007 t econanalysis projects

Asian Develpment Bank

Handbook for the Economic
Analysis of Water Supply Projects

ISBN: 971-561-220-2
361 pages
Pub. Date: 1999
http://www.adb.org/Documents/Handbooks/Water_Supply_Projects

Contents
I. Introduction
II. The Project Framework
III. Demand Analysis and Forecasting
IV. Least-Cost Analysis
V. Financial Benefit-Cost Analysis
VI. Economic Benefit-Cost Analysis
VII. Sensistivity and Risk Analysis
VIII. Financial Sustainability and Pricing
IX. Distribution Analysis and Impact on Poverty Reduction
Appendix
A. Data Collection
B. Case Study: Urban Water Supply Project
1. Annex
B. Case Study: Rural Water Supply Project]
1. Annex

Glossary
References

2 HANDBOOK FOR THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS

CONTENTS
1.1 All about the Handbook .............................................................................................................. 3
1.1.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 3
1.1.2 Uses of the Handbook .................................................................................................. 4
1.2 Characteristics of Water Supply Projects .................................................................................. 4
1.2.1 Water as an Economic Good ....................................................................................... 4
1.3 The Water Supply Project ............................................................................................................ 6
1.3.1 Economic Rationale and Role of Economic Analysis ............................................. 6
1.3.2 Macroeconomic and Sectoral Context ........................................................................ 6
1.3.3 Procedures for Economic Analysis ............................................................................. 7
1.3.4 Economic Analysis and ADB’s Project Cycle ........................................................... 9
1.3.5 Project Preparation and Economic Analysis ............................................................. 9
1.3.6 Identifying the Gap between Forecast Need and
Output from the Existing Facility.....................................................................11
1.4 Least-Cost Analysis for Choosing an Alternative.................................................................12
1.4.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................12
1.4.2 Choosing the Least-Cost Alternative ........................................................................12
1.5 Financial and Economic Analyses...........................................................................................13
1.5.1 With- and Without-Project Cases..............................................................................13
1.5.2 Financial vs. Economic Analysis ...............................................................................14
1.5.3 Financial vs. Economic Viability ...............................................................................15
1.6 Identification, Quantification, Valuation of Economic Benefits and Costs......................16
1.6.1 Nonincremental and Incremental Outputs and Inputs..........................................16
1.6.2 Demand and Supply Prices.........................................................................................16
1.6.3 Identification and Quantification of Costs ..............................................................16
1.6.4 Identification and Quantification of Benefits..........................................................18
1.6.5 Valuation of Economic Costs and Benefits.............................................................19
1.6.6 Economic Viability.......................................................................................................19
1.7 Sensitivity and Risk Analysis .....................................................................................................20
1.8 Sustainability and Pricing ...........................................................................................................20
1.9 Distribution Analysis and Impact on Poverty ..............................................................................21

Figures
Figure1.1 Flow Chart for Economic Analysis of Water Supply and Sanitation Projects………..8

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 3

1.1 All about the Handbook

1.1.1 Introduction

1. Water is rapidly becoming a scarce resource in almost all countries and
cities with growing population on the one hand, and fast growing economies,
commercial and developmental activities on the other.

2. This scarcity makes water both a social and an economic good. Its users
range from poor households with basic needs to agriculturists, farmers, industries and
from commercial undertakings with their needs for economic activity to rich households
for their higher standard of living.

3. For all these uses, the water supply projects (WSPs) and water resources
development programs are being proposed for extension and augmentation; likewise
with the rehabilitation of water supply for which measures for subsequent sustainability
are being adopted.

4. It is, therefore, essential to carry out an economic analysis of projects so
that planners, policy makers, water enterprises and consumers are aware of the actual
economic cost of scarce water resources, and the appropriate levels of tariff and cost
recovery needed to financially sustain it.

5. In February 1997, the Bank issued the Guidelines for the Economic Analysis of
Projects for projects in all sectors, and subsequently issued the Guidelines for the Economic
Analysis of Water Supply Projects” (March 1998) which focuses on the water supply sector.
The treatment of subsidies and a framework for subsidy policies is contained in the
Bank Criteria for Subsidies (September 1996).

6. This Handbook is an attempt to translate the provisions of the water
supply guidelines into a practical and self-explanatory work with numerous illustrations
and numerical calculations for the use of all involved in planning, designing, appraising
and evaluating WSPs.

7. In this document, short illustrations have been used to explain various
concepts of economic analyses. Subsequently, they are applied in real project situations
which have been taken from earlier Bank-financed and other WSPs, or from case


studies conducted in different countries in Asia as part of a Bank-financed Regional
Technical Assistance Project (RETA).

1.1.2 Uses of the Handbook

8. This Handbook is written for non-economists (planners, engineers,
financial analysts, sociologists) involved in the planning, preparation, implementation,
and management of WSPs, including: staff of government agencies and water utilities;
consultants and staff of non-governmental organizations (NGOs); and staff of
national and international financing institutions.

9. Since the Handbook focuses on the application of principles and
methods of economic analysis to WSPs, it is also a practical guide that can be used by
economists in the economic analysis of WSPs.

10. The Handbook can also be used for the following purposes:

(i) as a reference guide for government officials, project analysts and
economists of developing member counries (DMC) in the design,
economic analysis and evaluation of WSPs;

(ii) as a guide for consultants and other professional staff engaged in the
feasibility study of WSPs, applying the provisions of the Bank’s Guidelines
for the Economic Analysis of Water Supply Projects; and

(iii) as a training guide for the use of trainors of “Economic Analysis of
Water Supply Projects”

1.2 Characteristics of Water Supply Projects

1.2.1 Water as an Economic Good

11. The characteristic features of water supply include the following:

(i) Water is usually a location-specific resource and mostly a nontradable
output.


(ii) Markets for water may be subject to imperfection.
Features related to the imperfect nature of water markets include
physical constraints, the high costs of investment for certain
applications, legal constraints, complex institutional structures, the vital
interests of different user groups, limitations in the development of
transferable rights to water, cultural values and concerns of resource
sustainability.

(iii) Investments are occurring in medium term (typically 10 years) phases
and have a long investment life (20 to 30 years).

(iv) Pricing of water has rarely been efficient. Tariffs are often set below the
average economic cost, which jeopardizes a sustainable delivery of water
services. If water availability is limited, and competition for water among
potential water users (households, industries, agriculture) is high, the
opportunity cost of water (OCW) is also high. Scarcity rent occurs in
situations where the water resource is depleting. OCW and depletion
premium have rarely been considered in the design of tariff structures. If
the water entity is not fully recovering the average cost of water,
government subsidies or finance from other sources is necessary to
ensure sustainable water service delivery.

(v) Water is vital for human life and, therefore, a precious commodity.
WSPs generate significant benefits, yet water is still wasted on a large
scale. In DMC cities and towns, there is a very high incidence of
unaccounted-for-water (UFW). An ADB survey among 50 water
enterprises in Asian countries over the year 1995 revealed an average
UFW rate of 35 percent.

(vi) Economies of scale in WSPs are moderate in production and
transmission but rather low in the distribution of water.

The above characteristics have implications on the design of WSPs and should be
considered as early as the planning and appraisal stages of project preparation.


1.3 The Water Supply Project

1.3.1 Economic Rationale and Role of Economic Analysis

12. The main rationale for Bank operations is the failure of markets to
adequately provide what society wants. This is particularly true in the water supply
sector. The provision of basic water supply services to poorer population groups
generates positive external benefits, such as improved health conditions of the targeted
project beneficiaries; but these are not internalized in the financial cost calculation.

13. The Bank provides the finance for water supply services to assist DMCs
in providing safe water to households, promoting enhanced cost recovery over time,
creating an enabling environment including capacity building and decentralized
management of water supply operations, and setting up of autonomous water
enterprises and private companies which are run on a commercial basis.

14. While economic analysis is useful in justifying the Bank’s intervention in
terms of economic viability, it should also be considered as a major tool in designing
water supply operations. There is a scope for better integrating social and economic
considerations in the overall project design. Demand for water depends on the price
charged, a function of the cost of water supply which, in turn, depends on demand.
This interdependence requires careful analysis in all water supply operations. Safe water
should be generally provided at an affordable price and using an appropriate level of
service matching the beneficiaries’ preferences and their willingness to pay.

1.3.2 Macroeconomic and Sectoral Context

15. The purpose of the economic analysis of projects is to bring about a
better allocation of scarce resources. Projects must relate to the Bank’s sectoral strategy
and also to the overall development strategy of the country.

16. In a WSP, the goal may be “improved health and living conditions,
reduction of poverty, increased productivity and economic growth, etc.”. Based on
careful problem analysis, the Project (Logical) Framework establishes such a format
showing the linkages between “Inputs and Outputs”, “Outputs and Purpose”, “Purpose
and Sectoral Goal” and “Sectoral Goal and Macro Objective”. The key assumptions
regarding project-related activities, management capacity, and sector policies beyond the
control and management of the Project Authority are made explicit.


1.3.3 Procedures for Economic Analysis

17. The economic analysis of a WSP (urban or rural) has to follow a
sequence of interrelated steps:

(i) Defining the project objectives and economic rationale as mentioned
above.

(ii) Demand analysis and forecasting effective demand for project outputs.
This is to be based on either secondary information sources or socio-
economic and other surveys in the project area.

(iii) Establishing the gap between future demand and supply from existing
facilities after ensuring their optimum use.

(iv) Identifying project alternatives to meet the above gap in terms of
technology, process, scale and location through a least-cost and/or cost-
effectiveness analysis using economic prices for all inputs.

(v) Identifying benefits, both quantifiable and nonquantifiable, and
determining whether economic benefits exceed economic costs.

(vi) Assessing whether the project’s net benefits will be sustainable
throughout the life of the project through cost-recovery, tariff and
subsidy (if any) based on financial (liquidity) analysis and financial
benefit-cost analysis.

(vii) Testing for risks associated with the project through sensitivity and risk
analyses.

(viii) Identifying and assessing distributional effects of the project and poverty
reduction impact.

Figure 1.1 shows a flowchart for the economic analysis of a water supply project.


Figure 1.1 Flow Chart for Economic Analysis of Water
Supply and Sanitation Projects
Project
Rationale
& Objectives

Socioeconomic Survey
Survey of Existing Facilities,Uses
Including Contingent
& Constraints (if any) Valuation

Identify Measures Demand Analysis
for Optimum Use Institutional
& Demand Forecasting
of Existing Facilities (including effective demand) Assessment

Establish the Gap
Between Future Demand &
Existing Facilities After Their
Optimum Use

Environmental
Identify Technical Alternatives Assessment
to meet the above Gap (IEE ,EIA)

Least-cost Analysis (with Economic Price)
& Choice of the Alternative
(Design, Process, Technology, & Scale, etc.)
(AIFC & AIEC)

Identifying Benefits (Quantifiable) Tariff Design,
Cost Recovery,
Identifying Nonquantifiable items & Subsidy (if any)
(if any) Enumeration

Economic Financial
Benefit-cost Benefit-cost
Analysis with Analysis with
Economic Price Financial Price
(EIRR) (FIRR)

Uncertainty Analysis
(Sensitivity & Risk)

Distribution of Project
Effects
Financial
Sustainability Analysis &
Poverty Reduction Plan for
(Physical &
Impact Environmental) Sustainability

- parts of the economic analysis

AIFC - average incremental financial cost; AIEC - average incremental economic cost; EIRR - economic internal rate of
EIA - environmental impact
return; ; FIRR - financial internal rate of return; IEE - initial environmental
assessment examination


1.3.4 Economic Analysis and ADB’s Project Cycle

18. Economic analysis comes into play at the different stages of the project
cycle: project identification, project preparation and project appraisal.

19. Project identification largely results from the formulation of the Bank’s
country sectoral strategy and country program. This means that the basic decision to
allocate resources to the water supply sector for a certain (sector) loan project has been
taken at an early stage and that the project has, in principle, been identified for
implementation with assistance from the ADB.

20. In the project preparation stage, the planner has to make an optimal choice
of the design, process, technology, scale and location etc. based on the most efficient
use of the countries’ resources. Here, the economic analysis of projects again comes
into play.

21. In the project appraisal stage, the economic analysis plays a substantial part
to ensure optimal allocation of a nation’s resources and to meet the sustainability criteria
set by both the recipient country and the ADB from the social, institutional,
environmental, economic and financial viewpoints.

1.3.5 Project Preparation and Economic Analysis

22. Before any detailed preparation is done, it is necessary for the design
team to get acquainted with the area where the project is identified. This is to acquire
knowledge about the physical features, present situation regarding existing facilities and
their use constraints (if any) against their optimal use, the communities and users
specially their socio-economic conditions, etc.

23. To get these information, the following surveys must be undertaken in
the area:

(i) Reconnaissance survey – to collect basic information of the area and to
have discussions with the beneficiaries and key persons involved in the
design, implementation and management of the project. Relevant data
collection also pertains to information available in earlier studies and
reports.


(ii) Socio-economic survey – to get detailed information about the
household size, earnings, activities, present expenditure for water supply
facilities, along with health statistics related to water-related diseases, etc.

It is important to analyze the potential project beneficiaries, their
preferences for a specific level of service and their willingness to pay for
the level of service to be provided under the project. The analysis of
beneficiaries should show the number of poor beneficiaries, i.e., those
below the country’s poverty line, and their ability to pay. Such
information is required to ensure that poor households will have access
to the project’s services and to know whether, and to what extent, “cost-
recovery” can be done.

(iii) Contingent Valuation Method − An important contribution in arriving
at the effective demand for water supply facilities, even where there are
no formal water charges, is the contingent valuation survey. This is
based on questions put to households on how much they are willing to
pay (WTP) for the use of different levels of water quantities. These data
may help build up some surrogate demand curve and estimate benefits
from a WSP.

(iv) Survey of existing water supply facilities − Knowledge of the present
water supply sources, treatment (if any) and distribution is also needed.
It is also necessary to know the quantity and quality of water and
unaccounted-for-water (UFW) and any constraints and bottlenecks
which are coming in the way of the optimum use of the existing facility.

24. Using the information taken from the survey results and other secondary
data sources, effective demand for water can then be estimated. Two important
considerations are:

(i) Effective demand is a function of the price charged. This is ideally based
on the economic cost of water supply provision to ensure optimal use of
the facility, and neither over-consumption nor under-consumption
especially by the poor should occur. The former leads to wastage
contributing to operational deficits and the latter results in loss of
welfare to the community.

(ii) Reliable water demand projections, though difficult, are key in the
analysis of alternatives for determining the best size and timing of
investments.


25. Approaches to demand estimation for urban and rural areas are usually
different. In the urban areas, the existing users are normally charged for the water
supply; in the rural areas, there may not be any formal water supply and the rural
households often do not have to pay for water use. An attempt can be made in urban
areas to arrive at some figure of price elasticity and probably income elasticity of
demand. This is more difficult in the case of water supply in rural areas with a
preponderance of poor households.

1.3.6 Identifying the gap between Forecast Need and
Output from the Existing Facility

26. Once demand forecasting has been done, it is necessary to arrive at
the output (physical, institutional and organizational) which the project should provide.
The existing facilities may not be optimally used due to several reasons, among them:

(i) UFW due to high technical and nontechnical losses in the system;

(ii) inadequate management system, organizational deficiency and poor
operation and maintenance leading to deterioration of the physical
assets; and

(iii) any bottleneck in the supply network at any point starting from the raw
water extraction to the households and other users’ end.

27. Before embarking on a detailed preparation of the project, it is necessary
to take measures to ensure optimal use of the facilities. These measures should be both
physical and policy related. The physical measures are like leakage control, replacing faulty
valves and adequate maintenance and operation, etc.; policy measures can be charging
an economically efficient tariff and implementing institutional reforms, etc.

28. The output required from the proposed WSP should only be determined
after establishing the gap between the future needs based on the effective demand and
the restored output of the existing facilities ensuring their optimal use. Attention needs
to be focused on the identification and possible application of instruments to manage
and conserve demand, such as (progressive) water tariffs, fiscal incentives, pricing of raw
water, educational campaigns, introducing water saving devices, taxing of waste water
discharges, etc.


1.4 Least-Cost Analysis
for Choosing an Alternative
1.4.1 Introduction

29. After arriving at the scope of the WSP based on the gap mentioned
above, the next task is to identify the least-cost alternative of achieving the required
output. Economic costs should be used for examining the technology, scale, location
and timing of alternative project designs. All the life-cycle costs (market and non-
market) associated with each alternative are to be taken into account.

30. The alternatives are not to be confined to technical or physical elements
only, e.g., ground water or surface water, gravity or pumping, large or small scale, etc.
They can also include activities due to policy measures, e.g., leakage detection and
control, institutional reforms and managerial reorganization.

1.4.2 Choosing the Least-Cost Alternative

31. There can be two main cases for the choice from mutually exclusive
options:

(i) the alternatives deliver the same output or benefit, quantity wise and
quality wise;

(ii) the alternatives produce different outputs or benefits.

Case 1.

32. In the first case, the least-cost analysis compares the life cycle cost
Streams of all the options and selects the one with the lowest present value of the
economic costs. The discount rate to be used is the economic opportunity cost of
capital (EOCC) taken as 12 percent in real terms.

33. Alternatively, it is possible to estimate the equalizing discount rate (EDR)
between each pair of mutually exclusive options for comparison. The EDR is also equal
to the economic internal rate of return (EIRR) of the incremental cash flows of the


mutually exclusive options. The EDR/EIRR of the incremental cash flows can then be
compared with the EOCC for choice among alternatives.

34. The least-cost choice can also be done by calculating the average
incremental economic cost (AIEC) of each alternative. The AEIC is the present value
of incremental investment and operating costs in with-project and without-project
situations divided by the present value of incremental output (say, in m3) also in both
with-project and without-project alternative. The discount rate to be used is the EOCC
= 12 percent. This will establish the project alternative with the lower per unit
economic cost.

Case 2.

35. In this second case, it is possible to select the least economic cost option
by calculating per unit economic costs of all the project options. Because water
demand, supply cost and price charged for water tend to be closely interrelated, least-
cost analysis should account for the effect of uncertain demand. Lower-than-forecast
demand results in higher average costs, which can push up water prices and depress
demand further.

36. Sensitivity analysis can be used to show whether the project option
remains the least-cost alternative under adverse changes in key variables. The scale of
the project may vary in relation to prices charged to consumers and the size may
influence the least-cost alternative.

1.5 Financial and Economic Analyses
1.5.1 With- and Without-Project Cases

37. After choosing the best among alternatives, the next step is to test the
financial and economic viability of the project, which is the chosen, least-cost
alternative. The initial step in testing the financial and economic viability of a project is
to identify and quantify the costs and benefits.

38. To identify project costs and benefits and to compare the net benefit
flows, the without-project situation should be compared with the with-project situation.
The without-project situation is different from the before-project situation. The
without-project situation is that one which would prevail without the project vis-à-vis


factors like population increase. As water is getting more scarce, the water use pattern
and the cost are also likely to change.

