Sanitation Infrastructure Enhancement Grants (IEGs) IndII Wrap-up Conference 14 th June 2011 Jim Coucouvinis

2 Sanitation IEGs What is different from the Hibah? What did we set out to do? How did we come to this design? What did we learn? Where do we go from here?

3 IEG is Different From the Hibah It is performance based not output based Grant is paid into the LG budget for implementation Quality assurance and compliance of completed works by ‘Post Review’ IEGs were designed after the Hibah – tried output based formats but could not do it. Because…

4 What we set out to do Support GoI objectives in Sanitation Increase LG Investment in Sanitation Infrastructure:  Underinvestment in Sanitation  Fragmented and dispersed efforts by LG  Generally low level of competence at LG  Inadequate governance in the Sanitation sector Sustainability of improvements PPSP Policy Target Elimination of Open Defecation by 2014 By increased sewerage coverage to 5% of urban population in a minimum of 16 cities (includes five cities with new sewer systems) By implementing on-site public sanitation facilities in 226 selected priority cities Reduce waste generation by 20% By improving waste management service in 240 priority cities

5 How we arrived at this design Intensive interaction between IndII DGHS and MoF from July 2010 to finish in budget cycle. – Design complete September 2010 – MoF issues notifications of the grant award 1 st October 2010 – DGHS Implementation Manual issued 22 nd October 2010 – NPPH signed 26 th October 2010 – LG budgets finalised November 2010 No time for a suitable output based model Performance model IEG rules: – Basis of the grant is the LG 2010 sanitation program – Adjusted for fiscal capacity and relative budget weight – Adjusted for acceptable completion – Grant applied in 2011 for sanitation infrastructure only; – LG has to have a 30,40, 50% matching program depending on the fiscal capacity (low, medium, high)

6 FRAMEWORK for IEG 2010 – Award IEG2011 – Apply IEG i)IEG award based on approved 2010 Sanitation DPA + Adjustments. Available upon: i)successful completion of 2010 DPA ii)Acceptable programming of IEG for 2011 iii)Matching program using APBD min 30%,40%,50% of IEG (for low, medium, high fiscal capacity) i)IEG used for infrastructure components only. ii)Matching program using APBD min 30%,40%,50% of IEG (for low, medium, high fiscal capacity) iii)No further verification other than DPA. EXAMPLE 2010 – Award IEG2011 – Apply IEG  2010 Sanitation DPA = Rp. 5 bil.  Qualifying DPA for IEG = Rp. 4 bil. (say)  LG prepares 2011 budget for 2011 including Rp. 4 bil.  Rp. 4 bil. IEG funds for infrastructure components  Matching Program APBD Murni Rp 1.6 billion (40% of IEG for LG with medium fiscal capacity)

7 Refinements to IEG Allocation

8 What did we learn The design is complicated? GoI and LGs are highly motivated by the program Quality of the 2010 program is a differentiating factor (a guideline for the standard of quality is planned for the next phase) LG sanitation programs are highly fragmented and lack a clear purpose Institutional responsibility is highly fragmented Community has lower intrinsic value for sanitation services

9 Where to from here? Greater coverage > mainstreaming Simplified performance based model Some output based components Multi year program > better control and governance outcomes So far linked to GoI programs – Develop links to AusAID programs e.g. WWMP