Abstract:
Despite the impressive progress over the last two decades in which millions of
people worldwide have gained first time access to improved water and sanitation
infrastructure, the reality for many is that shortly after infrastructure construction
the actual service received by users slips back to unacceptably low levels.
However, due to inadequate research and inconsistencies with how data and cost
data has been collected and reported, very little is known of the necessary levels
of expenditure required to sustain an acceptable (so called “basic”) water and
sanitation service and this inhibits effective financial planning for households,
communities, governments and donors alike.
This thesis sought to provide a better understanding of what has historically been
spent to provide different levels of water and sanitation services as a means to
better understand the necessary expenditure required. Empirical findings are
based on a large data sample of nearly 2,000 water points, over 4,000 latrines,
and over 12,000 household surveys, which have been collected as part of three
research projects (WASHCost, Triple-S, and WASHCost Sierra Leone), across
five country research areas (Andhra Pradesh (India), Burkina Faso, Ghana,
Mozambique, and Sierra Leone).
Findings for water supply systems show that the combination of high capital
investments of: $19 and $69 per person for community point sources and $33 –
$216 per person for piped systems; and low recurrent expenditures of: $0.06 -
$0.37 per person per year for point sources and $0.58 - $7.87 per person per
year for piped systems; results in less than half of users receiving a “basic” level
of service. Evidence based estimates of the required expenditure for acceptable
services are found to be far greater than the “effective demand” expressed in
terms of the willingness to pay of service users and national government for these
services.
Findings for sanitation show that constructing a household latrine that achieves
“basic” service standards requires a financial investment of at least $40 that is
likely to be an unaffordable barrier for many households in lower income
countries. In addition the costs and affordability of periodic pit emptying remains
a concern.
Ultimately this research suggests that if international standard of improved water
and sanitation services are to be sustained in rural areas, the international sector
will likely have to provide additional investments to meet a significant proportion
of the recurrent costs of delivering these services.
