Value for Money analysis of UNICEF Mozambique s One Million Initiative programme ( )

Transcription

1 Value for Money analysis of UNICEF Mozambique s One Million Initiative programme ( ) Marie-Alix Prat and Fabien Rabouille, 7 th July 2015 This note presents the VFM indicators calculated for UNICEF s One Million Initiative with the data provided by UNICEF Mozambique. It is produced as part of the VFM analysis of the government WASH programme (specifically the PRONASAR Common Fund investments) conducted by the VFM WASH project funded by DFID. A1. Brief overview of the Programme The Mozambique component of the global UNICEF Government of the Netherlands cooperation programme on Water, Sanitation and, known as the One Million Initiative (OMI), was designed to contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) target of 70 per cent of people with access to water and 60 per cent to sanitation. It covered 18 districts in three provinces in the central region (Tete, Manica and Sofala) over the period The programme had a USD 42.8 million budget. The specific objectives of the programme were to achieve: (i) 1,000,000 people in poor rural areas use safe and sustainable drinking water; (ii) 200,000 people in rural areas have access to rehabilitated drinking water sources; (iii) 1,000,000 people in rural areas use hygienic sanitation facilities; (iv) 140,000 learners in 400 primary schools in rural areas use safe school water and sanitation facilities and adopt appropriate hygiene practices; (v) 1,200,000 people in rural areas adopt appropriate hygiene practices; (vi) 114 government staff members in 18 districts and three provinces have technical and managerial capacities for WASH planning, co-ordination and implementation; (vii) 4,572 people have relevant WASH skills and knowledge (planning, procurement, contract management, hygiene promotion, etc.); (viii) 21 institutions in 18 districts and three provinces have extra equipment. The table below summarises the inputs and results of the OMI along the results chain. Table 1. UNICEF Mozambique OMI Results chain Water Inputs Assumed Construction of Rehabilitation of Mobilisation of communities and water committees Number of new boreholes constructed equipped with hand pumps (including minisystems) Number of rehabilitated water equipment (Afridev WP, Afripump, Piped Water Supply Systems) Number of water committees established Assumed number of people who gained access to a safe drinking water (using the government norm of 500 people per water point) Sustainability check: overall % of reduction in number of nonoperational Actual number of people who gained access to a safe drinking water (based on count of users of new ) Actual number of beneficiaries with rehabilitated boreholes (based on count of users of rehabilitated ) 1

2 Sanitation Wash in School Inputs Assumed Community mobilization (CLTS) Self-Construction of improved sanitation facilities ODF Certification of Communities Construction of in schools Construction of sanitary complexes in schools Construction of separate facilities Training of pupils promotion activities Number of communities triggered Number of new water points constructed in schools Number of new sanitary complexes constructed in schools with separate facilities Number of pupils trained to improved hygiene practices at school Number of schools previously triggered by CLTS declared ODF Number of people who received hygiene promotion messages Actual number of communities declared ODF Actual number of ODF Communities achieving ODF PLUS -status with safe sanitation concept for each household Actual number of persons with access to, and making use of, hygienic sanitation facilities, through self-construction of household latrines Sustainability check: achieved % sustainability of sanitation facilities Actual number of pupils who benefitted from the construction of new and who benefitted from separate sanitation facilities Actual number of people with improved hygiene practices Indirect Programme Support Capacity Building Sustainability check Recruitment of new technicians Number of provincial and district technicians on government payroll Number of institutions (3 provinces, 18 districts) strengthened and equipped Source: Authors from OMI 2014 Final report Note: - ODF PLUS status means that latrines constructed meet the safe sanitation concept of the Government. While the previous ODF approach only ensured that people use any kind of latrines and do not defecate openly. ODF PLUS was introduced in 2011 and supports communities to move up on the sanitation ladder. -Adopting appropriate hygiene practices: hand-washing and-washing with soap or ash at critical times (before eating, after using the latrine, before cooking, etc.) and safe excreta disposal such as use of basic sanitation. A2. Programme expenditure on inputs The total programme expenditure of the programme from 2007until 2013 was USD 49,152,032. As shown on the Figure 1 below, the programme spent 19% more than the planned budget. Overall, most of the programme expenditure was spent on the construction of (37%) and sanitation promotion (14%). accounts for 10% of the expenditure, Wash in Schools activities for 4% and water point rehabilitation 2%. Indirect programme support (IPS) costs represent 33% of the total expenditure. These costs include all expenses at local and national level that contribute to the programme implementation (staff, logistics, planning etc.). They indirectly contribute to the programme outputs. 2

