Search Tips
sorted by
30 shown of 619 entities
7 columns hidden
Title | Date added | Template | Original document | Paragraph text | Body | Document type | Thematics | Topic(s) | Person(s) affected | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 14 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | In order to assess and ensure affordability, States need to look into the overall cost of delivering service that can have implications to the user's payments. These include not only those regularly occurring costs such as operation and maintenance, but also the entire "life-cycle" costs of services, which include construction and rehabilitation (where necessary). This life-cycle cost is particularly relevant for sanitation, considering the management of wastes. Once the costs for service delivery have been estimated, a different discussion is how to recover them. This can include a variety of sources, from tariffs to external public financing and, more important to the aim of this report, how to share the revenues from different users. On this last point, affordability needs to be a key consideration in order to avoid excessively compromising the expenses of people living in poverty. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 15 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | For water, costs range from construction, operation and maintenance, in the case of networked provision, to costs of construction and maintenance of on-site solutions such as wells or boreholes. Connection charges are often a significant barrier for those living in extreme poverty. Household contributions for water services in rural areas and in informal settlements can differ quite substantially from household contributions for piped water provision. Beyond the option of buying water from public or private suppliers, individuals may need to cover the costs of the construction, operation and maintenance of communal or individual household provision (such as a rainwater cistern), the cost of purchasing containers to store water, and the treatment of water. Even where water is safe at the source, by the time it has been transported and stored for future use, there is a high risk that it will become contaminated, which leads to extra costs for household water treatment. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 16 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | In relation to sanitation, associated costs for households range from construction of the toilet within the home and tariffs in the case of networked provision, to costs of on-site solutions such as the construction or maintenance of pit latrines and septic tanks. On-site technologies generally require regular cleaning and maintenance, including the emptying of pits or septic tanks, and the proper management and disposal or re-use of wastewater and excreta. Sanitation systems that require water for flushing, such as sewerage systems, will generally imply extra costs for the water needed for flushing toilets. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 19 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Studies have shown that corruption within the water sector is common. Even where services are nominally affordable to people, corruption may increase the cost of accessing services above official pricing. There may be a lack of transparency in decisions relating to the choice of technology or service provider, which can result in inappropriate - often more costly - choices being made. Corruption also affects prices directly when bribes have to be paid for repair work, connection or reconnection. On a larger scale, there can be corruption within tendering processes for the delivery of services. Corruption tends to disproportionately affect poor and disadvantaged individuals and groups, as they lack the necessary power to oppose the vested interests of elites, and do not have the necessary resources to pay bribes. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 21 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Poorly managed service provision can also have a significant impact on the cost of service provision. States must work to ensure that the right incentives are in place such that providers improve the management of water and sanitation services, including through appropriate organizational structure, optimized running costs, efficient service delivery (e.g. low water losses), among other measures. It also includes strengthening the human rights principles of participation, access to information and accountability in governance structures and decision-making processes. Further, where the provision of services is intended to provide profits for the provider or shareholders (whether publicly or privately owned), this imperative to extract profits can also increase costs for the user beyond levels of affordability, and prevent the company from reinvesting in the service (see Special Rapporteur's mission report for Brazil (2014), A/HRC/27/55/Add.1, para. 68). | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 23 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Studies have shown evidence of a positive cost-benefit ratio. One analysis estimated that for each dollar invested in achieving universal access to basic drinking water at home, the average return is $4. For universal access to basic sanitation at home, the estimated benefit is $3, while the return on eliminating open defecation in rural areas is $6 per dollar spent. The safe management and treatment of wastewater has received less attention in cost-benefit analyses. While requiring large initial investments, in the long term the price of inaction is far greater than the cost of ensuring adequate wastewater management. Studies on the economic returns of sanitation interventions show that both septic tanks with treatment as well as sewerage networks with treatment have a positive cost-benefit ratio, for instance about 1:4 in the Philippines and about 1:3 in Vietnam. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 27 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | A number of countries have set standards for affordability. For instance, a regulation in Indonesia explains that "Tariff shall meet the principle of affordability... if domestic expense on the fulfilment of the standard of basic need for drinking water does not exceed 4% (four per cent) of the income of subscribers". For some households, however, even a small proportion of their expenditure will be too much, and water and sanitation must be available for free in these instances. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 30 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | To ensure economic sustainability, some have argued for full cost recovery through tariffs, i.e. for water and sanitation service providers to charge full operational costs (and in some cases also construction and rehabilitation) to existing and future users. Where there are sufficient numbers of well-off people compared to those who are unable to pay the full cost of a service, full-cost recovery may be possible, with some cross-subsidization between the former and the latter. However, even in countries with a relatively well-off population, for sanitation services in particular, governments frequently provide significant amounts of public funding in order to make the service financially viable and to protect public health. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 31 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | In many developing countries, there are insufficient numbers of people who are well-off to provide a cross-subsidy. In these situations, full cost recovery only through tariffs will not be a feasible option. Public finance may be needed in such instances to ensure affordability for all households. To make such financing available and achieve affordability for all, as a first step States should make better use of budgets already allocated for water and sanitation, specifically to reduce inequalities in access to services. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 32 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The affordability of water and sanitation services and disconnections are inextricably linked, as in many instances the failure to pay for services leads to disconnection. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 35 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Pre-paid water meters are suggested as an option for service providers to ensure that households and individuals pay for the water that they use, as they require payment in advance. This may lead to "silent disconnections" due to lack of ability to pay, and can be a violation of the human rights to water and sanitation. Therefore, plans to use pre-paid meters must be carefully examined before they are installed. Some pre-paid water meters will allow for access to a limited quantity of water even where the individual or household has not paid. The quantity, continuity and quality of water would need to be carefully assessed for human rights compliance. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 37 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Almost all large-scale water and sanitation systems receive some level of public financing. For sanitation in particular, while it has long been known that the costs of not having access far exceed the actual cost of providing access, it has been hoped that private sector participation would be sufficient to improve access to sanitation. However, more recently, research by the World Bank and others is beginning to show that it is unrealistic for the private sector to fill the service gap alone. States must be the driving force in investments in sanitation, in particular to cover the costs of constructing and maintaining infrastructure, and in some cases also for operation, for example where pit-emptying is prohibitively expensive. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 39 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Public finance is very common in large-scale piped water and sewerage systems, with governments (and other funders, such as multilateral and bilateral donors) investing significantly in networks, water treatment plants, wastewater treatment plants and trunk sewers. Provided that all households within a city are able to connect to use these services, this may be an efficient approach to ensuring that public finances are used well for water and sanitation service provision, even if it also results in subsidizing service provision for those who would not need such support to ensure affordability. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 40 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | In the majority of developing countries, piped water and sewerage systems are accessible only to a minority of those living in urban areas - and to very few of those living in rural areas. Focusing public finance on networked provision thus disproportionately benefits comparatively better-off households, unless specific action is taken to extend networked provision to all residents. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 41 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Public finance may also be provided for the maintenance and extension of water and sanitation services and facilities, including for connection charges. Where extensions are expected to reach all households, they can be an appropriate form of providing support to low-income households, as they will ensure more affordable and regular charges for water and sanitation than charges of informal provision. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 43 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Local governments often lack the capacity to support sustainable access to water and sanitation services, in particular in rural areas. As a result, donors and local governments have often turned to promoting community management approaches. Unfortunately, there continues to be a high rate of failure under community management. One study estimated that an average of 30 per cent of rural hand pumps in sub-Saharan Africa are not working, with the figure rising to as high as 65 per cent in some countries. Explanations for these situations include a lack of local technical skills, management capacity, spare parts, or funds to pay for the necessary repairs. Further, as people are understandably unwilling to pay for services that are unreliable, there is inadequate funding for repairs. Institutional reform, developing communities' capacity, and increased financial and human resources are therefore required to realize the human rights to water and sanitation in rural areas. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 44 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | On the other hand, significant inroads have been made through Community-Led Total Sanitation in expanding access to sanitation. Recognizing that improving sanitation relies to a large extent on practicing safe and hygienic sanitation, the approach focuses on mobilizing communities to analyse and improve the situation with regard to open defecation. Community-Led Total Sanitation is in principle opposed to the provision of subsidies based on the premise that subsidized sanitation often does not align with people's preferences and that such solutions have often been unsustainable by creating a culture of dependency. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 45 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The approach, or its implementation in particular cases, has encountered some criticism from the perspective of human rights, including concerns about the affordability of adequate sanitation for the most disadvantaged due to the lack of subsidies. Without external support, people living in extreme poverty may only be able to build very basic latrines and do not always have the means to afford maintenance and improvements. Some variants of Community-Led Total Sanitation are open to using external subsidies for the most disadvantaged in communities. Some suggest a sequencing approach to the use of public finance. While the initial investments in hardware are expected to be made by the community, public finance should be used in the long term to create the enabling environment for sustainable sanitation and ensuring public health, for instance for maintenance and pit emptying, or through public health interventions that promote sanitation and good hygiene practices. Some schemes have provided microfinance for the construction of latrines, which is then paid off over a two- or three-year time frame. This can be an effective way of spreading the cost, but affordability concerns will remain for the poorest households. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 47 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | In such instances, as in other contexts of self-supply, the human rights framework stresses that States have an obligation to support people in the realization of their human right to water and sanitation, where needed with financial assistance. States may not absolve themselves of their human rights obligations by relegating responsibilities to communities. What must be ensured is that sanitation and water services are affordable to even the most disadvantaged member of a community. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 48 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The current reality is that public financing for water and sanitation largely benefits better-off parts of society. Public finance is largely used for large-scale infrastructure in urban areas, which is enjoyed predominantly by middle- and high-income households. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 49 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The first step to ensuring that public financing is targeted toward the most disadvantaged is to acknowledge the inherent inequalities and biases in the current distribution of public financing. On that basis, States must adopt measures to reach the people who rely on public finance to ensure the affordability of water and sanitation services for all and to reduce inequalities in access. States need to reallocate resources to the most disadvantaged. Reallocating current public resources may mean extending access for all to citywide systems in urban areas or shifting from high-cost interventions that serve limited numbers of people to low-cost interventions that provide services to more people, particularly those who most need assistance. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 51 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Research suggests that some governments have succeeded in effectively using public funding for increasing access to sanitation. For instance, Thailand achieved nearly universal access to sanitation in the late 1990s due to sustained funding over decades based on a comprehensive programme. The Government has provided subsidies through revolving funds as well as funding for specific activities, with villages having flexibility in allocating funds to those most in need. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 54h | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | [Where States adopt targeted measures, this also poses challenges. In practice, unfortunately, such measures often fail to reach the target population for a variety of reasons, including:] Those who are connected to water supply services but not to sewerage networks are often disadvantaged by cross-subsidies between water and sanitation services. This subsidy results in persons who have a water connection but no sewerage connection subsidizing better-off people or households that have such a connection; | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 54i | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | [Where States adopt targeted measures, this also poses challenges. In practice, unfortunately, such measures often fail to reach the target population for a variety of reasons, including:] In many instances, subsidies for water are targeted towards commercial or industrial users. Where such subsidies benefit users that do not actually rely on them for their livelihoods, they should be eliminated or reduced to free up resources for the benefit of the population in need. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 63 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Flat rates are commonly used where meters are not installed, where a charge based on a certain volume of water used or sewage discharged would be impossible to implement. Some countries use property taxes as the basis for charging unrelated to consumption. Differentiated flat rates could be used that rise or fall depending on such criteria as household size, income and property value, among others, with care taken that marginalized and vulnerable individuals and groups are not being charged an unaffordable rate. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 64 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Uniform tariff approaches depend on a metered system, where households pay a fixed rate for each unit that they use. Such systems will generally be cheaper to administer than a differentiated system. However, they do not take account of households' size or ability to pay, or whether a household has particular needs that will require more water, such as dialysis or other health needs. They will almost invariably lead to better-off households having access to more water or paying lower bills than poorer residents. Where poorer households access larger quantities of water to meet their requirements, services may become unaffordable without additional safeguards. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 66 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Increasing block tariffs is a common model for differential pricing in which differing quantities of water (or sewage) are charged at different rates. The first "block" may be set at a "lifeline" tariff - a sufficient quantity for the average household - at a low rate, generally below the cost of providing the service. Once this first "block" has been used, there is an increase in price so that households using water beyond their basic domestic and personal needs will pay comparatively more. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 69 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | A particular model, which can be part of increasing block tariffs, involves the provision of a first block free of charge. Cities and countries such as South Africa with the Free Basic Water Policy, some Colombian cities and the minimum provided by the Delhi Jal Board are examples of such policies. Still, the same challenges remain in terms of setting the amount of free water at the right volume to ensure the overall financial sustainability of the system. The key challenge is that households connected to the formal network are likely to benefit more from such policies than households relying on informal service provision. Even where utilities or municipal authorities provide for additional water services through truck deliveries in informal areas, huge disparities in terms of the quantity and accessibility of water remain. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 70 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Differential pricing can also be used for different sectors, for instance using higher tariffs for industrial, commercial and public users to cross-subsidize residential users. In practice, however, such cross-subsidization is often discouraged and agricultural and industrial water use may be highly subsidized. Where such public financing is not necessary to secure livelihoods and is not directly related to the realization of human rights, existing pricing and subsidy policies should be revised to use the maximum amount of available resources for the realization of human rights. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 71 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Charges to a household to connect to a service can be a barrier to gain access to an existing networked service. Some countries have decided to remove these charges for all or some households in order to reduce the barriers. The costs of extending the services are then financed by incorporating them into standard service charges. Historically, many countries have used surcharges on existing users to finance the extension of the network in rural areas. Removing the connection charge is particularly relevant for low-income households to gain access to a sewerage network, as the connection charge is often a significant barrier to affordable sanitation. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 |