1.5.2 Financial vs. Economic Analysis

39. Financial and economic analyses have similar features. Both estimate the
net benefits of an investment project based on the difference between the with-project
and the without-project situations.

40. However, the concept of financial net benefit is not the same as
economic net benefit. While financial net benefit provides a measure of the commercial
(financial) viability of the project on the project-operating entity, economic net benefit
indicates the real worth of a project to the country.

41. Financial and economic analyses are also complementary. For a project
to be economically viable, it must be financially sustainable. If a project is not financially
sustainable, there will be no adequate funds to properly operate, maintain and replace
assets; thus the quality of the water service will deteriorate, eventually affecting demand
and the realization of financial revenues and economic benefits.

42. It has sometimes been suggested that financial viability not be made a
concern because as long as a project is economically sound, it can be supported through
government subsidies. However, in most cases, governments face severe budgetary
constraints and consequently, the affected project entity may run into severe liquidity
problems, thereby jeopardizing even its economic viability.

43. The basic difference between the financial and economic benefit-cost
analyses of the project is that the former compares benefits and costs to the enterprise
in constant financial prices, while the latter compares the benefits and costs to the
whole economy measured in constant economic prices. Financial prices are market
prices of goods and services that include the effects of government intervention and
distortions in the market structure. Economic prices reflect the true cost and value to
the economy of goods and services after adjustment for the effects of government
intervention and distortions in the market structure through shadow pricing of the
financial prices. In such analyses, depreciation charges, sunk costs and expected changes
in the general price should not be included.

44. In financial analysis, the taxes and subsidies included in the price of
goods and services are integral parts of financial prices, but they are treated differently in
economic analysis. Financial and economic analyses also differ in their treatment of


external effects (benefits and costs), favorable effects on health and the UFW of a WSP.
Economic analysis attempts to value such externalities, health effects and nontechnical
losses.

1.5.3 Financial vs. Economic Viability

45. The steps in determining the financial viability of the proposed project include:

(i) identifying and quantifying the costs and revenues;

(ii) calculating the project net benefits;

(iii) estimating the average incremental financial cost, financial net present
value and financial internal rate of return (FIRR).

The FIRR is the rate of return at which the present value of the stream
of incremental net flows in financial prices is zero. If the FIRR is equal
to or greater than the financial opportunity cost of capital, the project is
considered financially viable. Thus, financial benefit-cost analysis covers
the profitability aspect of the project.

46. The steps in determining the economic viability of a project include the
following:

(i) identifying and quantifying (in physical terms) the costs and benefits;

(ii) valuing the costs and benefits, to the extent feasible, in monetary terms;
and

(iii) estimating the EIRR or economic net present value (NPV) discounted at
EOCC = 12 percent by comparing benefits with the costs.

The EIRR is the rate of return for which the present value of the net
benefit stream becomes zero, or at which the present value of the
benefit stream is equal to the present value of the cost stream. For a
project to be acceptable, the EIRR should be greater than the economic
opportunity cost of capital. The Bank uses 12 percent as the minimum
rate of return for projects; but for projects with considerable
nonquantifiable benefits, 10 percent may be acceptable.


1.6 Identification, Quantification, Valuation
of Economic Benefits and Costs

1.6.1 Nonincremental and Incremental Outputs and Inputs

47. Nonincremental outputs are project outputs that replace existing water
production or supply. For example, a water supply project may replace existing supply
by water vendors or household/community wells.

48. Incremental outputs are project outputs that add to existing supply to
meet new demands. For example, the demand for water is expected to increase in the
case of a real decline in water supply costs or tariffs.

49. Incremental inputs are for project demands that are met by an overall
expansion of the water supply system.

50. Nonincremental inputs are inputs that are not met by an expansion of
overall supply but from existing supplies, i.e., taking supply away from existing users.
For example, water supply to a new industrial plant is done by using water away from
existing agricultural water.

1.6.2 Demand and Supply Prices

51. In economic analysis, the market prices of inputs and outputs are
adjusted to account for the effects of government intervention and market structure.
The adjusted prices are termed as shadow prices and are based either on the supply
price, the demand price, or a weighted average of the two. Different shadow prices are
used for incremental output, nonincremental output, incremental input and
nonincremental input.

1.6.3 Identification and Quantification of Costs

52. In estimating the economic costs, some items of the financial costs are
to be excluded while other items, which are not part of financial costs are to be


included. The underlying principle is that project costs represent the difference in costs
between the without-project and the with-project situations. Cost items and the way
they are to be treated in project economic analysis, are as follows:

(i) Sunk Costs. They exist in both with-project and without-project
situations and thus are not additional costs for achieving benefits. They
are, therefore, not to be included.

(ii) Contingencies. As the economic benefit-cost analysis is to be done in
constant (or real) prices, the general price contingencies should not be
included.

(iii) Working Capital. Only inventories that constitute real claims on the
nation’s resources should be included in the project economic costs.
Others items of working capital reflect loan receipts and repayment
flows are not to be included.

(iv) Transfer payments. Taxes, duties and subsidies are transfer payments
as they transfer command over resources from one party (taxpayers and
subsidy receivers) to another (the government, the tax receivers and
subsidy givers) without reducing or increasing the amount of resources
available in the economy as a whole. Hence, these transfer payments are
not economic costs. However, in certain circumstances when valuing the
economic cost of an input or an output, taxes are to be included:

(a) If the government is correcting for external environmental costs
by a correcting tax to reduce the production of water, such a
transfer payment is part of the economic costs.

(b) The economic value of incremental outputs will include any tax
element imposed on the output, which is included in the market
price at which it sells.

(v) External Costs. Environmental costs arising out of a project activity,
such as river water pollution due to discharge of untreated sewage
effluent, is an instance of such costs. It may be necessary to internalize
this external cost by including all relevant effects and investments like
pollution control equipment costs and effects in the project statement.

(vi) Opportunity Cost of Water. If, for example, a drinking water project
uses raw water diverted from agriculture, the use of this water for


drinking will result in a loss for farmers. These costs are measured as the
opportunity cost of water which, in this example, equals the “benefits
foregone” of the use of that water in agriculture.

(vii) Depletion Premium. In water supply projects where the source of
water is ground water and the natural rate of recharge or replenishment
of the aquifer is less than its consumptive use, the phenomenon of
depletion occurs. In such cases, significant cost increase may take place
as the aquifer stock depletes; the appropriate valuation of water has to
include a depletion premium in the economic analysis.

(viii) Depreciation. The stream of investment assets includes initial
investments and replacements during the project’s life. This stream of
expenditure, which is included in the benefit-cost analysis, will generally
not coincide with the time profile of depreciation and amortization in
the financial accounts and as such, the latter should not be included once
the former is included.

1.6.4 Identification and Quantification of Benefits

53. The gross benefit from a new water supply is made up of two parts:

(i) resource cost savings on the nonincremental water consumed in
switching from alternative supplies to the new water supply system
resulting from the project; and

(ii) the WTP for incremental water consumed.

54. Resource cost savings are estimated by multiplying the quantity of water
consumed without the project (i.e., nonincremental quantity) by the average economic
supply price in the without-project situation.

55. The WTP for incremental supplies can be estimated through a demand
curve indicating the different quantities of water demand that could be consumed at
different price levels between the without-project level of demand and the with-project
level of demand. The economic value of incremental consumption is the average value
derived from the curve times the quantity of incremental water. Where there is
inadequate data to estimate a demand curve, a contingent valuation methodology can be
applied to obtain an estimate of WTP for incremental output.


56. The gross benefit stream should be adjusted for the economic value of
water that is consumed but not paid for, i.e., sold but not paid for (bad debts) and
consumed but not sold (non-technical losses). It can be assumed that this group of
consumers derives, on the average, the same benefit from the water as those who pay.

57. Other benefits of a WSP include health benefits. These benefits are due
to the provision of safe water and are also likely to occur provided that the adverse
health impacts of an increased volume of wastewaters can be minimized.

1.6.5 Valuation of Economic Costs and Benefits

58. The economic costs and benefits must be valued at their economic
prices. For this purpose, the market prices should be converted into their economic
prices to take into account the effects of government interventions and market
structures. The economic pricing can be conducted in two different currencies (national
vs. foreign currency) and at the two different price levels (domestic vs. world prices).

59. To remove the market distortions in financial prices of goods and
services and to arrive at the economic prices, a set of ratios between the economic price
value and the financial price value for project inputs and outputs are used to convert the
constant price financial values of project benefits and costs into economic values.
These are called conversion factors, which can be used for groups of typical items, like
energy and water resources.

1.6.6 Economic Viability

60. Once the economic benefit and cost streams are derived, a project
resource statement can be developed and the EIRR for the project can be calculated.
Bank practice is to use 12 percent as the minimum rate of return for projects for which
an EIRR can be calculated, although for projects with considerable nonquantifiable
benefits, 10 percent may be acceptable. For rural WSPS, there may be limitations to
value the economic benefits, thus making it difficult to calculate a reliable EIRR.
However, the economic analysis may be undertaken on the basis of the least-cost or
cost effectiveness analysis using the economic price of water.


1.7 Sensitivity and Risk Analysis
61. In calculating the EIRR or ENPV for WSPs, the most
likely values of the variables are incorporated in the cost and benefit streams. Future
values are difficult to predict and there will always be some uncertainty about the project
results. Sensitivity analysis is therefore undertaken to identify those benefit and cost
parameters that are both uncertain and to which EIRR and FIRR are sensitive.

62. The results of the sensitivity analysis should be summarized, where
possible, in a sensitivity indicator and in a switching value. A sensitivity indicator shows
the percentage change in NPV (or EIRR) to the percentage change in a selected
variable. A high value for the indicator indicates project sensitivity to the variable.
Switching values show the change in a variable required for the project decision to
switch from acceptance to rejection. For large projects and those close to the cut-off
rate, a quantitative risk analysis incorporating different ranges for key variables is
recommended. Measures mitigating against major sources of uncertainty are
incorporated into the project design, thus improving it.

1.8 Sustainability and Pricing
63. For a project to be sustainable, it must be both financially and
economically viable. A financially viable project will continue to produce economic
benefits, which are sustained throughout the project life.

64. Assessing sustainability includes:

(i) undertaking financial analysis at both the water enterprise level and the
project level (i.e., covering the financial liquidity aspect of the project at
both levels);

(ii) examining the role of cost recovery through water pricing; and

(iii) evaluating the project’s fiscal impact, i.e., whether the government can
afford to pay the level of financial subsidies that may be necessary for
the project to survive.

65. Subsidies aimed at helping the poor may not always benefit them in a
sustained manner. Underpricing can lead to waste of water (by the non-poor in
particular), deterioration of the water system and services, and ultimately to higher


prices for all. Cross subsidies could also distort prices and should generally be
discouraged. To minimize economic costs and maximize socioeconomic development
impact, any level of subsidies should be carefully targeted to lower the price charged for
water to poor and low-income households.

66. To minimize financial subsidies, projects should be designed to supply
services that people want and are willing to pay for.

1.9 Distribution Analysis
and Impact on Poverty
67. Water supply provision, especially in the rural areas and shantytowns in
urban areas, is considered to be important for poverty reduction. The poverty-reducing
impact of a project is determined by evaluating the expected distribution of net
economic benefits to different groups such as consumers and suppliers, including labor
and the government.

24 HANDBOOK FOR THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER SUPPLY

CONTENTS
2.1 The Project Framework..............................................................................................................25
2.1.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................25
2.2 Purpose .........................................................................................................................................25
2.3. Concept of a Project Framework: Cause and Effect.............................................................26
2.4 Design of a Project Framework................................................................................................27
2.5 Project Targets: The Verifiable Indicators of Project Achievement...............................................29
2.6 Project Monitoring Mechanisms: The Means of Verification or
“How Do We Obtain the Evidence?” .............................................................................................30
2.7 Risks and Assumptions ..............................................................................................................30
2.8 The Project Framework Matrix: An Example .........................................................................31

Figures
Figure 2.1 The Project Cycle .................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 2.2 Basic Relations Between PFW Elements............................................................................ 27

Boxes
Box 2.1 Logical Order of Cause and Effect……………………………………………….. 26
Box 2.2 Example of Project Goal………………………………………………………….. 28
Box 2.3 Example of the Purpose of the Project……………………………………………. 28
Box 2.4 Example of Project Outputs………………………………………………………. 28
Box 2.5 Example of Activities……………………………………………………….……... 28
Box 2.6 Example of Project Targets………………………………………………………... 29
Box 2.7 Example of Risks and Assumptions……………………………………………….. 30

Tables
Table 2.1 Project Design Summary………………………………………………………… 27
Table 2.2 Example of Inputs in Water Supply Projects…………………………………….. 29
Table 2.3 Water Supply and Sanitation Project Framework………………………………... 32

CHAPTER 2 : PROJECT FRAMEWORK 25

2.1 The Project Framework

2.1.1 Introduction

1. The Project Framework (PFW) is a conceptual tool for preparing the
design of a project. It is a disciplined approach to sector and project analysis. This part
of the Handbook is based on the ADB publication Using the Logical Framework for Sector
Analysis and Project Design: A User’s Guide (June 1998).

2. In February 1998, the ADB Post Evaluation Office has issued the first
draft of a new Project Performance Management System (PPMS). With regard to
project design, the PPMS incorporates the PFW but adds other techniques, like problem
analyses, formulation of solutions, identification of baseline and target values and
definition of accountabilities. Because the draft PPMS is yet to be finalized and
approved, this Handbook will only refer to the PFW as the basic tool for project design.
It is expected, however, that the PPMS will gradually be adopted as the methodology to
be utilized.

2.2 Purpose
3. The first step in carrying out a feasibility study for a water supply
project (WSP), and as such also the first step in the economic analysis of such projects,
is to prepare a PFW. Its purposes are:

(i) to establish clearly the objectives and outputs which the project will be
accountable to deliver (these objectives and outputs must be quantifiable
and measurable);

(ii) to promote dialogue and participation by all stakeholders;

(iii) to facilitate project implementation planning and monitoring;

(iv) to establish a clear basis for project evaluation during the operational
phase; this requires a systematic comparison of project objectives,
outputs and with actual achievements.


4. The PFW establishes the linkages between project design, project
implementation and project evaluation. This is illustrated in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1 The Project Cycle 5. The PFW is a tool for
preparing the project design. It describes the
Design goals, objectives, expected outputs, inputs
and activities, key risks and assumptions and
project costs. Preparing the PFW ensures
that the project design is responsive to
Logical
specific needs, constraints and opportunities,
Framework since it requires an analysis of problems and
objectives to be achieved as a preparatory
step leading to the design of a project.
Evaluation Implementation

6. The preparation of the PFW
is a team effort in which, ideally, all
stakeholders involved in project preparation,
should participate. The PFW facilitates project design and preparation by focusing
attention on key project issues and laying out a process for establishing the main
features of a project. As such, the preparation of a PFW should be an integrated and
mandatory part of the Terms of Reference of any feasibility study.

2.3 The Concept of the Project Framework:
Cause and Effect
7. The core concept underlying the PFW lies in creating a logical order of cause
and effect. This is stated in Box 2.1.

Box 2.1 Logical Order of Cause and Effect

if certain inputs are provided and activities carried out,
then a set of project outputs will be realized and

if these outputs materialize,
then the project will achieve certain project objectives, and

if these objectives are achieved
then the project will contribute to achieve the overall goal of the sector.


8. The above statement indicates a certain hierarchy between the different
components of the PFW. The basic relations between inputs, activities, outputs and
impacts, objectives and goal can be seen in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2 Basic Relations Between PFW Elements
if then

ACTIVITIES PURPOSE GOAL
OUTPUTS (objective)
I

if then if then

2.4 The Design of a Project Framework

9. The basic building blocks of a PFW are five key project elements, each
one linked to another in a cause-effect relationship. These five elements are described as
the design summary. They are presented in Table 2.1 and can be described as follows:

Table 2.1 Project Design Summary
DESIGN SUMMARY PROJECT PROJECT RISKS/
TARGETS MONITORING ASSUMPTIONS
MECHANISMS
1. Goal

2. Purpose

3. Project Components
Project Outputs

4. Activities 5. Inputs


10. The Goal: the PFW begins with identifying the overall sector or area
goal to be targeted by the project. It is the higher order or general objective to which
the project contributes. Together with other projects, the proposed WSP will
contribute to achieving such sector and area goals. An example is presented in Box 2.2.

Box 2.2 Example of Project Goal
In the case of water supply projects, a common goal is 'improved health and living
conditions, reduced poverty and increased economic growth and productivity (goal)’. This
goal has multiple dimensions as both human development and economic growth are
targeted.

11. The Purpose, Immediate or Project-Specific Objective (why the
project is being done): describes the immediate output or direct impact that we hope to
achieve by carrying out the project. By achieving the immediate objective, the project
will contribute to achieving the broader sector goal. An example is provided in Box 2.3.

Box 2.3 Example of the Purpose of the Project
If access to and use of clean water by the community is assured (purpose), then the
project will contribute to improving community health and productivity (which is the
broader sector goal).

12. Project Outputs (what the project will deliver): the tangible and
measurable deliverables that the project is directly accountable for and for which it is
given budgeted amounts of time and resources. Outputs are specific results, produced
by managing well the project components. They should be presented as
accomplishments rather than as activities. This is illustrated in Box 2.4.

Box 2.4 Example of Project Outputs
A typical project output could be phrased as: 'water supply systems rehabilitated
and/or constructed' and 'O&M systems upgraded and operational'. Typical project
components would include the procurement of materials and equipment, construction
works, institutional strengthening and capacity building, community development and
consultancy services.

13. Activities (how the project is carried out): each project output will be
achieved through a series or cluster of activities. An example is shown in Box 2.5.

Box 2.5 Example of Activities
Typical examples of activities taking place in water supply projects include the
acquisition of land, the procurement of materials and equipment, implementation of
construction works, the preparation of an Operation & Maintenance Manual, training of
staff, implementation of community education programs.


14. Inputs: the time and physical resources needed to produce outputs.
These are usually comprised of the budgeted costs needed for the purchase and supply
of materials, the costs of construction, the costs for consultancy services, etc. An
example is shown in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 Example of Inputs in Water Supply Projects
EXPENDITURE CATEGORIES COSTS
(US$mn)

1. Land 2
2. Material Supplies 32
3. Physical Works 16
4. Consultancy Services 6

Total Cost of Inputs 55

2.5 Project Targets: The Verifiable Indicators
of Project Achievement
15. Practical and cost-effective project measures need to be established to
verify accomplishment of goal, objective and outputs. These performance indicators are
referred to as the project’s operational targets. The project targets essentially quantify
the results, benefits or impacts expected from the project and thus make them
measurable or at least tangible. Performance measures at the ‘objective level’ measure
End of Project Impact.

16. Project targets are measurable indicators which should be presented in
terms of quantity, quality and time. This is illustrated in Box 2.6.

Box 2.6 Example of Project Targets
A quantitative target could be ‘to provide adequate water supply to 15,000 households in
district Adebe’. The quality characteristic can be added to this target: ‘provide drinking
water in accordance with WHO standards for 24 hours per day at a pressure of 10 mwc’.
The time dimension can also be added: ‘before 31 December 1999’.


