1. Rural water and sanitation services – Stocktaking from Moldova
Danube Water Conference
17-18 May, Vienna
Ion Lica
Principal Consultant of Water Management Direction

2. The Republic of Moldova
General
Independent from the Soviet Union since 1991
Population of about 3 million
Highly dependent on remittances and international aid
Agriculture is the main economic activity
Association Agreement with the EU signed in 2014
Water resources
High vulnerability to climate change
Surface and groundwater pollution

3. Water and Sanitation in Moldova
Overall access & organization of services
High discrepancy between urban and rural zones in term of access to water and sanitation services
Legal framework in a transition process and partially harmonized with EU acquis
No single line ministry
New regulatory agency (ANRE) which has started to fulfil its role
Local autorities are responsible for providing water and sanitation services to the population
→ New National Water and Sanitation Strategy ( )
→ New Law on Public Water and Sanitation Services (2014)
Source: Access in 2012, National Water & Sanitation Strategy, 2014

4. Water and Sanitation in Moldova
Strategy on drinking water and wastewater ( )
General objective: to gradually grant access for all communities and population of the RM to safe water and adequate sanitation
Specific objectives
Decentralise public water supply and sanitation services
Expand the centralised water supply and sanitation systems and increase the access of the population to these services
The ultimate goal of regionalisation is to create 3-5 regional companies that will provide water supply and sanitation services, except for small villages
But the reality represents a challenge!
Fragmented territorial administration (1681 villages, 32 districts)
50 urban water utilities
50% of the population without access to WSS services lives in villages below 2’500 inhabitants

5. Progress and challenges in regionalisation of water and sanitation services
New concept which started in 2010 with the pilot project financed by EBRD, EIB, EU in 6 districts comprising 43 localities
9 regional operators so far with Joint Stock Company status
Expanding services in neighboring localities but still within district boundaries
1 regional operator with multiple local authorities as shareholders
High interest from stakeholders/donors in regionalization
Bottom up process: local authorities create joint stock companies for service provision
Clearer legal framework
Concept of regionalization of public services of water supply and sewerage
Regionalization Guide for the public services of water supply and sewerage

6. Progress and challenges in regionalisation of water and sanitation services
Expected results
Reduce operation & maintenance costs (economy of scale)
Contribute to ensuring the universal access
Improve access to international and private funds
Develop cooperation mechanisms between local authorities
Challenges
Concept not clear and well understood
Lack of common approach between actors
Low cooperation culture and fear of local authorities to lose control over service provision
Lack of good practices
Complex procedures for the setting-up of regional operators
Financial position of utilities compromise formation of regional operators

7. Beyond regionalization: how are services in rural areas organized?
Baseline Research on rural water and sanitation in Moldova
Key findings & recommendations

8. Urgent need to better understand rural services and evidence-based recommendations for rural areas
High discrepancy in access to between urban and rural zones
Investments take place in urban zones while over half of those without access live in settlements below 2’500 people
Regionalization did not yet result in significant changes for rural areas
Lack of data: especially on service levels, sanitation and performance of rural providers
Part of a regional World Bank study: “Beyond utility reach? Addressing rural services in the Danube Region”

9. Inequalities of service levels for water supply
Non-connected households
Connected households
Source: MICS 2012
The lowest quintile has 35% access to piped water inside the dwelling versus 79% for the wealthiest quintile
Source: HBS, 2015

10. Households connected to water systems enjoy better services but safety still compromised
Non-connected households
Accessibility: 30% have water piped in their home/yard, 30% spend more than 30 minutes per day
Water quantity: high satisfaction
Water quality: high satisfaction despite high contamination of shallow aquifers, limited practice of household water treatment
Reliability: good
Affordability/willingness to pay: 75% of ownership and 30% with electrical pump; WTP for piped water Euro/m3
Connected households
Accessibility: 75% with home connection, 25% with yard connection
Water quantity: between 30 to 100 liters/capita/day
Water quality: aquifers with natural contamination, water treatment usually not performed by operators; low compliance on test
Reliability: 24/24h service delivery
Affordability: 0.20 up to 0.50 Euro/m3 of water consumed; based on 70 lpcp, this presents up to 2% for households on less than US$ 2 per capita per day
Source: primary data collection

11. Sanitation facilities: whose reality counts?
50% with improved sanitation facilities
Majority of households rely on pit latrine which are usually not emptied
Few have flush toilets connected to sewerage, septic tanks, cesspits or soak pits
Only 50% of surveyed sanitation facilities are improved as per JMP
Gap between actual sanitation situation, expressed needs and satisfaction
Satisfaction level acceptable
High “interest” to connect to sewerage (and stated WTP)
Majority of households connected to water supply systems, do not have flush toilets or in-house plumbing
50% with unimproved sanitation facilities
Source: primary data collection

12. Important role but limited means to fulfil local authorities mandate in providing WSS services
Financing of infrastructure and ownership of assets
Organizing the administration of systems and service provision
Approving tariffs
Capacity
Limited support provided to implement their mandate
Limited source of funding for investments
Low local budget derived from local taxes only
High dependency on national funds and donors
80% did not access national funds in past fiscal year
Limited capacity to determine tariff
Source: primary data collection

13. Local municipal operators are critical for rural service delivery but neither recognized nor supported
The majority of management models are outside regulatory framework
No institutionalized support in place: local operators are completely left aside
Low operational performance, although with support this can be altered
In 30% of cases, tariffs cover O&M costs, but not major repairs
Going forward: is a complementary transitionary approach needed to support local governments and local operators?
Source: primary data collection

14. Emerging recommendations to address challenges in rural areas
Accelerate regionalization and develop incentives for collaboration between local authorities
Support localities – with TA and/or investments - in entering into cooperation with regional operators
Provide a transitory framework for regulation of local municipal operators and promote formal delegation to licensed local operators
Develop and institutionalize support to local operators to increase their capacities and encourage compliance with regulatory requirements
Improve financing sources and efficiency of investment process
Consistent and transparent criteria for project selection

15. Looking at the bigger picture: how to go about the Sustainable Development Goals
Adopt a national master planning approach for urban and rural areas to attract financing in a strategic manner:
Prioritize investments with consideration to equity
Scope/delineation for regional and decentralized management solutions
Prepare underlying financing strategy for the most efficient use of public funds
Explore and promote a variety of sanitation solutions beyond sewerage
Anchor solutions on real situation on the ground
Promote on-site sanitation and service chain for fecal sludge management
Recognize step-wise implementation of collective sanitation systems