|Title||Costing MDG Target 10 on water supply and sanitation : comparative analysis, obstacles and recommendations|
|Year of Publication||2006|
|Pagination||63 p. : boxes, fig. tab.|
|Publisher||World Water Council|
|Place Published||Marseille, France|
|Keywords||comparative analysis, costs, financing, investment, sdipol|
This comparative study compares eleven global, regional and national cost assessments. The global assessments reviewed range from 9 billion to 30 billion US$ per year. It is difficult to compare the estimated costs due to imperfections and inadequacies in the terms used to define Target 10; the lack of consistent data; and the different methods and assumptions used.
In some regions, the cost of maintaining and rehabilitating existing infrastructure will be very high. However, most global estimates neglect this in their calculations. Likewise, the cost of developing water storage and conveyance infrastructure to increase the resources available to people and the costs of financing the investments have not been included either. As a result, the global cost of reaching Target 10 has been underestimated.
Target 10 only covers water for people and not water for agriculture and industry. Moreover, other MDG targets are either directly or indirectly related to water and sanitation issues. For example, the fulfilment of Target 9 on environmental sustainability and the conservation of natural resources implies wastewater treatment, which is extremely costly. Hence, limiting investment requirements in the WSS sector only to Target 10 is too restrictive.
The study concludes that additional funding must be allocated to the WSS sector because the investment requirements are larger than evaluated in the reports and current investment in water supply and sanitation in the developing world are estimated at a mere 14 to 16 billion US$ per year. The effort must focus primarily on sanitation, urban areas, and on Sub-Saharan Africa, India and China. Future efforts should be concentrated on the local level, with more planning and, therefore, assessments at national and sub-national levels. These assessments are more accurate and probably more useful to policy makers and donors. [abstract taken from executive summary]
|Custom 1||202.8, 302.8|