2.6 Project Monitoring Mechanisms: The Means of
Verification or “How Do We Obtain the Evidence?”1
17. The project manager, the government and the Bank need a management
information system (MIS) that provides feedback on project progress at all levels of
the Design Summary. This includes progress in disbursements, completion of activities,
achievement of outputs, purpose and goals. Both measurable or verifiable indicators
and means/mechanisms of verification provide the basis for project monitoring and
evaluation systems.

18. To establish an effective monitoring and evaluation system or project
performance management system, it is necessary to establish as part of the project
design, flexible, inexpensive and effective means of verifying the status of project
progress, at goal, objective and output level. In WSPs, sources of information could be
progress reports, reports of review missions, water utility reports, statistical data, survey
data, etc.

2.7 Risks and Assumptions
19. Risks and assumptions are statements about external and uncertain
factors which may affect each of the levels in the Design Summary, and which have to
be taken into account in the project design through mitigating measures. They may
include the assumption that other projects will achieve their objectives. If worded
positively, these statements are assumptions; if worded negatively, they are indicative of
risk areas. This is illustrated in Box 2.7.

Box 2.7 Example of Risks and Assumptions
In water supply projects, assumptions could include:
• the timely availability of land for construction of water intake;
• the timely disbursement of funds;
• a stable political situation;
• the timely completion of the dam; and
• regular adjustment of water tariffs.
In terms of risks, these assumptions would be formulated as follows:
• land not timely available for construction;
• funds not timely disbursed;
• political instability;
• dam not ready in time;
• water tariffs not regularly adjusted.

1 The newly-developed ADB-Project Performance Management System (PPMS) provides additional
information and techniques on how to establish means and measures of verification.


20. Assumptions are conditions that must be fulfilled if the project is to
succeed, but which are not under the direct control of the project. It is important to
identify the so-called “killer assumptions” which, if not fulfilled, could stop the project
from achieving its objectives. The following actions can be taken to manage killer
assumptions:

(i) assess the consequences of doing nothing;
(ii) change project design;
(iii) add a new project;
(iv) closely monitor the project; and
(v) ensure sufficient flexibility in the project design.

21. Certain risks can be eliminated by putting them as a condition to be
fulfilled before project implementation. For example, water tariffs must be increased to
achieve a targeted level of cost recovery; or the water enterprise should receive autono-
mous status before the loan can become effective. In rural WSPs, another example
would be to set certain criteria which must be met by sub-projects before they are
approved.

22. Risks and assumptions made should be carefully taken into account in
the risk and sensitivity analysis to be conducted as part of the economic and financial
analysis.

2.8 The Project Framework Matrix: An example

23. Project Framework Matrices have been prepared for many projects. An
example of such a matrix for a typical WSP is presented in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 Water Supply Project Framework
Design Summary Project Targets Proj. Monitoring Mechanisms Risks/Assumptions

1.Sector/Area
Goals -Prevalence of water-related diseases among - Yearly epidemiological reports - no political
1.1 Improved target population reduced by 15% by 1999. of the Ministry of Health instability
Health Situation -50% of people below poverty line have access - Water Enterprisereports - no natural disasters
1.2 Improved to water supply facilities by 1999. - Country report - sound macro-
Living -Increased industrial development. - End of project reports economic policies
Conditions -10% reduction of absenteeism by 1999 due to - Health Surveys
1.3 Sustained Socio- improved socio-economic/ living conditions.
Economic Dev. -70% of women of target population have
improved living conditions (more time,
convenience, etc.) by 1999.
2. Project -no unexpected
population growth in
Objective/Purpose target areas.
2.1 Provide -Increase access to safe water supply to 70% of - Water Enterprise reports -current ground water
improved and the target population by December 1999. - Progress reports tables will decrease
sustained water dramatically because
of drought (risk).
supply to the
-loan effectiveness by
population of a
first of January 1996.
specified area.
3. Components/
- no delays in
Outputs - four intakes, two treatment plants, 20,000 - Progress reports
3.1. - Existing house connections by 1997; - Water Enterprise reports contracting (building)
infrastructure - 33.5 km transmission and distribution pipes contractors and
rehabilitated; delivery of materials
completed/replaced by 1997;
-Physical - 24 hours service level operational;
infrastructure - reduction of unaccounted for water from 40%
constructed; to 30% by 1999.


Table 2.3 Water Supply Project Framework
Design Summary Project Targets Proj. Monitoring Mechanisms Risks/Assumptions

3.2 Mitigating -Water resources study completed by 1995; - Environmental profile (and - no environmental
-water quality protection measures in place by three yearly updates); disasters
measures for - Progress reports - government ability
1996;
negative -facilities to transport and treat wastewater in - Reports of Ministry of to enforce
environmental place by 1997; Water & Provincial Water
environmental
-target population educated about water related Authorities
effects in place. - Reports of Environmental protection
environmental hazards;
Protection Agency/Water Basin measures.
-water reduction program operational by end of
1996. Authority
3.3 Sustainable Org. - 100% of required postings fulfilled with - Progress reports - sufficient qualified
trained and motivated staff by 1999; - Water Enterprise reports local staff available
and Management and willing to work in
established. - effective O&M systems in place; - Management training reports remote areas;
- management systems and procedures and training needs assessments of
operational by 1997; staff; - no halt on
governmental
- autonomous status water enterprise approved - Data from management info vacancies;
by 1997. systems;
- Organogram of water - autonomy to water
enterprise/staffing list indicating enterprise granted.
qualifications of staff.
3.4 Financial -water enterprise ability to recover full costs by - monthly and yearly financial - proposed tariff
1998; reports of water enterprise;
sustainability of -billing and collection system operational by increases approved by
- progress reports. government.
water enterprise January 1997;
-financial management system effective;
achieved -achieve reduction in “unaccounted for water”
from 40% to 30% by 1999.

3.5 User-oriented -achieve 90% coverage of target population - Special reports (Hygiene - no health disasters
Activities (m/f) with hygiene education program by education/ environmental
-Customers aware 1999; education at schools)
about new services -70% of target population (m/f) know at least - Progress reports
two out of three communicated hygiene - Water enterprise reports
and about the safe
messages;
use of water; -collection rates increased from 60% to 85% by (consumer complaints list)
-Customers use 1998; -Reports of the Ministry of
- 50% of target population (m/f) apply at least Health and the Ministry of
water supply
two out of three communicated hygiene
facilities safely Education
behavior messages;
4.1Develop Physical 5.1 - consultancy services for detailed eng’g.
Infrastructure design / supervision (US$3 mn)
-Detailed Eng’g. - $2 mn government funding for land - Progress reports and Review - loan awarded;
Design acquisition; missions - government funds
-Land acquisition - $50.5 mn funding for procurement of - Special reports awarded;
-Procurement equipment and materials
-Construction - provision for operational expenses
-Supervision
-Environmental
Management
4.2.Environmental 5.2. - local consultancy services planned studies - Progress reports and Review - materials available
component (10 person months) missions on time;
-water rescues study - international consultancy services (6 - Special reports - no delay in
-water quality person months) consultancy services;
protection measures - local staff + government funding
-facilities - US$1.5 mn funding for procurement of
equipment and materials
- US$3 mn for construction works


4.3Establish 5.3. - US$ 0.8 mn p.a. government funding for - Progress reports and Review - resettlement
Organization and local staff (operational costs) missions program effective
- US$ 0.6 mn for consultancy - Special reports - contractors available
Management - US$1.4 mn for training
-Institutional Dev. on time;
-Organization Dev.
-Human Resource
Dev.
4.4 Establish 5.4. - US$0.3 mn for computer and - Progress reports and Review
sustainable financial management information system missions
- international consultancy services (4 mm) - Special reports
framework - local consultancy services (12 mm)
-establish tariff - computer hardware US$0.7 mn
structure
-financial
management
system operational
4.5 Community- 5.6. - US$0.5 mn for training and extension - Progress reports and Review
Oriented Activities materials; missions
-community info - 36 person months local consultancy staff, - Special reports
programs 12 person months international
-Health education consultants;
-community org - US$0.2 mn for vehicles/other transport
-PublicRelations means;
- US$0.5 mn for public relations and mass
programs media activities;
- local staff
Source: RETA 5608 Case Studies on Selected Water Supply Projects

CHAPTER 3

DEMAND ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING


CONTENTS
3.1 Effective Water Demand ..........................................................................................................40
3.1.1 Defining Effective Demand for Water.....................................................................40
3.1.2 Increasing Cost of Water Supply ...............................................................................41
3.2 The Demand for Water: Some Concepts ................................................................................42
3.2.1 Incremental vs. Nonincremental Demand for Water.............................................42
3.2.2 The Relation between Price and Quantity................................................................42
3.2.3 The Concept of Price Elasticity of Demand............................................................44
3.2.4 Different Demand Curves for Different Products .................................................45
3.2.5 The Relation between Household Income and the Demand for Water .............46
3.2.6 Other Determinants of the Demand for Water ......................................................48
3.3 The Use of Water Pricing to “Manage” Demand ..................................................................51
3.3.1 Instruments of Demand Management......................................................................51
3.3.2 Cumulative Effects of Water Demand Management
and Conservation Programs .......................................................................................54
3.4 Data Collection ............................................................................................................................55
3.4.1 Cost Effectiveness of Data Collection......................................................................55
3.4.2 Sources for Data Collection ......................................................................................55
3.4.3 Contingency Valuation Method (CVM)....................................................................56
3.5 Demand Forecasting...................................................................................................................56
3.5.1 Forecasting Urban Water Supply: the Case of Thai Nguyen ...............................56

CHAPTER 3: DEMAND ANALYSIS & FORECASTING 39

Figures
Figure 3.1 An Individual’s Water Demand Curve:
Linear and Non-Linear Relationships…………………………………………..…43
Figure 3.2 Demand Curves for Water from Public Taps vs. House Connections…………… 45
Figure 3.3 Relation between Demand and Income: Shift of Demand Curve……………….. 47
Figure 3.4 Demand Management………………………………………………………….. 51

Boxes
Box 3.1 Example of Constrained Water Demand……………………………………………40
Box 3.2 The Future Costs of Water……………………………………………………….. 41
Box 3.3 Relationship between WTP and Income…………………………………………….46
Box 3.4 Increased Water Tariff in Bogor, Indonesia…………………………………………52
Box 3.5 Demand Management and Investment Planning in Australia……………………… 54
Box 3.6 Thai Nguyen Case Study: Description of Service Area…………………………… 57
Box 3.7 Thai Nguyen Case Study:
Assumptions Used, Ability to Pay and Willingness to Pay………………………...…58
Box 3.8 Thai Nguyen Case Study: Number of Persons per Connection…………………… 60
Box 3.9 Thai Nguyen Case Study: Existing Consumption………………………………… 61
Box 3.10 Thai Nguyen Case Study: Indication of the Price Elasticity……………………….. 64
Box 3.11 Thai Nguyen Case Study: Estimating Future Demand…………………………… 65
Box 3.12 Thai Nguyen Total Domestic Demand…………………………………………… 66
Box 3.13 Example of Estimating Industrial Consumption…………………………………… 67
Box 3.14 Example of Estimating Nondomestic Consumption……………………… ……… 68
Box 3.15 Application of Technical Parameters……………………………………………….. 70
Box 3.16 Determination of Nonincremental Water………………………………………… 75

Tables
Table 3.1 Major Determinants of Water Demand…………………………………………… 50
Table 3.2 Demand Forecast and Required……………………………………………………71
Table 3.3 Nonincremental Water from connected users (in lcd)…………………………… 73
Table 3.4 Average Nonincremental Water of nonconnected users (in lcd)……………………74
Table 3.5 Calculation of Nonincremental Demand…………………………………………. 77


3.1 Effective Water Demand

3.1.1 Defining Effective Demand for Water

1. The “effective demand” for water is the quantity of water demanded of
a given quality at a specified price. The analysis of demand for water, including
realistically forecasting future levels of demand, is an important and critical step in the
economic analysis of water supply projects. The results of demand analysis will enable
the project team to:

(i) determine the service level(s) to be provided;
(ii) determine the size and timing of investments;
(iii) estimate the financial and economic benefits of the project; and
(iv) assess the ability and willingness to pay of the project beneficiaries.
Furthermore, the surveys carried out during the demand assessment will
provide data on cost savings, willingness to pay, income and other data
needed for economic analysis.

2. It is useful to note the difference between “effective demand” for water
and “actual consumption” of water. Water consumption is the actual quantity of water
consumed whereas effective demand relates that quantity to the price of water. For
example, a low level of water consumption may not represent effective demand but may
instead indicate a constraint in the existing supply of water. This is illustrated in Box 3.1.

Box 3.1 Example of Constrained Water Demand
In Rawalpindi, Pakistan, the existing water supply system provided water for only an average
of 3.8 hours per day and, on average, six days per week. Families connected to the public
water supply system used an average 76 lcd. An additional 16 lcd was collected from secondary
sources. From the household survey it appeared that during the (dry) summer, 86 percent of
the population found the supply of water insufficient compared to 50 percent during the
winter. Effective demand for water was higher than the quantity the utility was able to supply.
This suggests that effective demand was constrained by existing supply levels.

Source: RETA 5608 - Case Study on the Water Supply and Sanitation Project, Rawalpindi, Pakistan


3.1.2 Increasing Cost of Water Supply
3. The demand for water is rising rapidly, resulting in water becoming
increasingly scarce. At the same time, the unit cost of water is increasing, as water
utilities shift to water sources farther away from the demand centers. Water from more
distant sources may also be of lower quality. The costs of transporting water from the
source to the consumer and that of water treatment necessary to meet potable water
standards are becoming significant components of the unit cost of water.

4. The increase in the cost of water can be seen when the cost per cubic
meter of water used by current water utilities is compared with the cost per cubic meter
of water in new water supply projects (WSPs). This relation is shown in Box 3.2.

Box 3.2 The Future Cost of Water
For example, the current cost of water in Hyderabad is below $0.2 per m3 whereas in the figure below,
the calculated cost of future water to be supplied through new schemes is more than $0.6 per m3. This
means that future water is more than three times as expensive as water from the existing resources. Note
that the points on line 1 indicate that future costs of water equal the current cost; the points on line 2
indicate that the future costs per unit are twice the current costs.

Line 3 Line 2
Future Cost Line 1
1.4
Amman
1.2

1.0
Line 1: Current costs
0.8 Mexico City equal future costs

Hyderabad Line 2: Future costs
0.6 Lima are twice as high
Algiers as current costs
0.4
Dhaka Line 3: Future costs
0.2 Banglaore are three times as
Shenyang high as current
costs
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 3
US$/m
Current Cost

Source: Serageldin, Ismail. 1994. The Financing Challenge.


5. Box 3.2 reinforces the importance of making optimum use of scarce
water resources by avoiding inefficiencies and wastage in existing supplies and designing
efficient future investment projects. In designing new projects, it is becoming
increasingly important to make optimum use of existing resources to be able to avoid or
postpone costly investments in the future.

3.2 The Demand for Water: Some Concepts

3.2.1 Incremental vs. Nonincremental Demand for Water
6. A WSP usually increases the supply of water either by making more
effective use of existing supply capacity or by adding additional supply capacity. To the
consumer, the additional capacity supplied will either displace and/or add to already
existing water sources. Every person uses water for drinking, cooking, bathing, washing
of clothes, for sanitation purposes, etc. Sources of water include piped water supply
systems, dugwells, hand pumps, canals, ponds, rivers, bottled water, water from vendors,
rainwater, etc.

7. If the additional supply of water is used to displace already existing
sources, it is called nonincremental demand. For example, a household which obtains a
new connection to the piped water supply system may no longer make use of the
existing dugwell.

8. If the additional supply of water generates an increase in existing
consumption, it is called incremental demand. For example, a household obtaining its
water from a well at a distance of 300 meters may increase its water consumption from
450 liters to 650 liters per day after a public tap is installed in closer proximity to the
house.

3.2.2 The Relation between Price and Quantity

9. From an economic perspective, the price of water is an important
determinant of per capita water consumption. The relation between the quantity of water
used and the price is illustrated by a demand or willingness-to-pay curve for water, an
example of which is given in Figure 3.1.


10. The downward sloping demand curve indicates the “decreasing
marginal value” of water. The first five liters of water per capita per day will be extremely
valuable as they are necessary to sustain life. This is illustrated by curve D1D1 in Figure
3.1. The second five liters will also be valuable, (e.g. in their use for hygienic purposes).
The next five liters are valuable for food preparation, cooking and washing of clothes.
All other factors being equal, for each additional increment of water, the marginal value
of water tends to decline as the individual is putting the water to less and less valuable
uses. Consequently, the individual’s willingness to pay for each increment of water will
gradually decrease.

11. D1 D1 in Figure 3.1. represents a non-linear curve for an average
household and shows an example of an individual’s water demand or willingness-to-pay
curve. If the water tariff is increased from $0.25 to $0.50, this individual would (all
other factors remaining equal) reduce daily consumption from 140 liters to 115 liters.

Figure 3.1 An Individual’s Water Demand Curve:
Linear and Non-linear Relationships
Price
(US$/m 3
D 1D 1

1.00

. 75

.50
D 2D 2
. 25

0 140
115 Quantity (lcd )

12. In this Handbook, a linear demand curve will often be used for
illustrative purposes, as indicated by line D2 D2. However, the nonlinear relationship
between quantity and price is probably a better approximation of the actual behavior of
water users.


3.2.3 The Concept of Price Elasticity of Demand
13. One question which often arises when considering the demand curve is
how much the quantity demanded by an individual will change when the price per unit
of water changes. The price elasticity of demand is a measure that describes the degree
of responsiveness of the quantity of water to a given price change and is defined as
follows:

percentage change in the quantity of water demanded
ep = - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
percentage change in the price per unit of water
dQ/Q dQ P dQ P P
ep = - ------ = - ---- x ---- = - ----- x ---- = slope x ----
dP/P Q dP dP Q Q

14. The price elasticity of demand for water is normally negative because the
demand curve is downward sloping, which means that an increase (decrease) in price is
expected to lead to a reduction (increase) in demand.

15. If ep < |1 |, demand is ‘inelastic’. For example, if an increase of 25
percent in water fees leads to a 10 percent reduction in the demand for water, this would
result in a price elasticity of -0.40. The relative change in quantity demanded (dQ/Q) is,
in this case, smaller than the relative change in price (dP/P).

16. If ep > |1 |, demand is elastic. For example, if a 25 percent increase in
water fees leads to a 50 percent reduction in demand, this would result in a price
elasticity of -2. The percentage change in quantity demanded is larger than the
percentage change in price.

17. For a linear demand curve as can be verified through the formula for ep,
the higher the price, the higher the absolute value of price elasticity. Using a nonlinear
demand curve (Figure 3.1), it can be seen that for the first few liters of water, demand
will be very inelastic, meaning that the consumer is willing to pay a high price for the
given volume of water. As the marginal value of the water gradually declines, the
consumer’s demand will become increasingly elastic, meaning that price fluctuations will
result in larger changes in quantity demanded.

