M4.3 - Aspects économiques et financiers

M4.3 - Aspects économiques et financiers
Abdoulaye Fall Consultant GTZ ecosan ____________________ M4.3 - Aspects économiques et financiers

Sommaire Introduction
Considérations d’ordre économiques: coût des systèmes d’assainissement Assainissement conventionnel d’origine hydrique Coût d’investissement pour la collecte Coût de l’eau Systèmes d’assainissement écologique Financement ecosan en milieu urbain Aspects économiques du recyclage des ressources Valeur d’engrais Avantages internes Avantages macroéconomiques Mécanismes financiers Coût de la récupération Sélection de la technologie Options de gestion et de communauté Politiques, Support, bonne volonté de payer Coût réduit Conclusion Source: GTZ

Introduction Les aspects économiques ne sont pas bien étudiés
J. Heeb Les aspects économiques ne sont pas bien étudiés La comparaison avec les systèmes conventionnels de traitement des eaux usées est tres difficile à mener : Les bienfaits d’ecosan ne sont pas toujours aussi matériel, ex. Augmentation de la sécurité Meilleure qualité de vie Meilleure santé En outre, les chiffres concernant le véritable coût des systèmes conventionnels d’assainissement sont difficilement disponibles Coût d’investisement énorme fait dans le passé (système de tuyauterie) – maintenant aucun nouveau coût ne survient ecosan as holistic approach is backed by environmental, health related, cultural, social and economic (etc.) considerations. However, while many of the other aspects are quite extensively investigated, the economic aspects are painfully neglected (1). This is not only due to a neglect from the researcher’s side, but mainly to the fact that a comparison with conventional sewage treatment systems is very difficult to conduct, as the benefits from an ecological sanitation system are not always only material, but can also be of a sort which cannot be measured in economic terms (i.e. increased safety, better quality of life). Additionally, figures concerning the true cost of conventional sanitation systems are hardly available, or are protected very well. Moreover, many of the huge investment costs necessary in conventional sewerage have been spent in the last or even the last two centuries and could nowadays hardly be paid for any more (construction of sewage pipes) etc.

Introduction J. Heeb Ce manque de données numériques et vérifiées est basé sur un certain nombre de raisons : Tâche complexe à considerer tous les facteurs qui influencent le coût d’un système d’assainissement écologique, Les avantages et coûts directs et indirects, les coûts d’opportunité etc… Le manque de données disponibles (à la fois pour ecosan & les systèmes conventionnel) Les résultats de toute évaluation de coût possible dépendra toujours de la décision par laquelle les coûts sont considérés ou pas Les coûts différents dans les pays industrialisés et en développement (c-à-d. L’engrais artificiels est lié au prix du marché mondial: plus cher pour un agriculteur du Tiers-monde qu’un autre dans un pays industrialisé “A whole range of papers highlight the economic benefits from ecosan, but the statements are rather guesses than estimations or even proofs.” (1) This lack of verified and numeric data is based on a number of reasons: First of all, it is a very complex task to consider all the factors that influence the cost of an ecological sanitation system, as direct and indirect costs and benefits have to be taken into account, as well as opportunity costs or benefits which are not measurable in economic terms. The lack of available data (both in the ecological as well as in the conventional sector) makes it difficult to compare the data or to interpret them correctly. Moreover, ecological sanitation systems do not work with a specific technology that remains the same in all cases. Rather, ecosan is an approach – different solutions are found for various kinds of situations. The results of any possible cost evaluation will always depend on the decision, which costs (and benefits) have to be taken into account and which are left out due to various reasons Moreover, costs in industrialized and developing countries are usually very different – i.e. fertilizer is bound to a world market price which might be much more expensive for a farmer in a developing nation than for one in an industrialized country. Following on the next page is an overview of what kind of costs have to be considered in the building of an (ecological) sanitation system. Though the list is probably not complete, it gives an idea of what a complex task it is to consider all the factors that influence the costs of an ecological sanitation system.

Considérations économiques : Coûts des systèmes d’assainissement
Coûts d’investissement: Materiel travail (salaires ou coûts d’opportunité) Frais de financement (intérêts) Technologie / licences / recherche Études de préfaisabilité. Conception de projet, travail social, renforcement des capacités Temps d’amortissement (pour calculer le coût annuel) Installation de toilette: Salle Toilette à cuvette et à siège Tuyauterie, approvisionnement en eau Équipement pour nettoyage etc. Traitement : Système de conduite (?) Coût de construction: usine de production de biogaz, équipement de compostage etc. Transport à et vers les équipements de traitement Système de traitement des eaux usées(usine, construction décentralisée) etc. Coûts de fonctionnement: Travail / coûts d’opportunité Opération et entretien/personnel Materiels de consommation d’eau, alimentation Transport Travaux d’entretien, usure (amortissement) Contrôle de qualité/ recherche/ (?) Élimination ou utilisation de déchets / par produit Coût environnementale Etc. This graph shall give an overview of the cost that have to be considered in the planning and implementation of ecological sanitation systems – however, additional costs might arise in different circumstances. Coûts de soutien: Développement de la stratégie et planification Création d’institutions, système d’information HR-Développement Suivi et évaluation Suivi pour formation et soutien etc. Source: adapted from (1)

Installation de toilette: Salle Toilette à cuvette et à siège Tuyauterie, approvisionnement en eau Équipement pour nettoyage etc. Coûts d’investissement: Materiel travail (salaires ou coûts d’opportunité) Frais de financement (intérêts) Technologie / licences / recherche Études de préfaisabilité. Conception de projet, travail social, renforcement des capacités Temps d’amortissement (pour calculer le coût annuel) Coûts de fonctionnement: Travail / coûts d’opportunité Opération et entretien/personnel Materiels de consommation d’eau, alimentation Transport Travaux d’entretien, usure (amortissement) Contrôle de qualité/ recherche/ (?) Élimination ou utilisation de déchets / par produit Coût environnementale Etc. Traitement : Système de conduite (?) Coût de construction: usine de production de biogaz, équipement de compostage etc. Transport à et vers les équipements de traitement Système de traitement des eaux usées(usine, construction décentralisée) etc. This graph shall give an overview of the cost that have to be considered in the planning and implementation of ecological sanitation systems – however, additional costs might arise in different circumstances. Coûts de soutien: Développement de la stratégie et planification Création d’institutions, système d’information HR-Développement Suivi et évaluation Suivi pour formation et soutien etc. Source: adapted from (1)