3 Figure 1. Comparison of planned and total UNICEF WASH programme expenditure by sector in USD for ,000,000 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 10,000,000 0 Planned Actual Indirect Programme support Wash in Schools Sanitation Water Point Rehabilitation Water Point Construction Source: Authors from OMI 2014 A3. Programme s results and efficiency Table 2 below presents the programme s result indicators. Overall the programme has exceeded planned targets, in particular for sanitation. Main findings from a brief analysis of the programme s realisations are summarised below: The number of people who gained access to a safe drinking water (based on count of users) was 16% higher than planned. This occurred despite the fact that the number of new boreholes constructed is 15.5% lower than planned. This means that there were more users per water point than initially planned. The number of persons who gained access to and are making use of hygienic sanitation facilities was 31% higher than planned. Between 2008 and 2013, 44% of communities triggered became ODF. From 2011 onwards, the sanitation and hygiene promotion activities focused on ensuring that the previously declared ODF communities were moving up the sanitation ladder in order to achieve the status of safe sanitation. After verification, 61% of ODF communities achieved the ODF Plus status. The number of people with improved hygiene practices was 9% higher than expected. The Wash in Schools component did not reach its targets. The number of pupils who benefitted from the construction of new and sanitary complexes was 64% lower than planned. Table 2. Summary of UNICEF Mozambique programme results Components of the VFM analysis Activities Planned Actual Efficiency Water points constructed 3

4 Components of the VFM analysis Activities Planned Actual Efficiency Assumed Water points rehabilitated Sanitation Number of new boreholes constructed equipped with hand pumps (including mini-systems) Number of people who gained access to a safe drinking water using the government norm of 500 people per point water Actual number of people who gained access to a safe drinking water based on count of users of new water points Sustainability check: overall % of reduction in number of non-operational Number of rehabilitated water equipment (Afridev WP, Afripump, Piped Water Supply Systems) Actual number of beneficiaries with rehabilitated boreholes based on count of users of rehabilitated water points 2,000 1, % n.a. 881,007 1,000,000 1,157, % n.a. 96% n.a , , % Numbers of communities triggered n.a. 1,823 Outcomes Wash in Schools Actual number of communities declared Open Defecation Free (ODF) Number of people living in ODF communities Actual number of ODF Communities achieving ODF PLUS -status since 2011 with safe sanitation concept for each household Actual number of persons with access to, and making use of, hygienic sanitation facilities, through selfconstruction of household latrines 1 Sustainability check: achieved % sustainability of sanitation facilities Actual number of pupils who benefitted from the construction of new water points and sanitary complexes with separate sanitation facilities Actual number of people with improved hygiene practices Source: Authors from OMI 2014 final report n.a. 804 n.a. 695,845 n.a ,000,000 1,304, % n.a. 73% 140,000 50, % 1,200,000 1,304, % A4. Value for money analysis Cost efficiency and cost effectiveness This section presents the cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness indicators calculated for the OMI. 1 Some persons built latrines and gained access to sanitation thanks to the CLTS triggering of the 1,823 communities, even if their communities were declared ODF. 4