18. In studies carried out by the World Bank (Lovei, 1992), it has been
found that the price elasticity for water typically ranges between -0.2 and -0.8, indicating


inelastic demand. For example, e = -0.2 means that a 10 percent increase in price would
lead to a reduction in the quantity demanded by only 2 percent.

3.2.4 Different Demand Curves for Different Products
19. The definition of effective demand mentions “ the demand for water of
a certain quality”. The quality of the product “water” is not easily explained and a
number of characteristics are normally included in defining it, including chemical
composition (e.g., WHO standards), taste and smell, water pressure, reliability of supply,
accessibility and convenience. The first two characteristics determine the quality of water
in the stricter sense. The other characteristics define water quality in its broader sense.

20. The combination of these characteristics will determine the “product”
water or service level. Up to a certain point, an individual is prepared to pay a higher
price for a product with a higher quality. For the same “quantity” of water, an individual
will be willing to pay a higher price for a higher quality product. For example,
consumers are normally willing to pay a higher price for water from a house connection
than for water from a public tap. In this case, there are two different demand curves:
one for house connections (HC) as shown in Figure 3.2, and one for public taps (PT) as
shown in Figure 3.3.

F i g u r e 3 . 2 D e m a n d C u r v e s f o r W a t e r f r o m P u b lic T a p s v s . H o u s e C o n n e c t i o n s

WTP
(price per m 3 ) P2

HC
P1
PT

O
Q1 Quantity (m3)


3.2.5 The Relation between Household Income and the
Demand for Water
21. Households with high income are normally able and willing to pay more
for a given quantity of water than households with lower incomes. In relative terms (as a
percent of income) however, people with higher incomes are prepared to pay smaller
percentages of their income for water than people with lower incomes. These statements
were confirmed in the case studies and are illustrated in Box 3.3.

Box 3.3 Relationship Between WTP and Income

The relationship between willingness to pay and month income has been confirmed in the
case studies. For example, in Jamalpur, Bangladesh, the relationship as illustrated below was
found.

WTP (TK/month) WTP % Income

140 3.5%

120 3.0%
Average of WTP
% of Income
1
100 2.5% Log.(Avg. of WTP)
Log. (% of Income)
80 2.0%

60 1.5% Curve 1: Y = 20.891Ln(X) – 113.22
R 2 = 0.3848
Curve 2: Y = -0.008Ln(X) + 0.0821
40 1.0% R 2 = 0.8298

20 2 0.5% Y refers to dependent variable on
vertical axis.

0 0.0% X refers to the independent
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 variable (horizontal axis)
HH Income (TK/month)

Curve 1 explains the relationship between income and WTP in absolute terms. Households
with higher income are willing to pay more for the total quantity of water consumed. Curve 2
illustrates the relation between income and WTP as a percentage of income. When income
increases, a smaller proportion of household income is set aside to pay for water.

Source: RETA 5608 Case Study on the Jamalpur Water Supply and Sanitation Project,
Bangladesh


22. An increase in income will cause the demand curve for water to shift to
the right (from D1 to D2), as illustrated in Figure 3.4. At price P1 the quantity of water
consumed increases from OQ1 to OQ2. The shift in the demand curve to the right also
indicates a higher willingness to pay (from P1 to P2) for the same quantity of water OQ1.

Figure 3.3 Relation between Demand and Income: Shift of Demand Curve
WTP/m3

P2

P1
D2

D1

O Q1 Q2 Quantity of water (m3)

23. The relation between water consumption and income can be expressed in
terms of “income elasticity”. The formula for income elasticity is as follows:

Percentage change in quantity of water consumed
ei = ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage change in Income

dQ/Q dQ I
ei = + -------- = -------- x ------
dI/I dI Q

24. The literature on the relation between income and water consumption is
rather limited, but a value between 0.4 and 0.5 appears to be reasonable (see e.g.
Katzman 1977, Hubbell 1977 and Meroz 1986). A positive income elasticity of 0.4
means that if an individual’s household income increases by 10 percent, consumption is
expected to increase by 4 percent. A value which is less than one shows that the demand
for water is rather inelastic to changes in income.

25. For example: consider the case that income increases from Rp200,000
(I1) to Rp300,000 (I2 ), and water consumption increases from 15 m3/month (Q1) to 18
m3/month (Q2). In this case, income elasticity is calculated as follows:


ei = (dQ/DI x I/Q)
= ((Q2-Q1)/(I2-I1)) x I1/Q1
= ((18-15)/(300,000-200,000)) x 200,000/15
= 0.4

3.2.6 Other Determinants of the Demand for Water
26. In addition to price and income, other factors or determinants can also
influence the demand for water. A checklist of possible water demand determinants is
presented in Table 3.1. Each project may have its own set of water demand determinants
and the importance of a given factor may differ from one project to another. The major
determinants of water demand are briefly discussed below:

(i) Domestic Demand

(a) Population. Population (especially population growth) is a very
important factor in determining future demand. Population
growth may consist of natural growth or, in certain cases,
migration (e.g. from rural to urban areas). Small differences in
demographic trends have large effects on water consumption.
For example, all other factors remaining constant, an annual
population growth of 2 percent over a period of 20 years results
in an increase in consumption of approximately 50 percent;
whereas an annual growth of only 1.5 percent generates an
additional consumption of about 35 percent over the same
period.

(b) Access to and Costs of Alternative Sources. If water from other
sources of good quality is readily available, people will generally
be less interested to displace their current sources. For example,
in areas where shallow ground water of good quality is available
throughout the year and when households have their own
dugwells, people may be less inclined to apply for a connection
to a new piped system especially if the price of piped water is
higher than the unit cost of water from the alternative source.

(c) Availability and Quality of Service. If existing water supply companies
provide a fully satisfactory service to their customers, households


not yet connected will usually be more interested in connecting to
an expanded water supply system.

(ii) Nondomestic Demand

(a) Size and Type of Industry. Logically, size and the type of industry
will, to a large extent, determine the quantity of future
consumption of water.

(b) Industrial growth. Economic development and regional or urban
development may strongly influence future demand for water.

(c) Legal obligations. In certain countries or industrial areas, industries
must apply for a permit to make use of alternative sources (for
example, ground water) or are obligated to connect to piped
systems, if available.

27. The demand for water is often analyzed for relatively homogeneous
groups of users. In many cases, a distinction is made between domestic and
nondomestic users. Furthermore, demand from domestic users is often separately
analyzed for :

(i) users currently connected to the system (existing connections) and

(ii) those to be connected to the system under the proposed project (new
connections).


Table 3.1 Major Determinants of Water Demand
A. Domestic Demand
1. Number and size of households
2. Family income and income distribution
3. Costs of water presently used
4. Cost of future water used
5. Connection charges
6. Availability and quality of service
7. Cost and availability of water using devices
8. Availability of alternative water sources
9. Present water consumption
10. Legal requirements
11. Population density
12. Cultural influences
B. Commercial Demand
1. Sales or value added of non-subsistence commercial sector
2. Costs and volume of water presently used
3. Price of future water used
4. Connection charges
5. Costs of water using appliances
6. Quality and reliability of service
7. Working hours of various types of commercial establishments
C. Industrial Demand
1. Present and future costs of water
2. Type of industry and water use intensity
3. Relative price of alternative sources
4. Quality and reliability of supply
5. Costs of treatment and disposal of waste water
D. Agricultural Demand (for [non] piped water supply)
2. Availability of other sources
3. Quality and reliability of supply
4. Supply cost of alternative water systems
5. Number of cattle
E. Public Services Demand
2. Per capita revenue of local governments
3. Number and size of public schools, hospitals etc.


28. The factors which determine domestic demand may differ between the
urban and the rural sector. In the rural sector, special attention needs to be given to
such things as the availability of alternative water sources, the income and ability to pay
for or contribute to the project facilities and their management, the choice of technology
and the use of water for other purposes like agriculture (e.g. livestock or vegetable
growing) and, the ability to operate and maintain facilities. In the rural context, the
assessment of effective demand will have to be carried out in close consultation with the
local population, and attention needs to be given to issues such as community
participation and hygiene education.

29. The factors which determine demand will, to a large extent, define the
need for information. The project analyst will have to determine the key factors which
need to be considered into the analysis and design of the project.

3.3 The Use of Water Pricing to “Manage” Demand
30. In Section 3.2 the relation between the price of water and the quantity of
water was explained. This section deals with some applications of this concept.

3.3.1 Instruments of Demand Management
31. To understand how the quantity of water demanded can be influenced,
let us look again at the demand curve for water, as illustrated in Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4 Demand Management
3
Price/m
D1
D2
B
P2

P1 C A

O Q3 Q2 Q1 Quantity (m3)


32. Assume that present demand is Q1 at price P1. This refers to point A on
demand curve D1. To reduce demand, one can try to:

(i) reduce the quantity demanded by increasing the price of (excessive)
water use. This will result in a reduction of demand from, for example,
point A to B (movement along the same demand curve). At a higher
price (OP2), a smaller quantity of water (OQ2) is demanded. By
introducing financial incentives, consumers (domestic and nondomestic)
can be expected to reduce their water consumption. Often, the objectives
and reasons for such a policy will have to be thoroughly explained to the
users through public education programs. Examples of introducing
financial measures include:

(a) increasing the average water tariff;

(b) introducing progressive water tariff structures, aiming at
reduction of excessive water use;

(c) increasing tariffs for wastewater discharge: (industries will be
particularly sensitive to this measure);

(d) introducing ground water abstraction fees;

(e) fiscal incentives (e.g. for investments in water saving devices or
treatment plants);

(f) utilization of water markets: experience from water markets in the
United States and Gujarat, India indicates that water markets
create a framework which contributes to the efficient use of
water.
An example of application of pricing effects is given in Box 3.4.

Box 3.4 Increased Water Tariff in Bogor, Indonesia
In 1988, after increases in average water tariffs for domestic users (about 115 percent) and
nondomestic users (170 percent), the consumption of water per household dropped from an
average of about 38 m3 per household per month to an average of about 27 m3 per month.
This price increase was accompanied by an intensive public education program. This has
resulted in consumption being maintained below previous levels, notwithstanding the fact that
real water prices have since declined and incomes have continued to increase until mid-1997.

Source: IWACO-WASECO. 1989(October). Bogor Water Supply Project: The Impact of the Price Increase in June
1988 on the Demand for Water in Bogor.


Price increases may also have undesirable effects. In the case of a
significant increase in the price of water by a utility, consumers may,
whenever feasible, divert to other water sources. For example, in Jakarta,
excessive use of ground water causes land levels to go down. If, in this
situation water tariffs are significantly increased, many consumers would
again divert to ground water as a main source of water. A tariff increase
introduced by the utility would, therefore, have to be accompanied by
other measures to control the use of ground water, such as: (higher) fees
for the use of ground water to industries; taxes to domestic users of
ground water; and educational programs.

(ii) move the demand curve to the left, resulting in a reduction in the
quantity demanded from point A to point C. This means that at the same
price level (P1), the quantity of water demanded will be reduced from
OQ1 to OQ3. This can be achieved through:

(a) introduction of water saving devices;

(b) changing consumer behavior through educational programs;

(c) legal measures (e.g. regulating the use of ground water);

(d) industrial “water-audit” programs. This entails a review of the use
of water and waste water in industrial plants, with the purpose of
reducing the use of water.

(iii) save the use of water or avoid waste of water resources on the supply
side. Such measures could include:

(a) increase in efficiency at the utility level (reduction of production
losses, UFW); and

(b) institutional changes (merger of utilities may create economies of
scale).

In most cases, water demand management and conservation policies will consist
of a comprehensive set of measures to be carried out over a longer period of
time to achieve the desired results.


3.3.2 Cumulative Effects of Water Demand Management and
Conservation Programs
33. There is empirical evidence that domestic and nondomestic water
consumption can be reduced by at least 20 to 30 percent by adopting appropriate
demand management and conservation policies. Reduced water consumption will also
result in reduced volumes of polluted water and will, in general, have positive
environmental effects. Reductions in demand, in turn, will lead to substantial savings in
needed investments as shown in Box 3.5. Finally, the water saved can be used for higher
valued uses by other sectors in the economy.

Box 3.5 Demand Management and Investment Planning in Australia
In Melbourne, Australia, a combination of water demand management measures was used, such
as: water pricing reforms, water saving devices, public education, etc. As a result, Melbourne’s
1993 water demand projection (line 2) differs substantially from the 1981 trend (line 1). The shift
to the right of the water trend curve has delayed the need to invest in additional supplies by
about six years. The deferral in investment was valued at $25 million. This is illustrated in the
figure below.

million cubic meter per year
800

700

2
600
1
500

400

300

200
1981 Trend
100
Current Trend

0
1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025

Source: Bhatia, Ramesh; Rita Cestti and James Winpenny. Water Conservation and Reallocation: Best Practice
Cases in Improving Economic Efficiency and Environmental Quality. A World Bank-ODI Joint Study.


3.4 Data Collection

3.4.1 Cost Effectiveness of Data Collection
34. Data collection should be cost efficient and cost effective. The purpose
of data collection is to improve the accuracy of the estimates and predictions made in
designing and analyzing a WSP. It is therefore important to carefully consider which data
are needed and where and how to obtain them.

35. The collection of data will require resources in terms of time and money.
The benefit or value of additional data will gradually decrease. The project analyst will
have to decide at which point the benefits of the additional data will no longer justify the
cost made. At minimum, conducting a limited but representative household survey
should provide essential information which could save large sums of money in terms of
reduced investment.

3.4.2 Sources for Data Collection
36. Some methods of data collection, as they were used in the preparation of
the case studies on which this Handbook is partly based, are presented in Appendix A.
Section 1 of this appendix deals with:

(i) collection of secondary data from existing studies, water enterprises,
government agencies, etc.;

(ii) conducting reconnaissance surveys in the area to observe the actual field
situation; and

(iii) collection of primary data through field observations and household
surveys.

37. Household surveys normally provide:

(i) data about family size, occupation, income etc.;

(ii) data about the quantity, quality and costs related to the current water
supply (and sanitation) situation; and


(iii) data about the future use of water supply and sanitation: the preferences
of respondents with regard to the future level of service, type of facility
and what they are willing to pay for the preferred level of service.

3.4.3 Contingency Valuation Method
38. Using Contingency Valuation Method (CVM), the consumer is asked
how much he or she is willing to pay for the preferred level of service. The data can be
analyzed to provide the project analyst with an indication of the actual shape of the
demand curve for water, thus helping to estimate the price elasticity of demand which is
an important parameter in demand management. An example is given in Appendix A.

3.5 Demand Forecasting
39. Some of the initial steps in demand forecasting is defining the different
service levels and preparing a rough estimate of the price of supplying these service levels
in a specific village or town. Subsequently, water quantity demanded is estimated for the
different combinations of service level and price.

40. Estimating a demand curve for a new WSP is difficult in practice and will,
in most cases, require adequate resources and extensive field research. The Handbook
emphasizes the need to undertake a comprehensive analysis of water demand for without-
project and with-project situations for reasons explained earlier. Data on the factors which
determine the demand for water will provide the project analyst with a better
understanding of what is required and will enable him/her to formulate a better project.

3.5.1 Forecasting Urban Water Supply: the Case of Thai Nguyen

41. The techniques and methods used in water demand forecasting will be
explained in this section by making use of a case study. The case study describes the
steps in demand forecasting as it was carried out for Thai Nguyen, Viet Nam, one of the
case studies developed in preparing this Handbook. Some of the data have been slightly
adapted for illustration purposes.

42. The general process and specific considerations in forecasting water
demand are explained in the text. The application of these principles to demand


forecasting in Thai Nguyen is described in the boxes. The data needed to carry out the
demand analysis are presented in Table 3.2. A short description of Thai Nguyen is
presented in Box 3.6.

Box 3.6 Thai Nguyen Case Study: Description of the Project Area

Thai Nguyen is located 80 km to the north of Hanoi on the Cau River. At the end of 1995, the
population was 191,600 persons. The existing water supply system had 5,114 metered
connections, which provided approximately 24 percent of the population with water.

The economy of Thai Nguyen is based on state enterprises, mainly heavy industry. There are also
universities in the town. The main source of non-piped water supply is shallow groundwater,
obtained through open wells or with electric pumps. A very small part of the population uses
water from the river.

Source: RETA 5608 Case Study on the Provincial Towns Water Supply and Sanitation Project, Thai
Nguyen, Viet Nam

Step 1: Estimating present and future population

43. A starting point in demand forecasting is determining the size and future
growth of the population in the project area. This step is explained below, whereas the
application of this step in Thai Nguyen is given in Box 3.7.

(i) The first step is to estimate the size of the existing population. In most
cases, different estimates are available from different secondary sources.
Often, the survey team will have to make its own estimate based on the
different figures obtained.

(ii) The second step is to determine the service or project area (the area which
will be covered by the project) and the number of people living there. The
most important consideration in this respect is the expressed interest from
potential customers. Furthermore, the service area will have to be
determined in consultation with the project engineer, the municipal
authorities and/or the water enterprise. Technical, economic and political
considerations will play a role.

(iii) The third step is to estimate future population growth in the project area.
This estimate will be based on available data about national, provincial or
local population growth. It should also take into account the effects of
urban and/or regional development plans and the effects of migration
from rural to urban areas.


Box 3.7 Thai Nguyen Case Study: Assumptions Used, Ability to Pay and Willingness to Pay
Assumptions:
In the case of Thai Nguyen, these figures and assumptions have been applied (Table 3.2, lines 1-10):
(i) The annual population growth for Thai Nguyen has been estimated at 3% up to the year
1999 and 2.5% after that (line 1). These figures are lower compared to other Vietnamese
towns because of its location in the mountainous northern part of Viet Nam; this percentage
is applied to the population figures (line 2).
(ii) At present, the service area in Thai Nguyen covers only part of the town area with a 1995
population of 140,442 (line 4). The service area will remain the same in the new project. The
population in the service area is assumed to grow faster compared to the general population
growth because of better infrastructure facilities (line 3). The major expansion in the number
of connections is assumed to take place between 1996 and 2000, then gradually after that,until
75% coverage is achieved (line 5).
(iii) One of the targets of the project was to achieve 75% coverage in the year 2020 (line 10).
This figure was checked with the findings of a household survey, as follows:
First, 93% of the population expressed an interest in connecting to the system by means of a house
connection. Interest for other service levels ( public tap) was very low.
Second, willingness to pay for water in Thai Nguyen amounted to an average of VND3,005 per m3
(VND2,317 per m3 for connected households and VND3,119 per m3 for non-connected households).
WTP for connected households is lower than WTP for non-connected households. This might be
explained by the fact that connected households are most likely influenced by the current average water
tariff of VND900 per month. It can be assumed that willingness to pay will increase when income and
service levels increase. For these reasons, it was concluded that the set target of 75% coverage was
realistic.
Third, with regard to ability to pay for water, a so-called “affordability tariff” was calculated. The
affordability tariff indicates the average tariff at which a certain percentage of the population can afford to
use a minimum amount of water and not spend more than a given percentage of his/her income. An
example of this calculation is given below:
Items Unit 1996 2000
Average Monthly Income VND‘000 1,052 1,184
Lowest Income at 75% Coverage VND‘000 600 675
Min. expenditure on water (5% of income) VND‘000 30 33.8
Minimum consumption Lcd 60 60
Average HH size persons 4.26 4.26
Average monthly consumption m3 7.78 7.78
Affordability tariff VND/m3 3,856 4,344
Estimated costs of water VND/m3 4,000 4,000

In Thai Nguyen, average monthly income in 1996 was VND1,052,000. 75%of the population had an
income higher than VND600.000. Taking 5% as an indicator of the maximum ability to pay, this means a
maximum amount of VND30,000 per month. Assuming a minimum consumption of 60 lcd and an
average household size of 4.26 results in a minimum required monthly consumption of 7.78 m3 per
month. The affordability tariff is calculated as VND30,000/ 7.78 m3 = VND3,856/m3.
This indicates that in the year 1996, 75% of the population can afford to pay an average tariff of
VND3,856 per m3 (based on a minimum consumption of 60 lcd) and not spend more than 5% of
his/her income. Comparing the affordability tariff with the estimated average costs of water to be
provided by the project, indicated that the target of 75% was realistic.
Nguyen, Viet Nam


(iv) Finally the project has to determine which level of coverage it intends to
achieve. Often, project objectives contain statements such as:

“provide safe water supply to 75 percent of the population of town x”.