Coûts d’investissement: Materiel travail (salaires ou coûts d’opportunité) Frais de financement (intérêts) Technologie / licences / recherche Études de préfaisabilité. Conception de projet, travail social, renforcement des capacités Temps d’amortissement (pour calculer le coût annuel) Installation de toilette: Salle Toilette à cuvette et à siège Tuyauterie, approvisionnement en eau Équipement pour nettoyage etc. Coûts de fonctionnement: Travail / coûts d’opportunité Opération et entretien/personnel Materiels de consommation d’eau, alimentation Transport Travaux d’entretien, usure (amortissement) Contrôle de qualité/ recherche/ (?) Élimination ou utilisation de déchets / par produit Coût environnementale Etc. Traitement : Système de conduite (?) Coût de construction: usine de production de biogaz, équipement de compostage etc. Transport à et vers les équipements de traitement Système de traitement des eaux usées(usine, construction décentralisée) etc. Coûts de soutien: Développement de la stratégie et planification Création d’institutions, système d’information HR-Développement Suivi et évaluation Suivi pour formation et soutien etc. This graph shall give an overview of the cost that have to be considered in the planning and implementation of ecological sanitation systems – however, additional costs might arise in different circumstances. Source: adapted from (1)

Coûts: Assainissement conventionnel d’origine hydrique
Children’s Drawings from Rajendranagar, Bangalore Difficulté: la détermination des limites du système mene souvent à plusieurs coûts externes importants ou soit même aux bénéfices ignorés. Assainissement conventionnel d’origine hydrique En plus de l’investissement, des coûts de réinvestissement, d’opération et d’entretien du réseau d’égout et de l’usine: Bienfaits de santé attendus Manifestations environnementale Pollution possible des eaux réceptrices Perte de zone de recréation Éffet possible sur le traitement de l’eau de consommation Perte des habitats naturels Éffets sur les zones côtières Éffet sur les résidus médicaux Appauvrissement des sols comme résultat de la perte d’éléments nutritifs Coûts de l’eau “In order to make a fair comparison between the full investment, operation and maintenance costs, there is a need for a comprehensive, dynamic, integrated, cost/benefit or multi-criteria analyses of different types of systems to be performed over life cycles or planning periods. This will establish the investment, operation and maintenance cost, as well as additional benefits such as improved public health, the fertiliser value of recovered material, the value of improved agricultural production, the energy generated, etc., that are all a result of using the system. A difficulty with traditional economic appraisals for sanitation is that the setting of the boundaries of the system often leads to many important external costs, or even benefits of the system being overlooked completely. An example of how far these externalities actually reach can be seen by taking a brief look at externalities in relation to centralised wastewater treatment and an ecosan system. Conventional waterborne sanitation relies on disposing treated wastewater to a surface water body. In addition to the investment, reinvestment and operation and maintenance costs of the sewer network and plant, and the expected health benefits, the environmental externalities arising in the receiving water must be considered, as should the social loss of a recreational area, the possible effect on subsequent drinking water treatment, the loss of natural habitats and effects on coastal areas, the effect of medical residues (hormones, antibiotics etc.) which pass through the treatment works virtually intact, the eventual rehabilitation costs, the impoverishment of soils as a result of nutrient loss, and the costs of using high quality drinking water to flush the system. Each one of these external costs in turn may incur further costs.” Source: (17) Source: (17)

Coût d’investissement des systèmes d’égout décentralisés
++ Assainissement conventionnel d’origine hydrique: coût d’investissement pour la collecte Coûts d’investissement initial pour les systèmes de traitement d’eaux usées centralisés réalisés pour la plus grande partie, c-à-d. 70 à 90% du coût total du traitement des eaux usées. Système de collecte % Traitement % (Otis 1996, Mork et al.2000) Estimer la durée de vie d’un réseau de consuite! Aux Etats-Unis: 37% de tous les nouveaux développement sont déservis par des systèmes décentralisés ou surplace Plus de 50% des systèmes surplace/groupés sont dans les vilels et leurs banlieues (USEPA 2000) Coût d’investissement des systèmes d’égout décentralisés Usine de traitement de l’eau usée Lignes d’égout P. Jenssen The initial investment costs for centralised sewage treatment systems make up for the largest part, i.e. 70 to 90% of the total cost of sewage treatment. Collection system % Treatment % (Otis 1996, Mork et al.2000) Considering the fact that the pipe system has a certain life cycle, and that most of the sewage pipelines were built already decades ago, huge costs will arise in the near future in developed countries if the pipe system has to be renewed. In the US: 37% of all new developments are serviced by onsite or decentralised systems over 50% of onsite/cluster systems are in cities and their suburbs (USEPA 2000) Source: adapted from (6)

++ Assainissement conventionnel d’origine hydrique : Coût de l’eau
“ % de la consommation d’eau dans les villes vidangés est due à l’eau de toilette (eau de chasse).” (2) “Moreover, % of the water consumption in sewered cities is due to the water toilet.” (2) Thus, this makes up for a significant part of all water costs. Moreover, one also has to consider that in most cases, due to a lack of a dual piping systems, toilets are flushed with the same water that comes out of the kitchen tap – i.e. with drinking water. In some parts of the world, this water has been cleansed and treated consuming a considerable amount of energy Source: adapted from (6)

