3 51.0 43.9 15.2 271.0 271.0 26.2 131.4 80.9 80.9 19.8 233.8 116.7 113.7 74.8 1.5 1.2 Philippines 27.7 19.5 27.7 19.5 131.2 91.2 10.2 178.4 24.8 24.8 10.2 259.2 208 96.9 193.7 0.8 0.7 Moldova 56.2 37.5 56.2 37.5 172.3 93.6 10.4 127.5 36.9 36.9 20.2 172.3 130.8 45.1 29.7 0.6 0.5 Romania 311.4 110.9 69.4 24.1 428.9 428.9 41.5 508.8 68.1 68.1 56.5 240.4 184.6 179.9 118.4 2.3 1.9 Russian Federation 359.1 143.6 89.8 31.2 555.1 491.8 53.8 658.6 190.8 190.8 73.1 311.1 239.0 232.8 153.2 3.0 2.5 Rwanda 60.1 19.1 70.3 4.1 92.6 152.4 8.1 175.9 62.1 62.1 9.1 187.6 45.9 251.3 36.1 7.9 0.3 St. Lucia 157.2 62.9 39.3 19.7 243.0 243.0 23.5 250.2 84.2 84.2 17.8 1,636.0 104.6 566.9 132.2 1.3 1.1 St. Vincent and the Grenadines 158.7 63.5 39.7 19.9 245.4 245.4 23.8 252.6 85.0 85.0 18.0 1,651.9 105.6 572.5 133.5 1.3 1.1 Samoa 60.8 40.5 77.9 57.3 201.1 201.1 11.3 111.3 19.2 19.2 8.5 200.5 50.1 74.9 63.3 0.6 0.5 São Tomé and Appendix E Príncipe 111.5 39.1 96.9 10.6 266.7 116.6 6.6 95.9 67.6 67.6 53.7 161.6 94.0 514.2 73.8 20.6 1.0 Senegal 122.5 29.8 181.1 8.1 316.9 237.7 11.7 66.1 44.1 44.1 11.0 110.1 70.4 392.7 56.4 17.3 1.7 Serbia 184.2 73.7 46.1 16.0 284.8 284.8 27.6 337.9 26.1 26.1 20.8 159.6 122.6 119.4 78.6 1.6 1.3 Seychelles 102.6 72.2 102.6 72.2 485.8 337.7 53.9 660.5 91.8 91.8 40.7 911.9 239.6 2,061.4 601.4 3.0 2.5 Sierra Leone 104.1 25.3 153.8 5.4 496.7 239.4 7.7 230.7 58.6 58.6 7.7 307.6 61.0 333.5 47.9 14.7 1.4 Solomon Islands 31.4 12.3 31.9 23.4 82.3 82.3 4.6 45.5 7.9 7.9 3.5 82.1 20.5 30.7 25.9 0.3 0.2 Somalia 28.2 9.0 17.3 2.4 124.4 102.9 3.8 115.7 17.4 17.4 2.0 63.2 21.6 118.1 17.0 2.6 0.3 South Africa 186.1 74.4 90.8 44.6 390.6 179.8 50.0 201.1 181.1 181.1 90.6 471.4 123.9 1065.6 156.6 1.6 1.3 table continues next page 41 42 Table E.1: (continued) The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Water Sanitation Hand-washing Unim- Advanced—full excreta management station, soap, Basic Advanced proved Basic improved (incremental off-site) water Urban Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Tube Tube Unim- Latrine Sewer- Septic Pit latrine Pit well/ well/ proved with Wet Wet age with tank with sew- ­latrine bore- Dug bore- Dug Piped Piped pit septic pit pit Dry pit treat- with erage and with Country hole well hole well on-plot on-plot ­latrine tank latrine latrine latrine ment FSM treatment FSM Urban Rural South Sudan 125.9 30.6 22.3 8.3 180.9 94.5 6.7 65.9 59.3 59.3 6.7 301.1 73.7 403.4 57.9 12.7 1.1 Sri Lanka 147.9 58.0 34.7 18.1 192.5 135.9 21.7 109.9 64.8 64.8 42.1 246.7 65.9 309.2 121.9 8.4 3.0 Sudan 126.6 44.3 60.3 12.1 615.0 136.7 18.9 95.4 85.8 85.8 9.7 1,019.9 106.7 583.8 83.8 18.4 1.6 Suriname 271.1 96.6 60.4 21.0 373.4 373.4 36.2 458.8 111.5 111.5 27.3 620.4 160.8 871.1 203.2 2.0 1.7 Swaziland 99.5 39.8 48.5 23.9 208.8 96.1 37.5 107.5 96.8 96.8 48.4 676.2 211.5 569.6 166.2 25.7 3.2 Syrian Arab Republic 55.9 47.0 55.9 47.0 128.0 128.0 10.4 126.9 45.3 45.3 8.5 117.8 130.2 147.6 115.5 4.0 1.5 Tajikistan 38.2 11.0 24.0 17.2 86.3 97.1 5.6 63.7 18.7 18.7 4.6 92.7 70.4 79.8 62.4 0.3 0.3 Tanzania 49.0 23.3 71.4 44.8 428.3 85.7 9.9 142.8 54.0 54.0 19.1 503.8 56.2 307.2 44.1 6.8 0.9 Thailand 214.2 85.7 53.6 18.6 624.4 186.9 32.1 365.1 106.9 106.9 53.0 185.6 142.6 213.4 180.2 1.8 1.5 Timor-Leste 282.2 52.0 282.2 52.0 563.4 282.2 5.0 61.2 60.9 60.9 3.8 207.8 22.2 33.2 28.1 0.3 0.2 Togo 38.4 18.3 73.8 3.9 93.8 87.6 7.8 166.5 42.3 42.3 41.3 117.4 44.0 240.7 34.6 9.6 9.6 Tonga 63.8 42.5 81.7 60.1 211.0 211.0 11.8 116.8 20.1 20.1 8.9 210.4 52.5 78.6 66.4 0.7 0.6 Tunisia 165.1 66.0 41.3 14.4 255.3 255.3 24.7 313.6 108.2 