5 Methodology. Unit costs were calculated disaggregating between hardware, software support and indirect programme support. For water point construction and rehabilitation, as well as for wash in school activities, we assumed that 83% of the direct expenditure was made on hardware costs and 17% on software costs.2 Sanitation and hygiene promotion activities only included software costs. Indirect programme support costs were allocated to activities based on their relative weight in the programme expenditure. As a result, hardware costs represent 36% of the total programme expenditure while direct software costs represent 31% and indirect programme support costs 33%. Under the water point expenditure category, it was not possible to disaggregate between the construction of and the construction of the 11 mini-systems. As a result, the cost per water point calculated is likely to be slightly overestimated. This also impacts the cost per person who gained access to, as it brought the number of user per water point (including mini-systems) to 685 on, which is higher than the norm used by the government of Mozambique (which used to be 500 user per water point, but was reduced to 300 in 2012). For the wash in school activities, it was also not possible to disaggregate between the number of pupils who benefitted from the construction of sanitary complexes and the number of pupils who benefitted from the construction of new. As a result, as the number of pupils who benefitted from the construction of sanitary complexes was lower, we assumed that students gaining access to a sanitary complex would have also benefited from a water point, as these actions were conducted jointly. Hence we calculated a cost per pupil gaining access to both a sanitary complex and a water point. Results. Table 3 below summarises the cost efficiency indicators calculated for the programme. Overall, the programme has been more cost-efficient than initially planned. It would be interesting to complete this analysis with a comparison of annual unit costs so as to identify improvements in the course of the programme. Main findings are summarised below: While the total cost per new water point constructed is 18% higher than planned, the total cost per people who gained access to a safe drinking water (based on count of users) is 14% lower than planned. However, this is explained by the fact that the number of users recorded per water point is higher than the number of users initially planned using the former government norm of 500 users per water point. This highlights the fact that the cost per person gaining access to water highly depends on the way in which beneficiaries are accounted for. In order to compare with PRONASAR CF, we calculated a cost per person who gained access to a water point using the same assumption, i.e. based on a norm of 300 users per water (which is the new norm since 2012). The unit cost using the norm of 300 users per water point is 56% higher than the unit cost based on the count of users and 43% higher than the unit cost using the former government norm (500 users per water point). The total cost per number of beneficiaries with rehabilitated water point (based on count of users) is 43% lower than planned. This can be partly explained by the high number of beneficiaries reached (75%). 2 This assumption was based on the Life Cycle cost Analysis for the OMI conducted by UNICEF. 5

6 The total cost per person with access to, and making use of, hygienic sanitation facilities, through self-construction of household latrines is 23% lower than planned. This can be partly explained by the fact that the programme has reached 30.5% people more than planned. As mentioned in the section above, wash in school is the major weakness of this programme. Total cost per pupil who benefitted from both construction of new and sanitary complexes with separate sanitation facilities is 176% higher than expected, because fewer pupils and teachers than planned were reached during the 7 years of the programme. The total cost per person with improved hygiene practices is 8% lower than planned. Table 3. Programme cost-efficiency and cost effectiveness indicators Cost-Efficiency Water points constructed Assumed Outcomes Total cost per new water point constructed (including IPS) Planned Achieved Variation between cost and planned cost USD 13,450 15, % Direct hardware USD 7,458 8, % Direct software USD 1,527 1, % Hardware and software costs USD 8,985 10, % Total cost per person who gained access to a safe drinking water using the USD government norm of 500 people per % water point (including IPS) Direct hardware USD % Direct software USD % Hardware and software costs USD % Total cost per person who gained access to a safe drinking water using the USD PRONASAR standard and the new norm n.a. 53 of the government of 300 people per water point (including IPS) Direct hardware USD n.a. 43 Direct software USD n.a. 9 Hardware and software costs USD n.a. 51 Total cost per person who gained access to a safe drinking water based on USD n.a. 23 count of users of new water point(including IPS) Direct hardware USD n.a. 13 Direct software USD n.a. 3 Hardware and software costs USD n.a. 16 Water points rehabilitated Total cost per new water point rehabilitated (including IPS) USD n.a. 3,436 Direct hardware USD n.a. 1,961 Direct software n.a. 402 Hardware and software costs USD n.a. 2,363 6

7 Cost-Efficiency Sanitation WASH in Schools Planned Achieved Variation between cost and planned cost Total cost per number of beneficiaries with rehabilitated water point based on count of users of rehabilitated USD % (including IPS) Direct hardware USD % Direct software USD % Hardware and software costs USD % Total cost per community triggered (including IPS) USD n.a. 5,614 Direct hardware USD n.a. - Direct software USD n.a. 3,743 Hardware and software costs USD n.a. 3,743 Total per community declared ODF (including IPS) USD n.a. 12,729 Direct hardware USD - - Direct software USD n.a. 8,488 Hardware and software costs USD n.a. 8,488 Total cost per ODF Communities achieving ODF PLUS -status with safe sanitation concept for each household USD n.a. 20,801 (including IPS) Direct hardware USD - - Direct software USD n.a. 13,870 Hardware and software costs USD n.a. 13,870 Total cost per person with access to, and making use of, hygienic sanitation facilities, through self-construction of USD % household latrines (including IPS) Direct hardware USD Direct software USD % Hardware and software costs USD % Total cost per pupil who benefitted from the construction of new and sanitary complexes with separate USD % sanitation facilities (including IPS) Direct hardware USD % Direct software USD % Hardware and software costs USD % Total cost per person with improved hygiene practices (including IPS) USD % Direct hardware USD Direct software USD % Hardware and software costs USD % Source: Authors from OMI 2014 final report 7