Assainissement conventionnel d’origine hydrique : Considérations de coûts
Systèmes Ecosan Les coûts externes peuvent inclure: Les coûts de transformation nécessaires pour adapter l’infrastructure sanitaire existante Les activités additonnelles de sensibilisation élevée Nécessité de poursuivre la recherche et le développement des différentes parties du systèmes. Contrairement aux systèmes conventionnels: avantages externes: Sécurisation de l’approvisionnement en eau potable Amélioration de la fertilité et la structure du sol Accès accru aux agents fertilisants Consommation d’énergie réduite dans les travaux de traitement Conservation des ressources et d’éléments nutritifs Potentiel de production d’énergie Les limites pour l’évaluation des systèmes sanitaires sont significativement élargies, et les outils d’estimation de besoins doivent être en conséquence étendus. “For ecosan systems these external costs may include the necessary transformation costs to adapt the existing sanitary infrastructure, additional awareness raising activities, and the need for continued research and development of different parts of the system. In contrast to conventional systems, however, ecosan systems offer significant external benefits, which ordinary appraisal tools also fail to capture. These include securing the drinking water supply, through the use of treated greywater and by reducing the discharge of effluent to potential drinking water sources; the improvement of soil structure and fertility; increased access to fertilising agents and phosphates, particularly for poor and for subsistence farmers; reduced energy consumption in the treatment works, but also for fertiliser production; nutrient and resource conservation; and the potential for energy production, In order to account for all these externalities the boundaries for evaluating sanitary systems are significantly expanded, and the tools for appraisal need to be expanded accordingly.” Source: (17) Example: Short case study: “The cost of ecosan and flush toilets in Kosovo Schools In 2000 and 2001 UNICEF helped to rebuild schools in Kosovo that had been destroyed during the 1999 war. At the start of the project most rural and some urban schools had only pit toilets that were full and unusable and with superstructures in a bad state of repair. As the Unicef programme offered only flush toilets, schools without water supply received no upgrades. In order to test the viability of the ecosan concept for schools in Kosovo a block of four eco-toilets was built at one school. The school well was upgraded to supply water for hand washing. The cost of the new ecosan toilet block and the upgraded well was compared with similar facilities built for similar-sized schools that received flush toilets. The ecosan toilets cost 26% less than flush toilets, even taking into account the upgraded well and not considering the cost of obtaining new water supplies in the other schools (a cost that varied tremendously from school to school). These savings were due to pipes, toilet flushing tanks, a septic tank and labour not needed in the school with ecosan toilets. The school would realize other savings in years to come on maintenance and repairs of pipes and fittings and on not having to empty a septic tank regularly. The most appealing cost savings to the school was the fact that, unlike their pit toilets that lasted less than 10 years, this new toilet block was permanent!”

Systèmes d’assainissement écologique: Considérations de coûts
Source: (4) Pratiques traditionnelle améliorées & hygiène Latrine à simple fisse Latrine VIP Latrine à chasse Fosse septique de toilette Connexion d’egout avec travail local Connexion au système Conventionnel d’égout Connexion d’égout & WWTSecondaire WWT Tertiaire ASSAINISSEMENT ECOLOGIQUE ASSAINISSEMENT ECOLOGIQUE SEC WWT = Traitement des Eaux Usées COUTS ESTIMES/person US$ Incl. 15% O&M 800 450 300 175 (140) 160 70 45 65 10 It is difficult to give exact cost figures for ecological sanitation systems because the local conditions on which they rely vary greatly. General figures from UNEP (4, see below) show that the annual costs of ecological sanitation options are lower than most conventional options. Ecological Sanitation is flexible, and centralised systems can be combined with decentralised, waterborne with dry sanitation, high-tech with low-tech, etc. By considering a much larger range of options, optimal and economic solutions can be developed for each particular situation (3).

Financement ecosan en zone urbaine
K. Conradin Les coûts des systèmes Ecosan sont réunis pour baisser le coût total de l’assainissement urbain. Les égouts conventionnels, unités de traitement et dispositifs d’élimination des boues, construits à partir de rien, couteront beaucoup plus avec le temps: particulièrement important pour les pays développés Toutefos: les systèmes urbains ecosan impliquent des coûts pour L’information La formation Le contrôle/ le suivi Les frais supplémentaires pour les systèmes urbains ecosan : Manipulation saine et transport stockage de l’urine et matériau déshydraté ou composté de plusieurs dispositifs. Mais :  la valeur des engrais produits pourrait être significative. Le paiement pour les services d’assainissement est une option pour le recouvrement des coûts. “The introduction of ecosan systems is bound to lower the total costs of urban sanitation. Conventional sewers, treatment plants and sludge disposal arrangements will cost several times as much as an ecosan system. This is particularly important for developing countries, where public institutions face stringent financial limits. ecosan systems require much less investment as they need no water for flushing, no pipelines for the transport of sewage, and no treatment plants and arrangements for the disposal of toxic sludge. However, urban ecosan systems will involve costs for information, training, monitoring and follow-up that are greater than corresponding costs for conventional sanitation systems. In principle and in most cases, during the early pilot project phase, the organization funding an ecosan project may need to pay the entire cost of holding workshops and courses, and building demonstration toilets, greywater systems and eco-stations. But once the project has been initiated and the local work teams have been set up along with national and international experts, the scale-up costs need to be covered by the local authorities and the users/beneficiaries. Successful urban sanitation relies on sound finances. In principle, households should fully repay investment and operational and maintenance costs to ensure the sustainability of the system. In practice, pilot peri-urban sanitation programmes involving free or highly subsidized demonstration models are likely to fail in the long run when false expectations have been raised regarding the cost of the system. Furthermore, an urban ecosan system will generate additional costs that are not usually present in small rural ecosan projects, such as the safe handling, transportation, storage of urine and dehydrated or composted material from many devices. On the other hand, the economic (and ecological) value of the fertilizers produced could be significant. As in all other urban services such as water supply, sewerage and electricity, payment for services is an accepted fact. The city could continue and if necessary upgrade whatever payment system it now has in place for water and sanitation.” Source: (5) Back Source: (5)