108.2 18.7 424.1 109.9 164.5 138.9 1.4 1.2 Turkey 317.1 113.0 70.7 24.5 522.5 522.5 42.3 518.1 185.1 185.1 32.0 480.8 188.0 602.6 471.8 16.3 5.9 Turkmenistan 59.4 41.8 59.4 41.8 281.2 195.5 31.2 382.3 110.8 110.8 25.6 180.6 138.7 135.1 88.9 1.8 1.5 Tuvalu 54.1 21.7 28.3 21.5 144.7 144.7 8.1 80.1 13.8 13.8 6.1 144.3 36.0 53.9 45.5 0.5 0.4 Uganda 38.9 18.5 27.2 6.5 76.9 113.1 7.9 158.6 42.9 42.9 15.2 182.2 44.6 244.1 35.1 7.7 0.3 Ukraine 105.7 52.3 32.7 16.4 242.0 242.0 19.6 239.9 69.5 69.5 14.8 113.4 87.1 84.8 55.8 1.1 0.9 Uzbekistan 62.2 41.4 79.7 58.6 269.8 154.8 11.5 131.1 19.6 19.6 8.1 130.9 144.8 164.1 128.5 0.6 0.5 Appendix E Vanuatu 44.5 17.8 46.1 33.9 119.0 119.0 6.7 65.9 11.4 11.4 5.0 118.7 29.6 44.3 37.5 0.4 0.3 Venezuela, RB 304.0 108.3 67.8 23.5 418.7 418.7 40.6 514.5 125.0 125.0 30.6 695.6 180.2 175.6 115.5 2.3 1.9 Vietnam 63.7 42.5 81.6 60.0 276.4 158.6 11.8 134.3 69.8 69.8 5.7 192.6 148.3 168.1 131.6 0.7 0.6 Water and Sanitation Program Yemen, Rep. 47.6 40.0 47.6 40.0 109 109 8.8 108.1 38.6 38.6 6.7 100.3 110.9 125.7 98.4 3.4 1.2 Zambia 119.4 41.8 89.6 11.4 698.0 479.8 15.0 102.7 72.8 72.8 15.0 321.8 100.7 550.6 79.1 17.4 1.5 Zimbabwe 63.8 22.4 40.3 6.1 378.4 252.3 3.4 68.8 40.1 40.1 6.8 172 53.8 294.3 42.3 9.3 0.8 Note: FSM = fecal sludge management The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene References References Baum, R., J. Luh, and J. Bartram. 2013. “Sanitation: UN General Assembly. 2015. Transforming Our World: A Global Estimate of Sewerage Connections without The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Treatment and the Resulting Impact on MDG Progress.” Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on Environmental Science and Technology 47 (4): 1994–2000. 25 September 2015. A/RES/70/1. New York: United Nations. Fonseca, C., R. Franceys, C. Batchelor, P. McIntyre, A. Klutse, K. Komives, et al. 2010. Life-cycle Costs UNICEF and WHO (UN Children’s Fund and World Approach. Glossary and Cost Components. WASHCost Health Organization). 2015. Progress on Drinking Briefing Note 1. The Hague: International Water and Water and Sanitation: 2015 Update and MDG Sanitation Centre. Assessment. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Hutton, G., and L. Haller. 2004. Evaluation of the Non- Geneva: WHO. Health Costs and Benefits of Water and Sanitation Improvements at Global Level. Report undertaken for UN-Water. 2014. A Post-2015 Global Goal for Water: the Evidence and Information for Policy Department, Synthesis of Key Findings and Recommendations. in collaboration with the Department for Protection of New York: United Nations. the Human Environment, World Health Organization. WHO and UNICEF (World Health Organization and WHO/SDE/WSH/04.04. UN Children’s Fund). 2012. Rapid Assessment of Hutton, G. 2012. Global Costs and Benefits of Drinking- Drinking-Water Quality (RADWQ): A Handbook Water Supply and Sanitation Interventions to Reach the for Implementation. Geneva: WHO; New York: MDG Target and Universal Coverage. Report No. UNICEF. WHO/HSE/WSH/12.01. Geneva: World Health ______. Post 2015 WASH Targets and Indicators. Organization. 2013. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Peal, A., B. Evans, I. Blackett, P. Hawkins, and Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. C. Heymans. 2014. “Fecal Sludge Management: Geneva: WHO; New York: UNICEF. In collaboration A Comparative Analysis of 12 Cities.” Journal of Water, with the Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Sanitation and Hygiene for Development 4 (4): 563–75. Council, Geneva. www.wsp.org 43