In this statement, it is assumed that the town area and service or project
area are the same.

44. It is strongly recommended that such statements are verified in the field
by asking potential customers:

(i) whether or not they are willing to connect to a new or expanded
water supply system;

(ii) which service level they prefer;

(iii) whether or not they are willing and able to pay for the related costs; and

(iv) how much they are willing to pay.

Step 2: Estimating the number of persons to be connected

45. The number of persons making use of one connection needs to be
determined.

(i) One figure which is often available is the average size of the household.
This figure may, however, differ from the number of persons making use
of one connection. Other persons may live in or near the house, making
use of the same connection. Sometimes this information is available from
the water enterprise; otherwise, it should be checked in the survey. An
assumption will have to be made whether or not this number will remain
the same over the project period. With increasing coverage in the service
area and decreasing family size over the years, it may be assumed that the
number of persons making use of one connection will gradually decrease.

(ii) Depending on the coverage figures assumed in step 1(iv) and the data
found under step 2(i), the annual increase in the population served and
the annual increase in the number of connection can be calculated.


Box 3.8 Thai Nguyen Case Study: Number of Persons per Connection

In Thai Nguyen, the number of connections in 1995 was 5,114 ( Table 3.2, line 6). The
average household size was 4.26. In the household survey it was found that the average
number of persons making use of one connection is 6.5. In many cases, private connections
were in fact used as a kind of yard connection. It was assumed that with the increasing
number of connections in town, the number of persons making use of one connection would
gradually decrease from 6.5 in 1995 to the level of 4.26 in year 2010 (line 8). By multiplying
the end of year number of connections by the number of persons per connection and
comparing this to the total population in the service area, the end of year coverage in the
service area is calculated (line 9 and 10).

Source: RETA 5608 Case Study on the Provincial Towns Water Supply & Sanitation,Thai Nguyen, Viet
Nam

Step 3: Estimating water consumption from the piped system1 before-project

46. The starting point for estimating demand for water in the with-project
situation is to estimate demand or consumption before-project. In piped water supply
systems with working watermeters, estimating existing consumption is straightforward.
In some cases, consumption before the project will provide a reasonable indicator of
demand for water at a certain price level. In cases where the current system capacity is
insufficient, consumption may be lower than actual demand. In those cases, data from
other utilities may provide indications of normal consumption patterns.

47. In the case of piped water supply systems without installed watermeters,
it is often difficult to estimate water consumption before-project. In general,
households do not have a clear idea of how much water they consume per day;
therefore, directly asking these households does not provide reliable answers. In the case
studies, the following methods were suggested to address this problem:

(i) measuring the volume of water storage facilities available in the house
and estimating how much of the storage capacity is used on a day-to-day
basis;

(ii) carrying out a small in-depth survey among a selected number of users;

(iii) installation of temporary water meters at a selected number of
connections, including consideration of seasonal variations;
1 Existing consumption from nonconnected households will be estimated later as part of step nine
(estimating incremental and nonincremental demand). Refer to Box 3.16.


(iv) estimating the number of buckets of water which are carried/hauled by a
household on a day-to-day basis from each supply source, and

(v) if data on total production and/or distribution of water are available, an
estimate can be made about consumption per household, after deducting
the estimated UFW.

Step 4: Estimating Demand for Water Without-Project

48. The without-project situation is not necessarily the same as the before-
project situation

(i) The water company may be under pressure to connect additional
customers to the system even though the system capacity is not
sufficient. This, in turn, may reduce average consumption per capita and
service levels and people would have to start looking for alternative
sources. In case the project includes a rehabilitation component, it is
reasonable to assume that the current level of water service will gradually
deteriorate in the without-project scenario.

The application of steps 3 and 4 in Thai Nguyen is given in Box 3.9.

Box 3.9 Thai Nguyen : Demand before-project and without-project

In the case of Thai Nguyen, existing consumption was found to be 103 lcd. Because the water
pressure was considered sufficient by the large majority of customers and an average supply of
about 23 hours per day could be maintained throughout the year, it was therefore assumed that
the consumption before-project of 103 lcd equals demand at the current price level.

Furthermore, because the project basically aims at an expansion of supply to achieve a higher
coverage, it has been assumed that demand without-project will remain equal to demand “just
before the project”.

Nguyen, Viet Nam

Step 5: Estimating Demand for Water With-Project

49. Future demand for water at the household level will depend on a number
of factors. The most important factors are changes in service level, water tariffs and
income. When extrapolating demand to cover new supply areas, other factors such as


differences in income, housing, alternative sources, etc. will have to be taken into
account.

(i) Service Level. Improvements in service level include for example:

(a) increased number of supply hours;

(b) improved water quality;

(c) higher water pressure;

(d) a shift from public tap to piped house connection; and

(e) a shift from own facilities to a connection to a piped system.

In general, it is difficult to assess the effect of these physical improvements
on individual water consumption. Households will, in most cases, not be
able to provide accurate estimates. In case the project will result in
considerable improvements in existing supply conditions, the best source
of information is data from other water enterprises that supply water in
comparable conditions.

In case the present water supply system functions satisfactorily and
demand is not constrained, existing consumption data may be taken as the
basis for future water demand estimates.

(ii) Water Tariffs. An increase in water charges will generally result in a
decrease in the demand for water. In case the household remains on the
same demand curve, the extent of the decrease will be determined, among
others, by the numerical value of the price elasticity of the demand for
water . Difficulties in estimating the price elasticity include:

(a) new WSPs often generate a better level of service and may,
therefore, cause a shift from one demand curve to a new demand
curve as another product is offered. In this case, price elasticities
pertaining to the old demand curve could only be used as a proxy
for the true price elasticity which is very difficult to determine.

(b) a situation of constrained supply exists and therefore, existing
demand is not known;


(c) it is very difficult to estimate how much individual households will
reduce water consumption when prices are increased because
individual households will have great difficulty in providing reliable
estimates.

If available, data on earlier price increases and subsequent reduction in
water consumption can be examined. If such data are not available, it is
recommended to use conservative estimates based on experiences
described in the literature.

An indication of changes in demand as a result of price increases can also
be obtained from willingness-to-pay surveys. An example is provided in
Box 3.10. However, it should be noticed that the percentage of households
is only a rough proxy for the true dependent variable which is the quantity
of water consumed expressed in m3.


Box 3.10 Thai Nguyen: Relation between WTP and Number of Households

In Thai Nguyen, the willingness-to-pay survey for already connected households provided the results as
given in the Table below. The 1996 tariff is VND900/m3 and therefore, all households are apparently
willing to pay that amount. Subsequently, 83 percent of households is willing to pay a tariff of
VND1,500/m3, 61 percent is willing to pay VND2,000/m3, etc. These figures can be depicted in a graph
shown in the Box. The line connecting the dots could be considered as a “surrogate demand curve”.

Percentage
of
Households WTP/m3
WTP (VND/m3) (Cumulative) 6000
5,500 0
5000
5,000 2
4,500 2 4000
4,000 4 3000 3
3,500 11 WTP/m
3,000 26 2000
2,500 37 1000
2,000 61
1,500 83 0
1,000 96 0 20 40 60 80 100
900 100 Percentage of Households (Cumulative)

Assume that in this case, the new tariff has been fixed at VND1,500/m3. An indication of the relative
change in the number of HH (q) to relative changes in tariff (p) for these values is as follows:

(q2-q1)/q1 = (83-100)/100 = - 0.26
(p2-p1)/p1 (1,500-900/900)

Assuming a constant average consumption per HH, this figure provides an indication of the value of the
point price elasticity for connected households.

(iii) Income Levels. In most cases, it is expected that the real income level of
households will increase over the lifetime of a WSP, which is normally 20
to 30 years. When real income increases, the demand for water is also
expected to increase, depending on the value of income elasticity. A
generally accepted level of income elasticity is between 0.4 and 0.5. An
application of the issues raised above for Thai Nguyen is presented in Box
3.11.


Box 3.11 Thai Nguyen Case Study: Estimating Future Demand

In Thai Nguyen, the following assumptions were made to estimate future demand:

• Existing per capita consumption equals existing demand: Q = 103 lcd (Table 3.2, line 12);
• The proposed tariff for the year 2010 is VND2,000/m3 and for the year 2020, it is
VND2,500/m3. This results in required annual real price increases (dP/P) of 5.87 percent
during the period 1997-2010 and 2.26 percent in the period 2011-2020 (line 38).
• A price elasticity was estimated at – 0.3 (line 37);
• increases in real income of 4 percent per annum (based on national forecasts) (line 42);
• an income elasticity of + 0.50 was assumed based on literature (line 41).

A sample calculation of the above estimate for the first year (1997) is given below:

Price Elasticity = [dQ/Q] / [dP/P];
dP/P = + 5.87%.
Therefore, - 0.3 = dQ/Q/ 0.0587; or:
dQ /Q = - 0.01761 = - 1.76% (when prices increase with 5.87 percent, demand for water will
decrease with 1.76 percent: line 40). The decreased demand for water indicates the price effects.

Income Elasticity = dQ/Q / dI/I;
dI/I = + 4%.
Therefore, 0.5 = dQ/Q/0.04, or:
dQ/Q = 0.02 = 2 % (an increase in income of 4 percent will result in an increase in water
demand with 2 percent, line 43). This increased water demand represents the income effects.

The combined effect of changes in price and income on quantity demanded shows a net result
of: 2% - 1.76 % = 0.24% (see line 44 and line 11).
The positive effect of the income increase is slightly larger than the negative effect of the price
increase. Per capita consumption in this case will increase from 1996 to 1997 by 103 x 0.0024 =
0.24 liter.

Nguyen, Viet Nam.

Step 6: Calculating Total Domestic Demand With-Project

50. Based on the projections for population and per capita water
consumption, the domestic demand for water can be calculated by multiplying the
number of persons served with the daily consumption as shown in Box 3.12.


Box 3.12 Thai Nguyen Total Domestic Demand

The total domestic demand for Thai Nguyen for the year 1995 is calculated as follows:

Basic calculations for estimating Total Domestic Demanda
Table3.2 Item Unit Value Explanation
Line no.
9 Persons served No. 33,241
12 Per capita consumption Lcd 103
13 Total Consumption per day m3/day 3,424 (33,241 x 103)/1000
14 Total Consumption per year ‘000 m3/year 1,250 (3,424 x 365)/1000
15 Household consumption m3/month 20.4 1,250,000/ (12 x 5,114)

a/ - Calculations may slightly differ due to rounding off of original figures.

Step 7: Nondomestic consumers

51. In general, future demand for water from the nondomestic sector is
difficult to estimate. Future demand will depend, among others, on the price of water,
reliability of supply, type and size of industries, regional and urban development plans,
legal requirements, etc.

52. In the short run, the nondomestic sector is less likely to quickly
increase/decrease the use of water as a result of changes in prices, meaning that
nondomestic demand for water is more inelastic than domestic water demand. Reasons for
this include:

(i) the users of water are often not the persons who have to pay for it (for
example, in offices, hotels);

(ii) for industries, the costs of water are, in general, very small as compared to
other production costs; and,

(iii) any increase in the price of water is likely to be incorporated in the cost-
price of the product produced and be charged to the consumer.

53. In the medium to long run, however, large nondomestic consumers will
often compare the costs of water from other sources with the costs of water from the
piped system. If they can obtain cheaper water from other sources, they may not be willing
to connect to the piped system, unless there is a legal obligation.


54. In some cases, the government may wish to encourage industries to apply
water saving technologies and the application of such technologies will be encouraged by
higher water tariffs such as discussed in Box 3.13.

Box 3.13 Example of Estimating Industrial Consumption

When projecting industrial demand for three cities in China, industrial water consumption
was expected to grow at a rate of 8.7 percent per annum, based on expected industrial
growth rates for the next ten years. At the same time, a survey conducted by the municipal
authorities revealed that water consumption of industries in the cities was two to five times
higher than water use in comparable industries in many other countries. In an effort to
conserve water, the cities now require industries to improve water consumption efficiency
by imposing penalties for excessive use. At the same time, water allocations to new
industries are now based on prudent water use for the concerned industrial sector. Based on
these new policies and their strict enforcement, it is expected that water consumption levels
will be reduced to about 70 percent of existing levels. This would result in an industrial water
consumption growth of 4.7 percent per annum, compared with the initially much higher
growth rate of 8.7 percent.

Source: WB-SAR. 1991. Liaoning Urban Infrastructure Project. China.

55. Depending on available information about existing nondomestic
consumption, estimates of economic and industrial growth, regional and urban
development plans, employment figures, (expected) legislation, the application of water
saving technologies, etc., approaches in estimating nondomestic water demand include:

(i) the application of past growth rates for nondomestic water consumption;

(ii) the application of population growth rates to existing water consumption
of, for instance, government institutions;

(iii) the application of industrial- or economic growth rates to existing
nondomestic consumption;

(iv) estimate nondomestic consumption as a (changing) percentage of
estimated domestic consumption; and

(v) estimate the effects of water conservation technologies on nondomestic
consumption;

The estimates for nondomestic consumption in Thai Nguyen are given in Table
3.2 and illustrated in Box 3.14.


Box 3.14 Example of Estimating Nondomestic Consumption

In Thai Nguyen, a small survey was conducted among nondomestic users. It appeared that
enterprises were willing to pay up to VND3,500/m3. At higher tariffs, however, they would start
developing alternative water sources.

Based on secondary data analysis, the following assumptions were developed:

• government/social sector at 2.5 percent per year based on forecasts for population growth
(Table 3.2, line 16)
• commercial sector growth at 3.0 percent per year (line 21);
• industrial sector growth at 4 percent per year, based on forecasted industrial growth (line 26);

The calculations are presented in Table 3.2 lines 16 - 29. Calculations for the different sectors are
basically the same. The number of connections is first multiplied with the annual growth figure
for the sector. This figure is then multiplied by the average consumption per connection per day
and subsequently with 365 to find the annual figures.

Example: Commercial consumption in 1996 amounts to 20 x 1.03 x 5,147 x 365/1000 = 38,700
m3/year (figures in Table 3.2 may slightly differ due to rounding).

Nguyen, Viet Nam

Step 8: Application of Technical Parameters

56. After having added domestic and nondomestic demand (see lines 31/32 in
Table 3.2), certain technical parameters need to be incorporated in order to determine the
total demand for water.

Unaccounted for Water

57. Normally a certain percentage of the water supplied to consumers is lost
due to technical losses (physical leakages) and/or nontechnical losses (unmetered
consumption, illegal connections). This so-called Unaccounted For Water (UFW) is
normally expressed as a percentage of the volume of distributed water. In 1995, the
average percentage of UFW in 50 Asian cities was 35 percent of water distributed (Water
Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region, 1997). This high level of UFW illustrates
the inefficient use of existing water resources and is of great concern to the management
of water utilities. A reduction of the UFW rate is therefore normally a specific objective in
the formulation of new WSPs.


58. It will be necessary to include a realistic estimate of UFW in a demand
estimate for a WSP. This percentage will naturally relate to the existing UFW rate and
should be based on realistic targets for UFW reduction.

59. It is also necessary to estimate the proportion of technical and
nontechnical losses in UFW because, in economic analysis, nontechnical losses (which add
to the welfare of the population served) are included in the assessment of economic
benefits. This assessment is often difficult and the project analyst will have to make a
reasonable estimate in consultation with water enterprise staff. The percentage reduction
in UFW should be set realistically in consultation with the project engineers (for technical
losses) and utility managers (for nontechnical losses). A reduction in UFW will normally
require a sizable portion of the project investment cost.

Peak Factor

60. The demand for water will very seldom be a constant flow. Demand for
water may vary from one season to another and throughout the day. Daily demand will
show variations and there will be peak hours during the day, depending on local
conditions. These seasonal and daily peak factors will influence the size of the total
installed capacity. These are technical parameters and will be determined by project
engineers.

61. The demand for water is seldom constant. Rather it varies, albeit
seasonally, daily and/or based on other predictable demand characteristics. At different
times of the year the demand for water may be higher than others due to factors such as
heat which may increase the demand for water for hygiene, drinking and other purposes.
At different times of the day the demand for water may be higher than others, based on
people’s and industries needs and patterns of consumption. At other periods, the stock
and flow requirements of the system may be impacted by other predictable events, such
as an industrial activity. These seasonal, daily and other predictable demand factors are
known as peak factors.

62. In determining the total installed capacity of a planned project, the
technical staff needs to consider both these peak demand factors and the projected
growth in demand. Failure to do so could result in the project becoming supply
constrained and unable to fully meet the demand requirements of its targeted
beneficiaries from its outset.

63. Data about daily and seasonal water consumption patterns will normally be
available from secondary data or may be collected in the household survey. The
application of technical parameters in Thai Nguyen is given in Box 3.15.


Box 3.15 Application of Technical Parameters

In the case of Thai Nguyen, the objective was to reduce UFW from its existing level of 39
percent in year 1995 to 25 percent in year 2015 (Table 3.2, line 33). The Peak Factor has
been estimated at 1.1.

The calculation, for example, in the year 1996 is as follows:
‘000 m3/year
Water Demand (domestic + nondomestic; line 32) = 2,665
UFW = (2,665,000/(1-0.38)) x 0.38 (line 34) = 1,633
Peak factor 10% x (2,665,000+1,633,000) = 430
Total Production Capacity required (line 36) = 4,728

(Please note that the figures resulting from the above calculations slightly differ from the figures in Table 3.2,
due to rounding off.)