Systèmes écologiques: Aspects économique du recyclage de ressource
Le déchet peut seulement devenir une ressource Si cette ressource est nécessaire Et si cette ressource est sociallement acceptable Europe: agriculture: animaux de prairie et de pâturage Le fumier animal était une ressource précieuse Les excrément humain des villes n’a pas été considéré comme une ressource primordiale pour l’agriculture. Japon & Chine Lié à l’approvisionnement des éxcréments humain. Approvisionnement limité du fumier animal (principalement les agriculteurs producteurs de grains, pas de bovins La collecte et le transport des butriments des banlieues vers les zones agricoles est économiquement faisable. Les villes utilisées doivent être beaucoup plus hygiènique Basically, waste can only become a resource if this resource is needed and if the use of that resource is socially acceptable. The fist precondition is given, especially in developing countries, as “agriculture in developing countries often faces a lack of nutrients. This is due to a range of reasons, including limited capital resources, limited access to organic matter and, in some regions, also because of highly weathered soils. Soils in the South are low in organic matter, implying that compost may be an appropriate alternative to artificial fertiliser” (8). However, awareness in Europe is also growing, as for instance in Norway, about “40 % of the farmers were positive to utilization of human urine and 24 % were positive to utilization of human faeces still it is not allowed (9). This different points of view have been conditioned already in the past: “Agriculture in Europe was dominated by a mixed farming regime, with arable, pasture and grazing animals that served not only as a source of milk, meat and wool, but also as a nutrient pump from grazing ranges to the arable fields. The dung they produced was as valuable a resource as the other products that could be extracted from them. In such circumstances, human excrement from the cities was not considered a prime resource for agriculture. Japanese and Chinese towns, in contrast, relied on the supply of human excrement. Therefore, collection and transportation of nutrients from the cities back to the agricultural areas is economically feasible. Due to the very limited supply of animal manure in their agricultural systems, the rice-growing Asian agriculturalists needed not only to collect human excrement, but also to recycle such materials as oil-cake residues and ashes to fill the nutrient gap. The European solution came at a cost, because the production of manure via animals is an expensive solution in energetic terms. In solar based societies, energy means area, so the area needed to feed one person in Europe was much higher than in Asia, due to the extra area needed to produce animal fodder…. Another benefit was that cities in Asia were far more hygienic places than most European ones and water pollution due to faecal matter, one of the recurrent European problems, was almost unknown….“ (8) Source: (8)

Systèmes écologiques: Aspects économiques du recyclage de ressource
La compréhension sociale des déchets (c’est quoi le déchet?) depend de l’interaction des concepts culturels et objects matériels. Le déchet peut aussi devenir une ressource si l’utilisation de cette ressource est socialement acceptable. Exemple: plusieurs agriculteurs voyent généralement le recyclage des excrétas humain comme suit: Positif: recyclage des nutriments Negatif: risque pour l’environnement et la santé. Prix: doivent être comparable aux produits concurrent s (subvention d’état) Responsabilité: besoin de contrôle de qualité et la responsabilité doit être clairement définie Point de vue sociétal: Les contrôles doivent être imposés sur le processus de recyclage  sécurité alimentaire P. Jenssen “The social understanding of waste, which means how waste is defined in terms of behaviour and perceptions and the role of it in the 'lived life', depends on the interplay of cultural concepts and material objects. Decisions about disposal, sewage, incineration and recycling of waste in different social contexts cannot be understood without considering both the material and the cultural contexts of waste. Firstly, stakeholders directly involved in the waste stream, in handling the products, through transportation, treatment and end disposal or use, have a central role. Waste can only become a resource if use of that resource is socially acceptable. There may be moral or cultural barriers against the use of, for example, human faeces. As [an example], many farmers in Norway are positive to utilization of human urine and faeces. These attitudes are mainly due to the nutrient recycling effect. On the other hand these organic farmers are reluctant to use because of a perceived bad quality with risk for environment and health. Prices have to be comparable to competing products, but here the State can legitimately play a role in subsidising such reuse by offsetting the saved cost of environmental externalities, such as water pollution. Also the responsibility for quality control and liability need to be clearly defined and here the State also can contribute facilitating for contracts and collective agreements among the actors and with information and general knowledge. Thus both the organisational structures and the technological structures must function. From a societal viewpoint it is important to ensure that controls are imposed on the recycling process, in order to eliminate the risk of disease vector transmission, and transmission of other substances that may compromise food safety. “ Source: (8)

Systèmes écologiques: Aspects économiques du recyclage de ressource
P. Jenssen Toute entrée entrainera une sortie : Focaliser à la fois sur la partie entrée et émission Coûts marginaux d’émissions Inclure les coûts de l’ensemble du processus de production au recyclage aval vers l’agriculture. Les avantages environnementaux considerables peuvent être atteints par la réduction de l’émission des nutriments vers les ressources en eau en supprimant l’urine des eaux usées  systèmes de séparation de source. Les avantages de mise en oeuvre de nouveaux systèmes de gestion des déchets peuvent contrebalancer les coûts ainsi induits dans son activité. “As any input will cause emissions […], the focus needs to be on both the input and the emission side of the economy. This means that our evaluations and decisions over waste handling systems need to look at how waste is created as well as how it is disposed (10). Calculations of the marginal costs for treatment, compared to the marginal costs for emission, have to include the costs of the whole process from production to recycling back to agriculture. That means not only the treatment and handling costs but also the transaction and administrative costs involved in changing peoples' minds and behaviour. The costs are not only related to technical options for controlling and managing emissions, or whether to opt for fees or quotas, but are also related to consumption structures and behaviour. For example costs may increase greatly if households only make poor efforts at recycling. Yet, controlling households to improve the recycling rate may be very costly, due to their great number and limited size. From society's point of view it is essential to evaluate the costs related to the disposal or containment waste material against the costs of prevention (11). Nutrient recycling is not the only aspect of organic waste (water) handling. It is equally important to look at the total waste generation cycle from the consumption of food, creation, handling and emission of waste and attempt to reach a socially and economically optimal system. Considerable environmental benefits can be achieved by reducing nutrient emissions to water resources by removing urine from wastewater. This can be achieved by using source separating systems where the urine is collected separately and recycled to agriculture. Thus the benefits of implementing new waste management systems can counterbalance the costs incurred in so doing.“ Source: (8)

