applying the life-cycle costs approach in uganda for improved financial planning and budgeting
Post on 01-Dec-2014
503 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Applying the Life Cycle Cost Approach in Uganda for improved financial planning
and budgeting
9th of April 2013
By Lucrezia Biteete, Fontes, and René van Lieshout, IRC Uganda
2
Overview
LCCA in Uganda, Biteete and Lieshout
2013
Context in Uganda Introducing the
LCCA to the Ugandan WASH sector
Information scan – findings
Conclusions and next steps
Kabarole cost analysis – preliminary findings
LCCA in Uganda, Biteete and Lieshout
3
Context in Uganda
Population growth 3.6%
Proliferation of districts
Water scarce areas
2013
Figure 1: Stagnation in coverage, functionality and budget in rural water in Uganda. (Koestler and van Lieshout 2012)
LCCA in Uganda, Biteete and Lieshout
4
Context in Uganda
2013
Figure 2: Functionality of rural water sources and rehabilitation fund expenditures since 2003/04 (MWE 2012)
LCCA in Uganda, Biteete and Lieshout
5
Introducing the LCCA to the Ugandan WASH sector Stakeholder meeting in
December 2011 with training on LCCA at RWSN forum
Information Scan, April to July 2012
Expenditure mapping, April to July 2012
Integration of LCCA methodology in the national monitoring framework
Cost data analysis at district level, February to May 2013
2013
LCCA in Uganda, Biteete and Lieshout
6
Information Scan - Methodology Understand the current
cost-related tools used for planning and decision making
Map expenditures and financial flows in the sector
Interviews with 23 stakeholders
Study of documents Cost matrices Stakeholder maps
2013
LCCA in Uganda, Biteete and Lieshout
7
Information Scan - Findings
2013
Support to Water
Committees
(refresher training,
follow up)
NGOs International NGOs, Donor Funds, Multilateral agencies/UNICEF
Some NGOs can follow up over time, and sometimes pay for follow up after end of project period through cross-financing from new projects in the same area. Can be integrated in sanitation/hygiene/education programme
Umbrella JPF, MoFPED, Donor Funds
Only to WSSBs of piped schemes. Quarterly visits to all members, support financial management,
Sub County
DLG Through community development officer (CDO)
DWO MoFPED up to 11 % of CG is for software (both for pre and post construction). This is the main role of DWO but often limtied in practice due to lack of resources for transport
LCCA in Uganda, Biteete and Lieshout
8
Information Scan - Findings
2013
LCCA in Uganda, Biteete and Lieshout
9
Information Scan - Findings
2013
LCCA in Uganda, Biteete and Lieshout
10
Information Scan - Findings
2013
LCCA in Uganda, Biteete and Lieshout
11
Information Scan - Findings
2013
LCCA in Uganda, Biteete and Lieshout
12
Information Scan - Conclusions
Costs change over time
Continuous exercise External and internal
factors Service Delivery
Models Link to Service Levels Next step – cost
analysis at district level - Kabarole
2013
LCCA in Uganda, Biteete and Lieshout
13
Kabarole Cost Analysis - Findings
2013
-
1 000 000 000
2 000 000 000
3 000 000 000
4 000 000 000
5 000 000 000
6 000 000 000
7 000 000 000
2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
ExpIS
ExpDS
CapManEx
OpEx
CapEx
LCCA in Uganda, Biteete and Lieshout
14
Kabarole Cost Analysis - Findings
2013
-
200 000
400 000
600 000
800 000
1 000 000
1 200 000
Borehole Spring Shallow Well
ExpIS
ExpDS
CapManEx (per year)
OpEx
LCCA in Uganda, Biteete and Lieshout
15
Kabarole Cost Analysis - Findings
2013
0
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
12000000
14000000
GFS Pumped
ExpIS
ExpDS
CapManEx (per year)
OpEx
LCCA in Uganda, Biteete and Lieshout
16
Kabarole Cost Analysis - Findings
2013
-
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
3 000
3 500
4 000
4 500
Borehole Spring GFS Well Pumped scheme
ExpIS
ExpDS
CapManEx (per year)
OpEx
LCCA in Uganda, Biteete and Lieshout
17
Kabarole Cost Analysis - Findings
2013
WASHCost Benchmark
Kabarole
Borehole with handpump 20-61 12,8Piped schemes* 30-131 85,8
Borehole with handpump 3-6 1,6Piped schemes* 3-15 0,6
Comparison with benchmarks [USD per person, per year]
CapEx [per capita]
Recurrent [per capita per year]
WASHCost benchmark Kabarole WASHCost benchmark KabaroleOpEx 0,5-1 0,02 0,5-5 0,2CapManEx (per year) 1,5-2 0,4 1,5-7 0,2ExpDS 1-3 0,5 1-3 0,2ExpIS - 0,7 0,01Total recurrent excl ExpIS 3-6 1,0 3-15 0,5Total recurrent 3-6 1,6 3-15 0,6
Borehole and handpump Piped schemes*Recurrent costs, USD per person, per year
LCCA in Uganda, Biteete and Lieshout
18
Kabarole Cost Analysis - Findings
2013
Total Life-Cycle Cost per year (UGX)
Poor preventive maintenance
Ideal maintenance
Estimate for Kabarole
Borehole 6 590 500 2 411 209 3 162 798 Protected Spring 1 929 644 1 159 118 1 228 390 GFS 132 992 818 25 639 447 42 382 834 Shallow Well 2 934 941 1 392 601 1 531 910
Cost per Water-Person-Year (UGX)
Poor preventive maintenance
Ideal maintenance
Estimate for Kabarole
Borehole 4 394 402 1 054 Protected Spring 1 930 290 614 Shallow Well 1 957 232 511
LCCA in Uganda, Biteete and Lieshout
19
Thank you!
2013
Documents available Information Scan Briefing Note Kabarole Cost Analysis
Contact details: lk@fontes.no
top related