HANDBOOK FOR THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER SUPPLY

Table 3.2 Demand Forecast and Required Production Capacity
Financial Analysis Stages 1& 2 Unit 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
1. POPULATION
1 Population Growth % 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%
2 Total Population Thai Nguyen Number 191,615 197,363 203,284 209,383 215,664 221,056 250,105 282,970 320,155 362,226
3 Growth (in service area) % 3.0% 3.0% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
4 Total Population in Service Area Number 140,442 144,655 151,165 157,967 165,076 170,028 197,109 228,503 264,898 307,089
5 Increase in No of Connections % 100.00 10% 37% 37% 37% 37% 7% 7% 3% 3%
6 No of Connections (end of year) Number %
5,114 5,625 7,683 10,494 14,332 19,574 27,495 38,620 45,695 54,065
7 Increase Person/Connection % 0.0% -2.8% -2.8% -2.8% -2.8% -2.8% -2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
8 Person per Water Connection Number 6.5 6.3 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.6 4.9 4.26 4.26 4.26
9 Population Served Number 33,241 35,549 47,204 62,681 83,231 110,518 134,843 164,522 194,659 230,317
10 Coverage % 24% 25% 31% 40% 50% 65% 68% 72% 73% 75%
2. DEMAND
A. HOUSEHOLDS
11 Increase per capita consumption % -46% 0.22% 0.24% 0.24% 0.24% 0.24% 0.24% 0.24% 1.32% 1.32%
12 Per capita consumption l/con/d 103 103 103 104 104 104 105 107 114 122
13 Total consumption/day m³/d 3,424 3,670 4,884 6,501 8,653 11,518 14,222 17,561 22,189 28,036
14 Total consumption 000m³/yr 1,250 1,339 1,783 2,373 3,158 4,204 5,191 6,410 8,099 10,233
15 Total Consumption m³/mo/ 20.4 19.8 19.3 18.8 18.4 17.9 15.7 13.8 14.8 15.8
conn
B. GOVERNMENT
16 Increase in No of Connections % 2% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%
17 No of Connections (end of year) Number 221 227 232 238 244 250 283 320 362 410
18 Consumption l/con/d 8,895 8,984 8,826 8,670 8,518 8,368 7,656 7,006 6,772 6,546
20 Total Consumption 000m³/yr 718 745 748 753 758 766 791 818 895 982
C. COMMERCIAL
21 Increase in No of Connections % -83% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
24 Total consumption m³/d 102 107 108 109 110 112 119 126 141 158
25 Total 000m³/yr 37 39 39 40 40 41 43 46 51 58
D. INDUSTRIAL
26 Increase in No of Connections % 4% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%


28 Consumption l/con/d 82,848 83,676 82,203 80,756 79,334 77,937 71,313 65,251 63,072 60,966
29 Total consumption m³/d 1,408 1,479 1,511 1,544 1,578 1,612 1,795 1,998 2,349 2,763
30 Total 000m³/yr 514 541 552 564 576 590 655 729 858 1,011
TOTAL DEMAND
31 No of Connections (end of year) Number 5,372 5,890 7,955 10,772 14,618 19,868 27,830 39,002 46,130 54,562
32 Total Water Demand 000m³/yr 2,519 2,665 3,122 3,730 4,533 5,601 6,680 8,003 9,903 12,284
3. PRODUCTION
33 UFW (%) % 39% 38% 38% 37% 36% 33% 30% 27% 25% 25%
34 UFW 000m³/yr 1,626 1,666 1,890 2,185 2,569 2,759 2,863 2,960 3,301 4,095
35 Peak factor (10%) 000m³/yr 414 433 501 591 710 836 954 1,096 1,320 1,638
36 Required Production('000m³/Year) 000m³/yr 4,559 4,764 5,513 6,506 7,813 9,195 10,497 12,059 14,524 18,016
PER CAPITA DEMAND 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
(HOUSEHOLDS)
37 Price Elasticity -0.300 -0.300 -0.300 -0.300 -0.300 -0.300 -0.300 -0.300 -0.300
38 Price Increase 5.87% 5.87% 5.87% 5.87% 5.87% 5.87% 2.26% 2.26%
39 Tariff 900 953 1,009 1,068 1,131 1,504 2,000 2,236 2,500
40 Price Effect 0 0 -1.76% -1.76% -1.76% -1.76% -1.76% -1.76% -0.68% -0.68%
41 Income Elasticity 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500
42 Income Increase 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%
43 Income Effect 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%
44 Combined Effect (Increase lcd) 0.24% 0.24% 0.24% 0.24% 0.24% 0.24% 1.32% 1.32%
45 Liters/Capita/Day 103 103 104 104 104 105 107 114 122
No - number; l/con/d - liters per connection per day; m³/d - cubic meter per day; '000m³/yr - thousand cubic meter per year; m³/mo/conn -
cubic meter per month per connection


Step 9: Calculating Incremental and Nonincremental Demand

64. In demand forecasting, it is necessary to prepare separate estimates for
incremental and nonincremental demand with-project. When estimating the project’s
economic benefits, both categories of demand are valued in different ways as will be
further explained in Chapter 6. Because the average volume of nonincremental water
generally differs between connected and nonconnected users, and because other variables
such as income and price may also differ, it is useful to do a separate analysis for these
two groups of users.

(i) Users already connected to a piped system. The calculation of
nonincremental demand is best explained by a simple example as shown
in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Nonincremental Water from connected users ( in lcd)
Without With Incremental Non Incremental
Project Project Piped Water Incremental demand for
Supplied demand piped piped water
water
Average water use from 75 100 25
piped system
Average water used from 15 0 15
other sources
Average total Water Used 90 100 10

Before-project and without-project, already connected households use,
on average, 90 lcd (75 lcd from the piped system and 15 lcd from other
sources such as vendors or wells). With-project, production capacity will
be increased, and the already connected users are expected to increase
their consumption to 100 lcd. The additional supply of piped water in
this case is an average of 25 lcd, consisting of 15 lcd which displaces
water from other sources (nonincremental demand) and 10 lcd of
incremental consumption.

There is also a need to consider the question whether or not the current
demand figures with-project and without-project will change over time.
Estimates of future water consumption with-project have been made in
Box 3.11. In the without-project situation, current consumption figures
may change over time as a result in changes in income, prices or changes


in service levels. The project analyst will have to develop reasonable
assumptions about taking these factors into account.

(ii) Users not yet connected to a piped system. Again, two questions need
to be answered. The first question is: what will be the nonincremental use
of water in the with-project situation? An example is given in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4 Average Nonincremental Water of nonconnected users (in lcd)
Without With Additional Nonincremental Incremental
Project Project Piped Water piped water piped water
Supplied demand demand
Average water use from 0 100 100
piped system
Average water used from 65 0 65
other sources
Average total Water Used 65 100 35

In this example, the average user will:

(i) displace all the water currently used from other sources (non incremental
demand = 65 lcd); and

(ii) increase consumption from 65 lcd to 100 lcd (incremental demand = 35
lcd). The additional supply of piped water will be 100 lcd on average.

The second question is: whether or not these figures will change over
time. Box 3.16 provides an example which explains how the quantity of
nonincremental water can be determined. A summary of step 9 is
presented in Table 3.5 showing incremental demand for both connected
and nonconnected households as well as nonincremental demand for
water.

The above is applied to the case of Thai Nguyen in Box 3.16.


Box 3.16 Determination of Incremental and Nonincremental Water
In Thai Nguyen the existing supply capacity of about 10,000 m3 per day is fully used. Increases
in demand can only be met if the UFW is reduced, but this will require considerable investments.
Domestic demand:
Demand from presently connected households before-project is, on average, 103 lcd; and
because the system is operating at full capacity, it is assumed that this figure will remain the same
without-project. The household survey showed that the use of other sources by households, which are
currently connected to the system, is negligible. It is assumed that this figure also will not change in the
future. Furthermore, with-project, the average water use from the piped system will gradually increase
(see Table 3.2, line 12). Therefore, the increased consumption of presently connected households can be
considered as incremental water demand. The calculation for 1998 is as follows:
With the Project: (lines refer to table 3.5)
1998 Demand without the project 103 lcd (line 8)
1998 Demand with the project 104 lcd (line 9)
1995-98 Increase in per capita consumption:
(1.0022 x 1.0024 x 1.0024 = 1.007 =) 0.70 % (line 2)
1998 Demand without the project: 1,250,000 m3/year (line 1)
1998 Demand with the project: 1,258,750 m3/year (line 3)
1998 Incremental Demand 8,750 m3/year (line 4)
The average water use of non-connected households in Thai Nguyen before the project was
estimated at 564 liters per day. With an average number of 5.5 persons per house, this means an average
use of about 102 lcd (which is very close to the average consumption of users of the piped system). It
is assumed that in without-project situation, this figure will not change in future. Furthermore, it is
assumed that the average use of these households with-project and when they will be connected will
increase in a similar way as the presently connected households.1/ The increase in average consumption
is considered as Incremental demand. Nonconnected households which will obtain a new connection
are assumed to displace all their present sources with water from the piped system. Therefore, this is
considered as nonincremental demand.
The calculation is as follows:
Line 6 1998 number of connections 10494
5 1995 number of connections 5114
Incremental number of connections 5380
7 1998 persons per connection 5.97
9 1998 average water use 103.7 lcd
8 1995 average water use 103 lcd
10 1998 Incremental demand 8,206 m3/ year
(= 5380 x 5.97 x (103.7-103) x 365/1000)
- 1998 additional supply 1,215,705 m3/year
nonconnected HH (= 5380 x 5.97 x 103.7 x 365/1000)
- 1998 nonincremental demand 1,207,499 m3/year
nonconnected HH (= 1,215,705 - 8,206)
(Please note that the figures resulting from the above calculations slightly differ from the figures in Table
3.5, due to rounding off).

1/ It should be noticed, however, that this simplifying assumption may not hold in practice. As a result
of the lower water price (with the project), the average water consumption of previously nonconnected
households may actually increase more than the average water use of connected households. If empirical
evidence is available, this should then be taken into account in the demand forecast.


Non Domestic Demand:
Without any further data available, it has been assumed that existing nondomestic consumers
will continue to consume the same average volume of water with-project and without-project. Therefore,
all additional nondomestic demand will come from industries not presently connected to the system
which will fully displace existing sources. Therefore, all nondomestic water can be considered as
nonincremental.
From the above it can be seen that except for the incremental demands from existing and
future connections, all other demand can be considered nonincremental. It has been assumed that
without-project demand from existing users will remain constant at 2,519,000 m3 per year (Table
3.5,line 11) . The calculations for (non) incremental demand for the year 1998 are as follows:

1998 Total Demand without the project 2,519,000 m3/year (line 11)
1998 Total Demand with the project 3,730,000 m3/year (line 12)
(refer to Table 3.2, line 32)
1998 Supply by the Project: 1,211,000 m3/year (line 13)
1998 Incr. demand connected HH 8,750 m3/year (line 14)
1998 Incr. demand non-conn. HH 8,447 m3/year (line 15)
1998 Nonincremental demand 1,193,803 m3/year (line 16)

As can be seen in the case of Thai Nguyen, the incremental water demand with-project is
rather small, which is caused by the fact that the current use of water from other sources by non-
connected households is relatively high and therefore, these households will only marginally increase
their water consumption.

Table 3.5 Calculation of Nonincremental Demand
Unit 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Connected Households
1 Current conn HH consumption ‘000m³/yr 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250
1,250
2 Increase per capita consumption % 0.22% 0.24% 0.24% 0.24% 0.24% 0.24% 0.24% 1.32% 1.32%
3 Future conn HH consumption ‘000m³/yr 1,250 1,252 1,255 1,258 1,261 1,264 1,280 1,295 1,383 1,477
4 Incremental Demand ConnHH ‘000m³/yr 0 2 5 8 11 14 30 45 133 227
Nonconnected Households
5 Current no. of connections 5,114 5,114 5,114 5,114 5,114 5,114 5,114 5,114 5,114 5,114
6 Future no. of connections 5,114 5,625 7,683 10,494 14,332 19,574 27,495 38,620 45,695 54,065
7 No. of persons per connection 6.50 6.32 6.14 5.97 5.81 5.65 4.90 4.26 4.26 4.26
8 Current Avg. water use lcd 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103
9 Future Avg. Water use lcd 103 103 103 104 104 104 105 107 114 122
10 Incr demand 0 0 3 8 19 36 99 195 693 1,426
Connected+Nonconn HH
11 Total Existing Demand ‘000m³/yr 2,519 2,519 2,519 2,519 2,519 2,519 2,519 2,519 2,519 2,519
12 Total Future Demand ‘000m³/yr 2,519 2,665 3,122 3,730 4,533 5,601 6,680 8,003 9,903 12,284
13 Additional Supply by Project ‘000m³/yr 0 146 603 1,211 2,014 3,082 4,161 5,484 7,384 9,765
14 Incr Demand Conn HH ‘000m³/yr 0 2 5 8 11 14 30 45 133 227
15 Incr Demand Nonconn HH ‘000m³/yr 0 0 3 8 19 36 99 195 693 1,426
16 Nonincr Demand 0 143 595 1,194 1,984 3,031 4,033 5,245 6,558
8,113

CHAPTER 4

LEAST-COST ANALYSIS


CONTENTS

4.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................82
4.2 Identifying Feasible Options .....................................................................................................83
4.2.1 Technological Measures and Options ……………………………………….83
4.2.2 Policy Measures and Options.....................................................................................84
4.3 Identification and Valuation of Costs for Feasible Options................................................87
4.3.1 Identification of Cost Elements.................................................................................87
4.3.1.1 Capital Costs ...................................................................................................87
4.3.1.2 Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs................................................89
4.3.2 Non-Market Cost Items ..............................................................................................90
4.3.2.1 Opportunity Cost of Water ..........................................................................90
4.3.2.2 Depletion Premium for the Withdrawal
of Ground water............................................................................................91
4.3.2.3 Household Cost Associated with a Technological Option
(Tubewell with Hand Pump).......................................................................93
4.4 Conversion Factors for Costing of Options in Economic Prices.......................................95
4.5 Methodologies for Carrying Out Least-Cost Analyses .........................................................97
4.5.1 Alternatives Delivering the Same Output: Overview of Methods.......................98
4.5.2 Lowest AIEC Approach..............................................................................................98
4.5.3 Lowest PVEC Approach.............................................................................................99
4.5.4 Equalizing Discount Rate (EDR) Approach ...........................................................99
4.5.5 Comparative Advantages and Disadvantages of the Three Approaches..........100
4.6 Outputs from the alternatives are not the same...................................................................101
4.6.1 Normalization Procedure..........................................................................................101
Annex
4.A Opportunity Cost of Water Calculation: Case Study………………………………...102
4.B Data for the Illustrated Case of a Viet Nam Town WSP............................................. .…107

CHAPTER 4: LEAST-COST ANALYSIS 81

Boxes
Box 4.1 Technological Options in Rural Areas…………………………………………….. 83
Box 4.2 Technological Options in Urban Areas……………………………………………. 84
Box 4.3 Identifying Feasible Project Options in a Rural Setting……………………………. 84
Box 4.4 Identifying Project Options in an Urban Setting:
Case 1 (Unaccounted-for-Water)…………………………………………………... 85
Box 4.5 Identifying Project Options in an Urban Setting:
Case 2 (Metering and Leakage control)……………………………………………. 86
Box 4.6 Demand Management through Pricing……………………………………………. 86
Box 4.7 Normalizing Procedure…………………………………………………………… 101

Tables
Table 4.1 Capital Cost Items for a Ground Water Pumping Scheme………………….. 88
Table 4.2 Capital Cost Items for a Surface Water Scheme…………………………….. 89
Table 4.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs for Two Alternatives……………………. 90
Table 4.4 Calculating the Opportunity Cost of Water for Alternative 2
(Surface Water)………………………………………………………………... 91
Table 4.5 Depletion Premium for Replacing Ground Water with Surface Water
(Alternative 1)………………………………………………………………. 93
Table 4.6 Calculation of Composite Conversion Factor for Alternative 1……………... 96
Table 4.7 Calculation of Composite Conversion Factor for Alternative 2……………... 97
Table 4.A Opportunity Cost of Water based on
Irrigation Benefits Foregone………………………………………………….. 106
Table 4.B.1 Discounted Value of Quantity of Water Supplied…………………………….. 108
Table 4.B.2 Quantity of Water to be Produced
for the Ground Water and Surface Water Alternative…...……………………. 109
Table 4.B.3 Life Cycle Cost Stream for Alternative 1…………………………………….… 114
Table 4.B.4 Life Cycle Cost Stream for Alternative 2…………………………………….… 115
Table 4.B.5 Equalizing Discount Rate……………………………………………………... 116
Table 4.B.6 IRR of the Incremental Cash Flow……………………………………………. .118


4.1 Introduction
1. Given the project’s objectives and after having arrived at the demand
forecast, the next task is to identify the options or alternative ways of producing the
required project output. The selection of the least-cost alternative in economic terms
from the technically feasible options promotes production efficiency and ensures the
most economically optimum choice. The alternatives need not be limited to technical or
physical ones only but could also include options related to policy measures. The
options related to the technical measures may include:

(i) different designs and technologies;

(ii) different scale (large-scale or small-scale) and time phasing of the same
project;

(iii) the same project in different locations.

2. The options related to policy measures may include demand and supply
management. Both can achieve optimum use of the existing facilities: the former by
introducing proper tariff or pricing and metering of supply; the latter by, for instance,
leakage detection and control of an existing water distribution system to reduce the
unaccounted-for-water (UFW) to the maximum extent possible. The options
considered must be realistic, not merely hypothetical, and can be implemented.

3. Once the alternatives are identified, the next step is to estimate the entire
life-cycle costs (initial capital costs and future operating and maintenance costs) for each
option, first in financial prices and then in economic prices by applying appropriate
shadow price conversion factors. Estimating the entire life-cycle costs involves close
cooperation between the economist and the engineer.

4. Finally, the discounted value of the economic costs for each option is to
be worked out using the economic discount rate of 12 percent. On this basis, the
alternative with the least economic cost can be selected. The different methodological
approaches are explained in this chapter.

5. It must be noted that least-cost analysis, while ensuring production
efficiency, does not provide any indication of the economic feasibility of the project
since even a least-cost alternative may have costs that exceed the benefits (in both
financial and economic terms).


4.2 Identifying Feasible Options

4.2.1 Technological Measures and Options

6. Depending on the source of water supply and the configuration and
characteristics of the area where the water is needed, the following technological options
can be considered:

i) surface or ground water supply scheme; and

ii) gravity or pumping scheme.

These options are not necessarily mutually exclusive: a ground water supply scheme
requires pumping while a surface water scheme may make use of gravity flow of water,
at least, partially.

7. Again, for the choice of components in a water supply scheme, there
may be several technological options for both urban and rural areas. Some of these
options are listed in Box 4.1 and Box 4.2.