Systèmes écologiques : avantages externes
Environnement: (a) Moindre nécessité de purification (a) Aucune perte de bénéfices agricoles (a) Sans fraîs de tout nettoyage pour envoronnement pollué (a) Productivité supérieure de l’environnement (b) Joie dans un environnement sain Avantages économiques directs (a) c’éation d’emplois (pour la construction, l’entretien) (a) Création d’avantages économiques à travers la vente des produits recyclés (compost, engrais) La sécurité alimentaire (a) Grande productivité alimentaire (a) Grande sécurité alimentaire (a) Moins d’argent dépensé pour les denrées alimentaires (b) Meilleure qualité de l’alimentation Avantages externes: (a) Économiquement mesurable (b) Pas économiquement mesurable However, other than direct economic savings (no pipes etc.), ecosan systems can result in a variety of other benefits. Some of them are measurable directly in economic terms, but some others can not be given an monetary value. The figure on the next side should give a short overview. Though some of these benefits are not exclusively confined to ecological sanitation systems, but to improved sanitation in general, most ecological sanitation systems have higher or more sustainable effects on the respective fields. Santé améliorée: (a) Plus d’heures de travail/ jours (moins de travailleurs malades & des enfants dont il faut s’occuper) (a) Grande productivité (a) Faible couts de soins médicaux (transport, nutrition) (b) Meilleures conditions de vie Dignité humaine/commodité: (b) Augmente la dignité (moins de stress psychologique) (b) Plus de sécurité (spc. Les filles & femmes) (b) Meilleure accessibilité (b) Statut supérieur (b) Pas d’odeur, mouches, etc. (b) Meilleure qualité de vie Source: adapted from (1)

Environnement: (a) Moindre nécessité de purification (a) Aucune perte de bénéfices agricoles (a) Sans fraîs de tout nettoyage pour envoronnement pollué (a) Productivité supérieure de l’environnement (b) Joie dans un environnement sain Avantages économiques directs (a) c’éation d’emplois (pour la construction, l’entretien) (a) Création d’avantages économiques à travers la vente des produits recyclés (compost, engrais) Avantages externes: (a) Économiquement mesurable (b) Pas économiquement mesurable La sécurité alimentaire (a) Grande productivité alimentaire (a) Grande sécurité alimentaire (a) Moins d’argent dépensé pour les denrées alimentaires (b) Meilleure qualité de l’alimentation Dignité humaine/commodité: (b) Augmente la dignité (moins de stress psychologique) (b) Plus de sécurité (spc. Les filles & femmes) (b) Meilleure accessibilité (b) Statut supérieur (b) Pas d’odeur, mouches, etc. (b) Meilleure qualité de vie However, other than direct economic savings (no pipes etc.), ecosan systems can result in a variety of other benefits. Some of them are measurable directly in economic terms, but some others can not be given an monetary value. The figure on the next side should give a short overview. Though some of these benefits are not exclusively confined to ecological sanitation systems, but to improved sanitation in general, most ecological sanitation systems have higher or more sustainable effects on the respective fields. Santé améliorée: (a) Plus d’heures de travail/ jours (moins de travailleurs malades & des enfants dont il faut s’occuper) (a) Grande productivité (a) Faible couts de soins médicaux (transport, nutrition) (b) Meilleures conditions de vie Source: adapted from (1)

Environnement: (a) Moindre nécessité de purification (a) Aucune perte de bénéfices agricoles (a) Sans fraîs de tout nettoyage pour envoronnement pollué (a) Productivité supérieure de l’environnement (b) Joie dans un environnement sain Avantages économiques directs (a) c’éation d’emplois (pour la construction, l’entretien) (a) Création d’avantages économiques à travers la vente des produits recyclés (compost, engrais) Avantages externes: (a) Économiquement mesurable (b) Pas économiquement mesurable La sécurité alimentaire (a) Grande productivité alimentaire (a) Grande sécurité alimentaire (a) Moins d’argent dépensé pour les denrées alimentaires (b) Meilleure qualité de l’alimentation Santé améliorée: (a) Plus d’heures de travail/ jours (moins de travailleurs malades & des enfants dont il faut s’occuper) (a) Grande productivité (a) Faible couts de soins médicaux (transport, nutrition) (b) Meilleures conditions de vie Dignité humaine/commodité: (b) Augmente la dignité (moins de stress psychologique) (b) Plus de sécurité (spc. Les filles & femmes) (b) Meilleure accessibilité (b) Statut supérieur (b) Pas d’odeur, mouches, etc. (b) Meilleure qualité de vie However, other than direct economic savings (no pipes etc.), ecosan systems can result in a variety of other benefits. Some of them are measurable directly in economic terms, but some others can not be given an monetary value. The figure on the next side should give a short overview. Though some of these benefits are not exclusively confined to ecological sanitation systems, but to improved sanitation in general, most ecological sanitation systems have higher or more sustainable effects on the respective fields. Source: adapted from (1)

Systèmes écologiques: Avantages micro-économiques
Source: GTZ Enquête au Nepal: Environ 30% des utilisateurs du biogaz [note: les ménages qui traitaient leurs eaux usées dans des réservoirs de biogaz à petite échelle] sentent que les cas de maladies intestinales etaient évités après l’installation de l’usine du biogaz. Les ménages ruraux peuvent augmenter la quantité de production de gaz pour une heure d’éclairage en soirée Meilleure performance scolaire des enfants (le devoir de maison peut être fait dans la soirée) Génération de revenus supplémentaires à travers l’occupation des femmes (la couture, la broderie etc.) basées à domicile peut être augmenté. Viewed from a different perspective, economic benefits from adopting ecosan solutions can also be viewed as costs that arise if such systems are not implemented. Those hidden micro-economic costs (i.e. on a individual or household level) to an individual or a household (such as expenses in health care, productive time losses due to illness, social costs of individual's psychological stress and social disharmony due to communicable disease (sometimes epidemic)) could be minimized by investing in adequate sanitation. A survey in rural Nepal carried out by the Biogas Support Programme (16) showed that “[…] about 30% of bio-gas users [note: households that were treating their wastewater in small-scale biogas tanks] feel that the cases of intestinal diseases and diarrhoea have been prevented after installation of bio-gas plant. If analyses are done the magnitude of such benefits can easily out-weight the investment needed for the small-scale technological intervention. On the other side, [the study found out that] if toilet attached bio-gas technology is implemented (currently 36% bio-gas owner are doing so in Nepal), rural households can increase the amount of gas production-by an hour of evening lighting.” This again can for instance increase the school performance of children, since they can do their homework in the evening. As well, homework or additional income generation through home-based occupation (sewing, stitching etc.) of women can be increased. Source: adapted from 15

Systèmes écologiques: Avantages macro-économiques
Source: Niveau national: Avantages macro-économiques Assainissement amélioré: les ressources monétaires et humaines sont “préservées“ car moins de malades et moins de dépenses pour la santé La construction des systèmes ecosan peut le plus souvent être réalisée en utilisant des compétences locales disponibles, des commerçants, et en utilisant du matériau localement disponibles  requiert moins d’équipement importé que les autres processus  la création d’emploi “Excreta and greywater use projects strongly influence the individual as well as the national economic well-being, since proper management and treatment of excreta and greywater reduces health risks and associated costs for medical care. On the national level monetary and professional resources are relieved from cases of faeco-oral diseases and can be concentrated in other areas. Some of the tools needed to measure these effects are available and transferable from related disciplines, but require a certain degree of adaptation to sanitation system planning, whilst others need to be developed.” (17) “Economic appraisals should also recognise that the real cost or value of an item to a country’s economy is not always the same as the price paid for it. For example, foreign exchange may be more valuable than the formal, controlled exchange rate would suggest. On the other hand, the labour of workers who would otherwise be unemployed costs less to the economy than their wages, since no production is lost elsewhere by offering them a job. Economists use a 'shadow price' to approximate the 'real' value of an item to the national economy. Thus the shadow price of foreign exchange is usually higher, and that of unskilled labour lower, than the rate actually paid for it. The proper use of shadow prices in this context may also be a relevant research subject. It is thought that reuse oriented systems will perform better than conventional systems when shadow prices are considered for at least two reasons: The construction of such schemes can most often be carried out using locally available skills, tradesmen, and using locally available material and thus requires less imported equipment than other processes; at shadow prices, it is more likely to be cheaper. The prices of many of the products grown for local consumption are often held below the world market price (if one exists). Whether they are grown for export or for import substitution, a shadow price for foreign exchange will show their true value to the economy. This however needs research and verification.” Source: (17) Economists use a “shadow price” to approximate the “real” value of an item to the national economy (17).” Shadow prices mean the implicit costs of extending any one activity, for extending that one activity means less of another activity, or getting more of one thing, means getting less of another. The economist calls these implicit exchange ratios “shadow prices,” and they appear in all areas of life in which deliberate choices are mad

Systèmes écologiques: Avantages macro-économiques
Source: Le programme de surveillance joint OMS/UNICEF OMD: “l’accès à l’eau potable et à l’assainissement de base apportera un dividende beaucoup plus grand que l’investissement nécessaire.” Atteindre la cible assainissement de l’Objectif Millénaire de Développement : Estimations de coûts: entre 9 milliards de dollars US$ et 15 milliards de dollars US$ Estimation de remboursement : Entre 65 milliards de dollars US$ et 84 milliards de dollars US$ Baisse des coûts de soin de santé Gains de productivité. Les approvisionnements en eau améliorés et les toilettes de base générés renvoient de 3 à 34 fois l’investissement original, dépendant du type d’investissement et du pays Pour fermer le circuit des systèmes d’assainissement, le retour sur investissement est censé être encore plus élévé. “Recent international research on the relation between poverty and sanitation indicates that investments in sanitation have a huge positive impact on the national economy, with relatively high cost-benefit ratios, averaging 5.5 for all targeted regions (19). The fact that money put into sanitation provides a huge return on investment has also been stressed recently in the joint monitoring report from the WHO/UNICEF MDG Joint Monitoring Programme, where they point out that “access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation will bring dividend many times larger than the investment required.” Meeting the sanitation Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target (halving the proportion of the world’s population in 1990 lacking basic sanitation services by the year 2015) is estimated to cost between US$ 9 billion (20) and US$ 15 billion (19), but the payback would be an injection of between an extra US$ 65 billion and US$ 84 billion (EUR 69.4 billion – (21)) per year into developing economies – money saved by averted deaths, lower health care costs and productivity gains. Improved water supplies and basic toilets generate returns range from 3 to 34 times the original investment, depending on the type of investment and the country, the report says (21). For closed loop sanitation systems the return on investment is expected to be even higher. A recent debate in the magazine of the International Water Magazine, WATER21, on the economics of urine diverting double vault dehydration toilets with reuse highlighted that such systems not only cover the extra costs that may occur, but that the total investment for the system could be amortised over a ten year period. (22, see also: 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27)” Short case study: In Nepal, the governments regular expenditure in the year 2000 for the health sector was 3.84% and development expenditure was 6.67% of the total budget respectively. In 2000, only 16% Nepalese had access to a managed sanitation facility and only 20% had access to a health facility (13). There are more than 37% people who can hardly dispose of one dollar a day; 42% are under the absolute poverty. On the other hand more than 30% of hard currency reserves are drained for fossil fuels and kerosene is the only medium of lighting for more than 80% of rural households. Government's expenses can be saved if proper economic incentive policy to promote holistic approach of household waste and wastewater combined with the bio-gas plants are adopted. An additional benefit, obtained from bio-gas sludge, is reduction of usage of commercial fertiliser that is produced with high energy and fossil resources. An economic analysis, even taking financial costs and benefits only, shows that such policy will have high rate of return (15).