Box 4.1 Technological Options in Rural Areas

1. Increasing the quantity of available water
• new source of water - ground water with use of hand pumps
or community wells;
• new source of water – surface water with house connections,
yard connection or public standposts;
• rainwater collection, treatment, and distribution;
• water conservation through rehabilitation of existing distribution
system, or through better uses of existing source.
2. Storage systems
• building new community storage systems like ground level
reservoir or overhead tanks;
• extending existing storage systems (if possible).
3. Distribution systems
• new systems incorporating either house connections and/or
community standposts; and
• extending existing water delivery systems.


Box 4.2 Technological Options in Urban Areas

1. Increasing the quantity of available water
• water conservation through rehabilitation of existing distribution
system;
• new source of surface water - nearby river or canal, etc.;
• ground water from deep or shallow wells.
2. Treatment plants
• Different types and processes in treatment plants and installations.
3. Storage systems
• building new storage tanks - overhead or ground level;
• extending the existing storage systems.
4. Distribution systems
• Standpipes (community use)
• Yard connections
• House connections
• Tanker
• Bottled water

8. Box 4.3 below illustrates the identification of feasible options for three
Indonesian villages.

Box 4.3 Identifying Feasible Project Options in a Rural Setting

Three Indonesian villages identified for inclusion in a rural water supply project are
exposed to the effects of degrading ground water quality and dry dugwells in the dry
season. Rainfall, on the other hand, occurs with reasonable frequency. Options identified
for the least cost analysis appropriately included the following:
• rainwater collection (with storage);
• hand pumps, small bore well;
• hand pumps, small bore well with upflow filter units; and
• piped water supply system.
By including all these options in the consideration of alternatives, the analysis explored not
only the conventional water supply systems but also the use of relevant and potentially
viable traditional options.

Source: RETA 5608 Case Study Report, RWS&S Sector Project, Indonesia.


4.2.2 Policy Measures and Options

9. Management measures and options may include any of the following:

(i) reducing the percentage of UFW (especially technical losses and
particularly in urban areas) through leakage detection and control, thus
increasing water availability from existing facilities;

(ii) reducing water consumption from consumers by introducing metering
for the first time;

(iii) reducing water consumption through appropriate cost recovery
measures where there was no or very little cost recovery before, or
through the introduction of progressive tariff structures;

(iv) carrying out public health education programs to promote efficient use
of water; and

(v) implementing a commercial management system.

10. In Box 4.4, an illustration shows how supply of water was augmented by
reducing UFW.

Box 4.4 Identifying Project Options in an Urban Setting
Case 1 : Unaccounted-for-Water

The city of Murcia in Spain (pop. 350,000) was faced with a high unaccounted-for-water
(UFW) level of 44 percent. By implementing a new commercial management system that
better accounted for all water uses and users, the municipal company reduced UFW to 23
percent over five years. The resulting water savings proved adequate to increase the number
of water connections by 19,000 and achieve 100 percent coverage.

Source: Yepes, Guillermo. 1995. Adopted from Reduction of unaccounted-for-water, the job can be done. The
World Bank.

11. Box 4.5 shows an illustration of “metering” in combination with leakage
reduction programs in Singapore.


Box 4.5 Identifying Project Options in an Urban Setting
Case 2: Metering and Leakage Control

The city-state of Singapore (pop. 2.8 million) has scarce water resources. By sustaining a
consistent metering and leak reduction program, the Public Utilities Board has succeeded
in reducing unaccounted-for-water (UFW) from the already low level of 10.6 percent in
1989 to 6 percent in 1994. “The goal of the utility is not to have zero UFW, but rather to
reduce it to a point where benefits equal costs.”

Source: Yepes, Guillermo. 1995. Adopted from Reduction of unaccounted-for-water, the job can be done.
The World Bank.

12. Based on cross-sectional data for 26 industrial firms in Jamshedpur,
India, a price elasticity of demand of –0.49 was estimated, meaning that a 100 percent
price increase would cause industrial demand to fall by 49 percent. (Source: World
Bank-ODI Joint Study. 1992 draft. Policies for Water Conservation and Reallocation, “Good
Practice” Cases in Improving Efficiency and Equity.) The calculation is shown in Box 4.6.

Box 4.6 Demand Management Through Pricing

Price elasticity of demand = -0.49
Percentage increase of tariff = 100%

Percentage change in demand
Percentage change of water use = -------------------------------------
Percentage change in price

= -0.49 x 100% = -49%

Meaning a 49 percent decrease in water consumption.

13. In situations where tariffs are substantially below cost, an increase in
tariffs is likely to lead to a reduced demand; in this way, more water will become
available for additional supply. This measure stimulates a more efficient use of water
(avoiding wasteful overuse) and will result in postponing physical expansion of the water
supply system.


4.3 Identification and Valuation of Costs
for Feasible Options

4.3.1 Identification of Cost Elements

14. The economic costs associated with each of the identified options
should be the life-cycle costs: i.e., initial capital costs, replacement costs, and future
operating and maintenance costs. Such costs should include both adjusted financial and
non-market costs.

15. The non-market costs reflect costs due to external effects which are not
reflected in the project’s own financial cost stream. These costs may include:

(i) environmental costs, such as depletion premium (scarcity rent) for the
use of ground water if the normal replenishment of the aquifer falls
short of the extraction from it, and

(ii) opportunity cost of water, e.g. if water is diverted from existing uses
such as agricultural uses, etc.

The costs may also include household costs (if any) to bring the quality of the water
service to the same standard for all the comparable options. This would also be the case
in rural schemes where, for instance, yard connections installed at different distances
from the house would involve different values of collecting time for the household
(Refer to Section 4.3.2.3).

4.3.1.1 Capital Costs

16. Typical items to be included in the capital cost streams of a ground water
pumping scheme with output of say 60,000m3/day supply in a town in Viet Nam is
shown in Table 4.1.


Table 4.1 Capital Cost Items for a Ground Water Pumping Scheme
Capital Costs Items Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total
(VND‘000) (VNDmillion)
1. Rehabilitation of existing boreholes
for supply of 10,000 m3/day m3/day 10,000 L.S. 1,665
2. Constructing new boreholes for
supply of 50,000 m3/day no. 28 1,111 28,305
3. Installing pumps m³/day 50,000 266 13,220
4. Treatment installation m³/day 50,000 444 22,200
5. Constructing elevated storage m³ 6,000 1,221 7,326
6. Constructing ground storage m³ 7,500 777 5,828
7. Water transmission pipelines
i) 375 mm dia. m 10,000 1,365 13,653
ii) 525 mm dia. m 2,300 2,309 5,310
iii) 600 mm dia. m 10,000 3,108 31,080
8. Distribution system
i) Clear water pumping station m 60,000 172.05 10,323
ii) Secondary and other connections no. 70,000 621.60 43,512
Subtotal Costs 182,422
Physical contingency 8% 14,594
Total Costs excluding tax 197,015
Tax (weighted average) 7% 13,791
TOTAL COSTS 210,806
Source: Adopted from RETA 5608 Case Study of Thai Nguyen (Viet Nam) Provincial Towns Water
Supply and Sanitation Project

17. Alternatively, the cost of a surface water scheme with the same output of
60,000m3/day in the same town in Viet Nam will be as follows:


Table 4.2 Capital Cost Items for a Surface Water Scheme
Capital Costs Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total
(VND‘000) (VND million)
1. Raw Water Pumping Station
of 60,000 m3/day m³/day 60,000 188.7 11,322
2. Storage Pond at intake
of 60,000 m3/day m³/day 60,000 5.55 3,330
3. Water Treatment plant
of 60,000m3/day m³/day 60,000 1,165.5 69,930
4. Elevated Storage tank m³ 6,000 1,221 7,326
5. Ground Level Storage tank m³ 7,500 777 5,827
6. Water Transmission Mains:
i) Canal to treatment plant
525 mm dia. m 6,000 2,308 13,853
ii) Clean water to distribution
system
- 600 mm dia. m 1,200 3,108 3,4230
- 525 mm dia. m 2,300 2,308.8 5,310
7. Distribution system
i) Clear water pumping stations m³/day 60,000 172.05 10,323
ii) Secondary and other connections no. 70,000 621.60 43,512
SUBTOTAL COSTS 174,163
Physical Contingency 8% 13,933
Total Costs excluding Tax 188,096
Tax (weighted average) 7% 13,166
TOTAL COSTS including tax 201,263

18. According to the Tables 4.1 and 4.2, the capital cost in financial terms of
the ground water-pumping scheme of VND210,807 million exceeds the capital cost in
financial terms of the surface water scheme of VND201,263 million by some five
percent.

4.3.1.2 Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs

19. The next step is to estimate the operation and maintenance costs for
both options. In Table 4.3, the O&M costs are shown for the two options (ground
water and surface water) in the town in Viet Nam. The capital cost used in the base
capital cost excludes physical contingency and taxes.


Table 4.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs for Two Alternatives

ALTERNATIVE 1 (Ground Water) O&M Costs
Costs of annual O&M (weighted average = 1.135%
percentage of the Capital Costs
Hence, annual O&M cost yearly in financial price = (182,422) x (0.01135)
= VND2,070 million
Add, physical contingency of 8 percent = (2,070) x (1.08)
= VND2,236 million
Add, taxes and duties of 7 percent = (2,236) x (1.07)
TOTAL O&M COSTS PER YEAR = VND2,393 million

ALTERNATIVE 2 (Surface Water Scheme) O&M Costs
Costs of annual O&M (weighted average = 1.432%
percentage of the Capital costs)
Hence, annual O&M cost per year in financial price = (174,163) x (0.01432)
= VND2,494 million
Add, physical contingency of 8 percent = (2,494) x (1.08)
= VND2,694 million
Add, taxes and duties of 7 percent = (2,694) x (1.07)
TOTAL O&M COSTS PER YEAR = VND2,882 million

4.3.2 Non-Market Cost Items

4.3.2.1 Opportunity Cost of Water

20. Some situations may arise where water availability is limited so that the
town’s demand for water cannot be fully met by the new, previously unused sources. In
such cases, it may be necessary to divert water from its existing uses, e.g., from
agriculture, to meet the town’s demand for drinking water. In this example, the
opportunity cost of water diverted from its use in agriculture will be the agricultural
benefits foregone as a result of reduced agricultural production.

21. A sample calculation is shown in Table 4.4 for the town in Viet Nam for
its water supply alternative 2 (surface water). A maximum of 25,000 m3/day can be
drawn from the existing canal source. This leaves a gap of 5,000 m3/day, assuming that
the water demand to be supplied is 30,000 m3/day. This gap is to be met by diverting
water from its existing agricultural use.


22. The value of water in agricultural use is estimated through the marginal
loss of net agricultural output, at economic prices, per unit of water diverted to the
town users (refer also to Chapter 6).

23. The net benefit in financial prices derived from the loss of agricultural
output is estimated at VND2,800 per m3 of water used in agriculture. Since agricultural
prices for the staple crops grown are regulated and some of the inputs are subsidized,
the conversion factor for the output from the agricultural water is estimated at 1.98.
In economic prices therefore, it amounts to VND5,544 (=2,800 x 1.98) per m³ of
water. The opportunity cost of diverted water is therefore expected to be VND10,118
million per day ( =(5,544 x 5,000) x 365) when 5,000 m³/day is diverted from
agricultural use.

Table 4.4 Calculating the Opportunity Cost of Water for Alternative 2
(Surface Water)
Year Quantity of water diverted from Economic value of diverted water
agriculture water use (106 VND)
(m3 per day)
0–8 NIL -
9 1,088 1.088 x 5.544 x 365 = 2,202
10 - 25 5000 5.00 x 5.544 x 365 = 10,118

24. Annex 4.1 presents a more detailed example of how the opportunity
cost of water can be calculated, based on foregone irrigation benefits.

4.3.2.2 Depletion Premium for the Withdrawal of Ground water

25. The depletion premium is a premium imposed on the economic cost of
depletable resources, such as ground water, representing the loss to the national
economy in the future of using up the resource today. The premium can be estimated as
the additional cost of an alternative supply of the resource or a substitute, such as
surface water, when the least-cost source of supply has been depleted.

26. In this example, the time until exhaustion is assumed to be 25 years and
the alternative source to replace the ground water is surface water to be brought from a
long distance. The marginal economic cost of water supply (ground water) without
depletion premium is assumed to be about VND2,535 per m3. It is expected that the
marginal cost of replacing water (surface water) will be around VND2,578 per m3, which
is VND43 per m3 higher.


27. The formula to calculate the scarcity rent (refer to Appendix 6 of the
ADB Guidelines for the Economic Analysis of Projects) is as follows:

Depletion premium = (C2 - C1)e-r(T-t)

where C2 = cost of water per m3 of alternative source;
C1 = cost of water per m3 of exhausting source;
T = time period of exhaustion;
t = time period considered;
r = rate of discount (r = 0.12);
e = exponential constant = 2.7183

28. For example, the depletion premium in year 2 is calculated as:

(2,578 - 2,535) x 2.7183 -0.12(25-2) = VND2.72 per m³;

and for year 3 as,

(2,578 - 2,535) x 2.7183 -0.12(25-3) = VND3.07 per m³.

As can be seen, the premium or scarcity rent increases each year as the stock of water
diminishes. Table 4.5 shows the depletion premium for the ground water supply.


Table 4.5 Depletion Premium for Replacing Ground Water
with Surface Water (Alternative 1)
Year Depletion Annual Discounted Value
Premium Premium (106 VND)
(VND/m3) (VND million) at 12% At 15% at 10%
0 - - - - -
1 2 2 1.79 1.74 1.82
2 3 5 3.99 3.78 4.13
3 3 8 5.69 5.26 6.01
4 3 11 6.99 6.29 7.51
5 4 18 10.21 8.95 11.18
6 4 23 11.65 9.94 12.98
7 5 34 15.38 12.78 17.45
8 6 49 19.79 16.02 22.86
9 6 57 20.55 16.21 24.17
10 7 77 24.79 19.03 29.68
11 8 88 25.30 18.91 30.84
12 9 99 25.41 18.50 31.54
13 10 110 25.21 17.88 31.87
14 11 120 24.55 16.96 31.60
15 13 142 25.94 17.45 33.99
16 15 164 26.75 17.53 35.69
17 16 175 25.48 16.26 34.62
18 19 208 27.04 16.81 34.42
19 21 230 26.70 16.17 37.61
20 24 263 27.27 16.07 39.08
21 27 296 27.40 15.72 39.99
22 30 329 27.17 15.20 40.40
23 34 372 27.45 14.95 41.55
24 38 416 27.41 14.52 42.22
25 43 471 27.69 14.32 43.47
517.54 347.25 686.68

4.3.2.3 Household Cost Associated with a Technological Option
(Tubewell with Hand Pump).

29. This section considers the household cost associated with a
technological option when such an option is analyzed vis-a-vis other options with no
such associated costs, assuming that the benefits are the same. This could, e.g., be the
case in a rural setting where rainwater collectors are compared with tubewells.


30. The following illustration shows how such a cost can be arrived at. In
Jamalpur. a semi-urban town in Bangladesh, the following costs were identified in
connection with the operation of tubewells with hand pumps:

(i) Economic life of tubewells = ten years

(ii) Capital Cost (Annualized) with Economic Price

Initial Installation Cost = Tk2,500

Capital Recovery Factor for 10 years @ 12 percent discount rate =
0.177.

Annualized capital cost = (2,500) x (0.177) = Tk442.5

The annual cost including operation and maintenance cost (10 percent
of annualized capital costs) = (442.5) x (1.1) = Tk486.75

(iii) Time Cost in Collecting Water:

The total use of water per household per year with an average of six
members per household is 153 m3. Household members spend on
average a total of 1.0 minute per 20 liters of water in travelling and
collecting water. Hence, the number of hours spent on collection 153 m3
of water per year is equal to:

153 x 1,000
= = 128 hours
20 x 60

Unskilled labor wage rate = Tk4.00 per hour

Value of travelling and collecting time in a year = 128 x 4
= Tk512 in financial price

Shadow Wage Rate Factor = 0.85 (refer to Chapter 6)

Value of travelling and collecting time in economic prices = 512 x 0.85
= Tk435.2


(iv) Storage Costs

The investment cost in economic terms of the household storage in
connection with tubewell and hand pump is about Tk150 per household.
With an economic life of five years and an economic discount rate of
12 percent, the annual value is estimated to be Tk41.61 (= 150 x capital
recovery factor for five years and 12 percent interest).

With annual operation and maintenance cost of 10 percent of the
annualized capital cost, the annual cost of storage facility works out to be
41.61 x 1.1 = Tk45.77.

(v) Total Cost per m3 of Water

The total annual household cost in economic prices with the tubewell
and hand pump in Jamalpur in Bangladesh is equal to: [Installation plus
O&M Cost] + [Time Costs in Collecting Water] + [Storage Costs] or
486.75 + 435.2 + 45.77 = Tk967.72
967.72
Therefore, the economic cost per m3 of water = = Tk6.32 per m3
153

4.4 Conversion Factors for Costing of Options
in Economic Prices
31. The cost in market prices must be converted to its economic price
before applying least-cost analysis. The procedures for such conversion are detailed in
Chapter 6.

32. The calculation of composite Conversion Factors (CF) for the capital
and operating and maintenance costs of the two options for the Viet Nam town is
illustrated in Tables 4.6 and 4.7.


Table 4.6 Calculation of Composite Conversion Factor for Alternative 1
(Ground Water Supply)
Items Break-up of Basic C.F. C.F.
financial costs (using domestic (Composite)
price numeraire
(A) (B) (A x B)
A. Capital Costs
(i) Traded Elements:
(Direct and Indirect) 0.67 1.25 0.838
(ii) Non-Traded Elements:
Domestic material and Equipment 0.18 1.00 0.180
Labor (skilled) 0.02 1.20 0.024
Labor (unskilled) 0.06 0.80 0.048
(iii) Taxes and Duties 0.07 0.00 -
1.00 1.09
B. Operation and Maintenance Costs
(Direct and Indirect)
(ii) Non-Traded Elements: 0.05 1.25 0.063
Domestic material (including
Chemicals and Equipment) 0.20 1.00 0.200
Labor (skilled) 0.12 1.20 0.144
Power supply 0.46 1.30 0.598
1.00 1.085


Table 4.7 Calculation of Composite Conversion Factor for Alternative 2
(Surface Water Supply)
Items Break-up of Basic C.F. (using C.F.
financial costs domestic price (Composite)
numeraire
(A) (B) (A x B)
A. Capital Costs
(Direct and Indirect) 0.50 1.25 0.625
(ii) Non-Traded Elements:
Labor (skilled) 0.02 1.20 0.024
1.00 1.037

B. Operation and Maintenance Costs 0.10 1.25 0.125
(Direct and Indirect)
(ii) Non-Traded Elements: 0.20 1.00 0.200
Labor (skilled) 0.12 0.80 0.096
1.00 1.074

4.5 Methodologies for Carrying Out
Least-Cost Analyses
33. Least-cost analyses generally deal with the ranking of mutually exclusive
options or alternative ways of producing the same output of the same quality. In some
cases, there may be differences in the outputs (quantity wise or quality wise) of the
alternatives. Two types of cases may arise in choosing between alternatives through the
least-cost analysis:

(i) alternatives deliver the same output;

(ii) outputs of the alternatives are not the same.