Mécanismes de financement
Source: GTZ (17) Les structures à coûts conventionnels et sécuritaires utilisent des systèmes d’assainissement orienté Les systèmes d’assainissement conventionnels et les systèmes d’assainisement écologiques: différents coût de structure Ecosan: Coût généralement à la baisse (decentralisé, nature modulaire de systèmes, aucun réseau de conduite considérable) Les coûts de ménages individuels doivent être plus élevés (les coûts initiaux) “Sanitation systems that recover and use excreta and greywater generally have a different cost structure than conventional systems. This needs to be recognised and practice oriented research should focus on developing appropriate financing mechanisms to support private households in their decision to install them. As shown in the above figure, the total costs to install such systems tend to be lower than those for more conventional sanitation systems. This is mainly due to the decentralised, modular nature of source separating systems, which do not require large sanitary infrastructure, such as centralised treatment works, sewerage, or pump stations. In comparison to traditional decentralised sanitation (such as pit latrines or VIPs), they normally provide permanent solutions, and thus do not have to be replaced when full, representing a significant saving over time. However, although the overall costs are less, those to be covered by the private household may very well increase or be higher as a result of having to replace or transform domestic sanitary facilities (for example by installing a urine diversion toilet).” (17)

Mécanismes de financement
Les alternatives innovatrices de financement incluant des fonds de démarrage, de communauté basé sur les programmes de finance, les programmes de micro-crédits et les mécanismes de récupération de coût peuvent donc être éxigés. Mécanismes de financement: Principalement deux sources: L’individuel ou le ménage, externe (ex. gouvernement) Le paiement devrait parfaitement permettre de recouvrir les frais, mais aussi l’accès équitable à l’assainissement. “Systems to recover and use excreta and greywater have a different cost structure from conventional sanitation systems. This can result in the total costs of the system being less than that of end-of-pipe systems, but the costs that the private households themselves have to pay can increase (see below). Innovative financing alternatives including start-up funds, community based finance programmes, micro-credit programmes and cost recovery mechanisms may therefore be required. In researching financing mechanisms, allowances should be made not only for the investment, reinvestment, and operation and maintenance of the system but also for the opportunity and environmental costs as well as the systems external impacts on individuals and communities (18). Allowances should also be made for the financing of institutional capacity building and skills training, monitoring and assessment, and policy and the development of an enabling environment for sanitation. The latter includes awareness raising campaigns, hygiene promotion etc. Most of these activities are of a public nature with both the broader community and the individual households benefiting. Financing for sanitation however mainly comes from two sources: the individual or household, and an external source such as government (19). Trying to mobilise individual household financial resources for activities targeted to the broader community has however proven difficult. This raises one of the main challenges in developing financing mechanisms for sanitation: How can the needs, interests and finances of individuals and households be effectively coordinated and reconciled with those at the community/national level? Ideally this should be achieved in a way to recover costs, but also to ensure equitable access to sanitation, particularly to poorer members of society. This represents quite a challenge to researchers.” Source: (17) Source: (17)

Frais de recouvrement – sélection de la technologie
Influence sur coût de recouvrement : Sélection de la technologie Aspects communautaires Options de gestion Politiques aux niveaux locaux, regionaux et nationaux Appui à la communauté et/ou la municipalité Environnement économique. Sélection de téchnologie Rapport entre frais capitaux et périodiques (ex. Technologie à frais capitaux élevés mais pourraient abaisser les coûts O&M. Information claire par rapport aux coûts et charges nécessaires The way the project has been set up, and its institutional and legal characteristics are elements that can have a direct implication on cost recovery, particularly with regard to the following: Technology selection Community aspects Management options Policies at local, regional and national levels Support to the community and/or the municipality Economic environment. These aspects will shortly be described on the following slides. “Technology selection Appropriate technology selection is a key factor in sustainable cost recovery. The ratio between capital and recurrent costs can be the determining factor, in the way that a technology with higher capital costs could be chosen because of lower O&M costs. Therefore, when communities select a technology for their water and sanitation service with external support, they must have clear information about the costs and charges. Communities should be aware of the financial implications of choosing a particular technology.” (28) Source: (28)

Frais de recouvrement – options communautaire et gestion
J. Heeb Aspects communautaires La revendication et la participation de la communauté influence la bonne volonté de la communauté à assurer la responsabilité financière La disponibilité de matériaux et les pièces de rechange au sein de la communauté La possibilité d’inclure les artisants communautaires Organisation de la communauté Partage des responsabilités Options de gestion Par communautés Par le comité de l’eau Par association inter-villages  Chaque option a des intérêts et capacités différents Community aspects “The demand by, and the participation of the community are key elements that influence the community’s willingness to assume financial responsibility for the system. However, the issue of paying charges should also be examined. Other matters for consideration include the availability of materials and spare parts within the community; whether skilful artisans work in or close to the community and the price of their interventions; how the community is organized and how responsibilities are distributed between men and women.” (28) Management options “The management system chosen for O&M can directly influence the way cost recovery will be organized. For instance, the water supply system can be managed by a village water committee, an inter-village association, a private person or firm operating under a contractual arrangement, the municipality operating directly or indirectly with its own staff or through community committees, or by a private organization. Each of these will have different interests and capacities, and will determine the rules for managing the finances accordingly.” (28)

Frais de recouvrement – Politiques, Soutien, volonté de payer
Politiques aux niveaux locaux, régionaux et nationaux Différentes politiques influencent les frais de recouvrement Les subventions pour les personnes plus pauvres. Réglementations et tarifs pour services publics tels que l’approvissionnement en eau et l’assainissement Appui à la communauté ou la municipalité La formation en gestion financière et comptable peut être nécessaire Les communautés peuvent nécessiter l’appui des experts Environnement économique L’inflation etc. Volonté de payer (VDP/WTP) expression des exigences de la communauté Forte condition préalable pour la durabilité financière d’un système d’assainissement. Tarifs L’equité, abordable et volonté de payer devraient demeurer à l’esprit Les utilisateurs doivent être volontaires et capables de payer Policies at local, regional and national levels “In some countries, the national sector’s policy is to increase the share of private capital, which requires total recovery of the costs within the framework of the law. Tariffs set at national level can include subsidies for poorer people. In other countries, the government policy is for the community and the municipality to arrange the tariff structures and the level of cost recovery. The municipality, being the level nearest to the community, has the possibility of creating its own regulations and tariffs for public services like water supply and sanitation.” (28) Support to the community or the municipality “In many cases, the communities will need training in book-keeping and financial management, and may have to discuss with the local authorities when major problems arise. They may need support from professionals coming from the private sector.” (28) Economic environment “Some countries are now going through an important economic crisis with inflation, exchange rate fluctuations and other problems, which are likely to have an impact on any kind of cost recovery mechanism.” (28) Willingness to pay (WTP) Willingness to pay, as an expression of the community’s demand, is a strong prerequisite for the financial sustainability of a water supply system. WTP, which is a useful yardstick for assessing project feasibility, depends on a number of factors (see M4-4_Economic_TUTORIAL.ppt) “It shows that WTP may have a strong affinity with a range of cultural, social and institutional factors that complicate the efforts to measure it. Decision-making by consumers may not follow rational economic norms and consumers may reveal their own, location-specific preferences in source selection.” (28) Tariffs “Tariffs are used primarily to recover costs and achieve financial sustainability, but also for efficient allocation of scarce sector resources, equitable income and benefits distribution, and fiscal viability. Designing a tariff requires that one keeps in mind equity, affordability and willingness to pay. O&M costs can only be recovered from users if they are both able and willing to pay for a water supply. It is generally admitted that people should not have to pay more than 3–5% of their income for water and sanitation services (affordability criteria).” (28)

Frais de recouvrement – coûts réduits
Coûts optimisés et réduits O&M: Technologies avec frais de pièces de rechange/d’exploitation bon prix Reduire les frais de transport pour pièces de rechange et produits chimiques Reduire la dépendance liée à l’utilisation des produits chimiques Reduire la dépendance liée à la consommation de carburant ou d’électricité (énergie solaire, gravité) Organisant des activités préventives d’entretien dans les quelles les utilisateurs sont aussi impliqués Installation systématique du contrôle des pertes/fuites Appliquant des économies à barême pour des systèmes plus grands (réduire les coûts pour les consommateurs) Applicant un contrôle pour le manque d’eau (en raison des fuites et de la mauvaise gestion) Installation des mécanismes de contrôle financier et administratif “In order to recover costs sustainably, it is very important to clarify financial responsibilities. There is a tendency today to ask communities to contribute to the initial investment costs, as a way of strengthening their financial responsibility and future willingness to pay. This contribution can represent 5–20% of the total investment costs, which are composed of financial contributions as well as labour and available local materials. Cost-sharing can be arranged between the community and the local/national government agency in order to cover the full cost. This arrangement will have to be formalized in a contract in which all parties have obligations. For more information, access the Operation and Maintenance of rural water supply and sanitation systems mentioned on subsequent slide. Minimizing Cost An important aspect of costs analysis is how to optimize or reduce O&M costs. Costs can be significantly reduced in the following ways: choosing a technology with inexpensive spare parts and/or inexpensive operating costs reducing the transport costs to go and buy spare parts and chemicals (making spare parts more accessible and available) reducing dependence on chemical use (alternative water treatment technology for instance, such as multi-stage filtration system) reducing dependence on fuel or electric consumption (solar energy, gravity) organizing preventive maintenance activities where users are also involved installing systematic leakage control applying economies of scale for larger systems (reduces costs for the consumer) applying a control for unaccounted-for water (because of both leakage and bad management) installing proper administrative and financial control mechanisms. Source: (28)

Conclusion Pays en développement (à faibles revenus): Souvent aucune infrastructure n’est établie pour la manipulation des eaux usées L’eau, l’argent, et les engrais sont des ressources maigres alors que le travail est facile et disponible.  Les conditions ne sont pas égales aux caractéristiques de systèmes conventionnels d’eaux usées (eau intensive + infrastructure coûteuses) Les systèmes d’assainissement écologiques sont souvent gérés localement : Coûts de transports faibles Exigences mineures pour l’eau Reutilisation des nutriments (engrais)  l’assainissement écologique peut être plus approprié que les systèmes conventionnels L’assainissement écologique peut fournir à la fois aux pauvres et aux riches des systèmes d’assainissement durables et à coût abordable. “Ecological sanitation implies separating waste streams, saving water and energy, nutrient recycling, cost efficiency, and the integration of technology to environmental, organisational and social conditions. In developing countries there is often no established infrastructure for wastewater handling. Water, money, and fertilisers are scarce resources while labour is cheap and available. These conditions poorly match the characteristics of conventional wastewater systems which are water intensive with a costly infrastructure. In addition conventional systems rely more on imported goods while ecological sanitation to a larger extent utilises local resources. Moreover ecological sanitation systems are often locally managed with low transport costs, minor requirements for water, and reuse of nutrients. These are some of the reasons why ecological sanitation may be more appropriate in low-income countries than conventional systems.” (3) Ecological sanitation reduces the need for pipelines - the most expensive part of a traditional sewer network. Ecological sanitation can provide both the poor and the wealthy with sustainable sanitary systems at an affordable cost.

FIN DU SOUS-MODULE M4-3 Merci de votre aimable attention!!!
Remerciements M. Kropac Basel University, B. Lietzke FIN DU SOUS-MODULE M4-3 Merci de votre aimable attention!!! Remerciements particuliers à seecon international Pour plus d'informations, veuillez nous voir: seecon International gmbh

M4.3 - Aspects économiques et financiers

Présentations similaires

Présentation au sujet: "M4.3 - Aspects économiques et financiers"— Transcription de la présentation:

Présentations similaires

Notre projet

Feed-back

Entrer

S'autoriser via un réseau social:

M4.3 - Aspects économiques et financiers

Présentations similaires

Présentation au sujet: "M4.3 - Aspects économiques et financiers"— Transcription de la présentation:

Présentations similaires

Notre projet

Feed-back