4.5.1 Alternatives Delivering the Same Output: Overview of
Methods

34. There exist different methods to choose between alternatives:

(i) the lowest Average Incremental Economic Cost or AIEC;

(ii) the lowest Present Value of Economic Costs or PVEC;

(iii) the Equalizing Discount Rate or EDR.

All methods are illustrated here. The Guidelines for the Economic Analysis of Water Supply
Projects recommend the use of the AIEC method.

4.5.2 Lowest AIEC Approach

35. The average incremental economic cost is the present value of
incremental investment and operation costs of the project alternative in economic
prices, divided by the present value of incremental output of the project alternative.
Costs and outputs are derived from a with-project and without-project comparison, and
discounting is done at the economic discount rate of 12 percent. The equation is as
follows:

n n
AIC = (∑ (Ct / (1 + d) t )) / (∑ (O t / (1 + d) t ))
t =0 t =0

where Ct = incremental investment and operating cost in year t;
Ot = incremental output in year t;
n = project life in years;
d = discount rate.

36. Tables 4.B.3 and 4.B.4 in the Annex show the calculation of AIEC using
a discount rate of 12 percent for both alternatives 1 and 2 (ground water supply scheme
and the surface water supply scheme respectively). The results are as follows:

Alternative 1 (ground water scheme) Alternative 2 (surface water scheme)

AIEC VND2,545 per m3 < VND2,616 per m3


37. Since the AIEC for the ground water scheme of VND2,545 per m3 is
lower than the AIEC for surface water scheme of VND2,584 per m3, the least-cost
solution for the supply of water to the town is alternative 1 (ground water scheme).

4.5.3 Lowest PVEC Approach

38. This straightforward method can be applied to the cost streams (in
economic prices) for all options. The choice of the least-cost option will be based on
the lowest present value of incremental economic costs, discounted at the economic
discount rate of 12 percent.

39. Tables 4.B.3 and 4.B.4 in the Annex show the application of this
approach for the two options in the Viet Nam town mentioned above, i.e., ground
water supply scheme and surface water supply scheme. The results are as follows:

Alternative 1 (ground water supply)

PVEC1 = VND123.8 billion (see Table 4.B.3)

Alternative 2 (surface water supply)

PVEC2 = VND127.8 billion (see Table 4.B.4)

As PVEC1 < PVEC2

The alternative 1 (ground water scheme) is the least-cost option.

4.5.4 Equalizing Discount Rate Approach

40. A third approach on which the choice between mutually exclusive
options can be based, is to calculate the equalizing discount rate (EDR) for each pair of
options. The EDR is the discount rate at which the present values of two life-cycle cost
streams are equal, thus indicating the discount rate at which preference changes. The
EDR can be interpolated if the present values of the cost streams have been determined
at two different discount rates, or may be arrived at by calculating the IRR (internal rate
of return) of the incremental cost stream, that is the difference between the cost
streams for each pair of alternatives.


41. Table 4.B.5 in the Annex shows the calculation of EDR. Both
diagrammatic and algebraic approaches are illustrated. They are shown for the two
options considered (the ground water and the surface water schemes). Table 4.B.6 in the
Annex shows the IRR of the incremental cost stream.

4.5.5 Comparative Advantages and Disadvantages
of the Three Approaches

42. AIEC Approach. This method not only arrives at the least-cost option
but also clearly indicates the long-run marginal cost (LRMC) in economic prices, an
essential core information for tariff design. The methodology, however, needs
explaining why discounting the water quantity is to be done to arrive at the unit price of
water.

43. PVEC Approach. This method is easiest to apply as straightforward
discounting is needed at one fixed rate of discount. However, information available is
limited. It does not indicate the per unit cost of water, nor does it indicate which
option will be the least-cost if the discount rate is different from what has been used for
calculation.

44. EDR Approach. Unlike the other two methods, this approach gives a
clear indication as to which option is the least-cost at different discount rates rather than
at a fixed discount rate. However, the calculations needed are more than in the other
two methods and it requires understanding that EDR is also the IRR of the incremental
cash flow of one option over the other.

Results

45. The results show that the EDR is 13.66 percent. In other words, the
additional capital costs involved in choosing option 1 (ground water scheme) as against
option 2 (surface water scheme) has a return of 13.66 percent, which is above the
acceptable rate of return of 12 percent. Therefore, the lowest life-cycle cost option is
option 1 (ground water scheme).


4.6 Outputs from the Alternatives are not the same
46. In principle, the LCA is applied to mutually exclusive options, which
generate identical benefits. If those benefits are not the same, a normalization procedure
can be applied to allow for comparison

4.6.1 Normalization Procedure

47. Where one alternative has a larger but identical output than another, the
costs of the smaller project should be increased to allow for its smaller output. This can
be done by adding the value of the foregone benefits to the cost of the smaller
alternative. Box 4.7 shows an example of the normalizing method, applied to the data of
two alternatives considered (ground water and surface water supply schemes) for the
Viet Nam town. It is assumed that while the ground water supply scheme is able to
meet the full demand of the town (30,000 m3/day), the surface water scheme is only
able to supply 25,000 m3/day. The surface water source is limited due to shortage of
availability of water resources.

Box 4.7 Normalizing Procedure
Present Value of Outputs
Ground water scheme = 48.858 m3 (in millions)
Surface water scheme = 44.127 m3 (in millions)
Present Value of Costs
Ground water scheme = VND123,858.00 (in millions)
Surface water scheme = VND101,578.00 (in millions)

Output of the surface water scheme is lower than that of ground water scheme by
48.858 = 44.127
= 48.858 = 9.68%

The marginal cost of supply or AIEC of surface water scheme

= 101,578.26 = VND2,301.95 per m3
44.127
The normalized cost of surface water should be increased by 9.68 percent to ensure equivalence.

Normalized cost of surface water = 2,301.95 x 1.0968 = VND2,524.78 per m3

This normalized cost (not the un-normalized AIEC of the surface water VND2,301.95 per m3)
should be compared with the AIEC of the ground water scheme.


ANNEX 4.A.
Opportunity Cost of Water Calculation : Case Study

1. Introduction

The opportunity cost of water (OCW) can be calculated in numerous ways which are
indicative of the foregone benefit of utilizing the water for a water supply project
(WSP)1 as compared to its next best alternative. In particular, the foregone benefit in
irrigation and in hydropower generation are common methods of estimating the
opportunity cost of water. In the former case, the value is based on the highest value
irrigation crop being displaced when water is diverted from irrigation purposes for water
supply schemes. In the latter, it is based on the reduced value of electricity production
caused by water being diverted for water supply purposes upstream of the hydropower
station. (i.e., less water is available for electricity generation). In either case, the OCW
value in economic terms gets charged as a cost in the economic analysis of the WSP.

This annex proceeds with an example of how the opportunity cost of water based on
foregone irrigation benefits may be calculated. The basis for the example is a case study
in the Philippines undertaken during preparation of the Handbook for the Economic
Analysis of Water Supply Projects.

2. Economic Assumptions

Through comparison of cropping patterns, intensities and yields, rice was demonstrated
to be the highest value irrigation crop in the project affected area. The case study
country is a net importer of rice. Consequently, the basis for the estimation of the
opportunity cost of water is the import parity price of rice.

Economic costs and benefits were denominated in terms of the domestic price
numeraire and are expressed in constant 1996 dollar prices. For purposes of illustration
all prices and costs are presented in foreign currency costs, the $ being the foreign
currency unit selected. Traded components were adjusted to economic prices using a
shadow exchange rate factor (SERF) of 1.11 and non-traded components were valued at
domestic market prices. Labor was adjusted using the Shadow Wage Rate Factor
(SWRF) for unskilled labor in the country of .9.

The without-project scenario has one rainfed crop wheras the with-project scenario has
one dry season irrigated crop and one wet season irrigated crop.

1 A water supply project is defined as non-irrigation water supply for purposes of this example.


The estimate of OCW is calculated for an indicative production year when full yields
have been achieved from the irrigation scheme.

3. Import Parity Price of Rice

The calculation of the opportunity cost of water is presented in Table 4.A. For ease of
presentation the reference to line numbers are all with respect to Table 4.A.

The calculation begins with the calculation of the import parity price of rice for the
rainfed, dry season irrigated and wet season irrigated crop scenarios. The benchmark
world price of rice used for analysis purposes is Thai (5 percent broken). This
benchmark price may be obtained from the World Bank’s quarterly publication
Commodity Markets and the Developing Countries.2 This benchmark price is equivalent for the
without-project and with-project scenarios. It is shown in line 2.

The quality of the rainfed and the wet season irrigated crop are equivalent and are 10
percent lower quality than Thai (5 percent broken). The wet season crop is of the same
quality as Thai (5 percent broken). The quality adjustment factors for the without-
project and the with-project scenarios are presented in line 3.

To calculate the quality adjusted price FOB Bangkok shown in line 4, the
benchmark price presented in line 2 is multiplied by the quality adjustment factor given
in line 3 for each scenario.

It is now necessary to estimate the economic price at the port of importer (i.e., border
price). This is done by adding the costs of shipping and handling from the port in
Bangkok to the port of destination (say, Manila). These costs are based on weight or
volume and are assumed identical for the with-project and the without-project
scenarios. They are estimated at $33 as shown in line 5. By adding the quality adjusted
price FOB Bangkok (line 4) and the shipping and handling costs (line 5) the CIF Port of
Destination, or in this case CIF Manila, price is calculated. This is given in line 6.

As the domestic price numeraire has been selected for purposes of economic analysis it
is now necessary to convert the CIF Manila price from a financial price to an economic
price by applying the shadow wage rate factor (SERF). The CIF Manila price (line 6) is
muliplied by the SERF (line 7) to derive the quality adjusted economic price at the
border, as shown in line 8. All costs are traded to this point and must be adjusted by the
SERF.

2The prices used in the example may not be identical to those presented in the World Bank Commodity
Markets and the Developing Country Reports.


It is also necessary to determine the economic farmgate price by calculating the costs
incurred in transporting and handling the rice from the port to the farmgate. In practice,
this typically includes consideration of dealer’s margins, milling costs and other costs
associated with the transportation and handling from the port to the farmgate. It is
necessary to apportion these costs on the basis of being traded and nontraded and
further separate labor costs. The SERF is to be applied to the traded components and
the shadow wage rate factor (SWRF) to the labor component. For ease of illustration, all
costs are considered under the category local shipping and handling in line 9 and are
considered to be nontraded. The farmgate price can be calculated by adding the CIF
Manila price (line 8) and the local shipping and handling costs (line 9). The farmgate
prices for the rainfed, dry season irrigated and wet season irrigated crops are presented
in line 10. This represents the import parity price of rice at the farmgate. It is not
necessary to calculate an average farmgate price for the incremental analysis. It will be
accomodated in the comparison of the with-project and the without-project analysis of
crop production and farm inputs.

4. Crop Production Analysis

The next step is to perform a simplified crop production analysis. In practice, this
requires knowledge of the cropping patterns, cropping intensities, yields, dry paddy to
milled rice conversion factors and other factors impacting on the quality and quantity of
rice yields without-project and with-project. In this illustration, the analysis of alternative
crop production models indicated that paddy production had the highest value both
without the project and for both the wet and dry season cropping pattern with the
project. The paddy yields in tons per hectare for the rainfed, wet season irrigation and
dry season irrigation are shown in line 12. The paddy yields represent dry paddy. The
production of rice from dried paddy is calculated by applying the processing factor
(0.59) shown in line 13 to the paddy yields in line 12. Rice production in tons per
hectare are given in line 14. The gross returns in dollars per hectare given in line 16 are
then calculated by multiplying the rice production estimates shown in line 14 by the
farmgate price shown in line 15 (i.e., identical to the farmgate price calculated in line 10).
The incremental gross margin is the difference in the with-project and the without-
project scenarios calculated by taking the sum of the gross margins for irrigated crops
and deducting the gross margin from rainfed crops.

5. Farm Inputs

Farm inputs represent the input costs required for crop production including labor,
draught animals or machinery, seed, fertilizer, irrigation and other input factors. In
practice, the market price of each input are shadow priced to derive economic values on
a dollar-per-hectare basis. For purposes of this illustration farm inputs are shown as


non-labor and labor inputs only. Non-labor inputs are assumed to be non-traded,
requiring no further shadow pricing and are shown in line 18. Labor requires adjustment
by the shadow wage rate factor (SWRF). The economic price of labor shown in line 21
is calculated by multiplying the price of labor shown in line 19 by the SWRF given in
line 20. Total farm inputs shown in line 22 are the sum of non-labor inputs (line 18) and
economic labor costs (line 21). Incremental farm inputs from the project are calculated
by taking the sum of the wet season and dry season farm inputs (i.e., with-project
production ) and deducting the rainfed farm inputs (i.e., without-project production) as
given in line 22.

6. Net Return

The net return for each scenario given in line 26 is the difference between the gross
returns (line 24) and farm inputs (line 25), where the values of gross returns and farm
inputs are equivalent to the values calculated in lines 16 and 22 respectively. Incremental
net returns from the project are calculated by taking the sum of the wet season and dry
season net returns (i.e., with-project production ) and deducting the rainfed net returns
(i.e., without-project production) as shown in line 26.

7. Water Requirements

Water requirements for irrigation purposes are now introduced into the calculation. As
shown in line 28 in the rainfed scenario, there is no additional water requirement, and
dry season irrigation requirements are less than wet season irrigation requirements. This
is because during the wet season, rainfall provides much of the water requirement and
irrigation provides the additional requirement to increase productivity. During the dry
season, irrigation water accounts for the entire crop requirement. As shown in line 29,
there are also losses from evaporation, transpiration and non-technical reasons incurred
in the supply of irrigation water. The total irrigation water requirements for the wet and
dry season are shown in line 30 and is equivalent to the sum of lines 28 and 29 . The
incremental water requirement is equal to the sum of the wet and dry season irrigation
water requirement.

8. Opportunity Cost of Water

It is now possible to calculate the opportunity cost of water (OCW). It is calculated by
taking the incremental net return shown in line 32 which is derived from line 26 and
dividing by the incremental gross water requirement shown in line 33, which is derived
from line 30. In this example, as shown in line 34, the opportunity cost of water is
approximately $0.02 per m3. This OCW can now be used as an input cost in the
economic cost estimate for the WSP.


Opportunity Cost of Water based on Irrigation Benefits Foregone
(Based on Import Parity Price of Rice
Line Item Units Rainfed Dry Wet Incre-
No. Crop Season Season mental
1 a) Import Parity Price of Rice Calculation Irrigated Irrigated
2 Rice FOB Bangkok $/ton 323 323 323
3 Quality Adjustment 0.9 0.9 1.0
4 Quality Adjusted Price $/ton 290.7 290.7 323
FOB Bangkok
5 Shipping and Handling $/ton 33 33 33
6 Landed Price(CIF Port of Entry) $/ton 323.7 323.7 356
7 Shadow Exchange Rate Factor (SERF) 1.11 1.11 1.11
8 Quality Adjusted Economic $/ton 359.3 359.3 395.2
Border Price
9 Local Shipping and Handling $/ton 5 5 5
10 Farmgate Price $/ton 364.3 364.3 400.2
11 b) Crop Production Analysis
12 Paddy Yields tons/ha 1.5 3.7 2.6
13 Processing Factor 0.59 0.59 0.59
14 Processed Rice Production tons/ha 0.9 2.2 1.5
15 Farmgate Price $/ton 364.3 364.3 400.2
16 Gross Returns $/ha 322.4 795.3 613.8 1,086.7
17 c) Farm Inputs
18 Non-labor Farm Inputs $/ha 66 226 150
19 Labor Inputs $/ha 66 155 119
20 Shadow Wage Rate Factor (SWRF) 0.9 0.9 0.9
21 Economic Price of Labor $/ha 59.4 139.5 107.1
22 Farm Inputs in Econ. Prices $/ha 125.4 365.5 257.1 497.2
23 d) Net Return $/ha
24 Gross Returns $/ha 322.4 795.3 613.8 1,086.7
25 Farm Inputs in Econ. Prices $/ha 125.4 365.5 257.1 497.2
26 Net Return $/ha 197.0 429.8 356.7 589.5
27 e) Water Requirements
28 Water Required at Farm m3/ha 0 13,500 9,500 23,000
29 Water Losses Reservoir to m3/ha 0 3,500 2,500 6,000
Farm
30 Gross Water Requirement m3/ha 0 17,000 12,000 29,000
31 f) Opportunity Cost of Water
32 Net Return $/ha 589.5
33 Gross Water Requirement m3/ha 29,000.0
34 Opportunity Cost of Water $/m3 0.0203


ANNEX 4.B
Data for the Illustrated Case
of a Viet Nam Town Water Supply

1. Water Demand Forecast

The quantity of water demanded per day in the town is estimated at 23,077 m3 in year 0
and it is expected to grow at the rate of 7.2 percent per year. Thus it is projected that
the demand will amount to 46,145 m3 per day in year 10.

Even though the demand will continue to grow beyond year 10, the proposed water
supply project (WSP) will have a maximum output so as to meet the growing demand
for only ten years from year 0.

It is expected that the new project will supply the incremental quantity of water
demanded from year 1 up to the end of the life of the project, which is assumed to be
25 years.

As the non-revenue water in the system is approximately 30 percent, the quantity to be
produced to meet the required revenue demand will vary from 30,000 m3 per day (=
23,077 x 1.3) in year 0 to 60,000 m3 per day (= 46,165 x 1.3) in year 10. Columns 1 to 5
of Table 4.B.1 show the quantity to be produced by the WSP.


Table 4.B.1 Discounted Value of Quantity of Water Supplied
Column 6 of this table shows the discounted value when the water quantities are discounted at the rate of 12%.
Col 1 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col 5 Col 6
Year Sale Quantity to be Incremental Quantity to be Discounted
Quantity produced per day quantity to be produced by value @ 12%
per day (sale quantity x 1.3*) produced/day by the project in a discount rate
the project year
(m3) (m3) (m3) (Mm3) (Mm3)
0 23,077 30,000 - - -
1 24,738 32,160 2,160 0.79 0.705
2 26,520 34,476 4,476 1.63 1.299
3 28,428 36,957 6,957 2.54 1.808
4 30,475 39,618 9,618 3.51 2.231
5 32,670 42,471 12,471 4.55 2.582
6 35,022 45,528 15,528 5.67 2.872
7 37,544 48,807 18,807 6.86 3.103
8 40,246 52,320 22,320 8.14 3.288
9 43,145 56,088 26,088 9.52 3.329
10 46,154 60,000 30,000 10.95
11 46,154 60,000 30,000 10.95
12 46,154 60,000 30,000 10.95
13 46,154 60,000 30,000 10.95
14 46,154 60,000 30,000 10.95
15 46,154 60,000 30,000 10.95
16 46,154 60,000 30,000 10.95
17 46,154 60,000 30,000 10.95
18 46,154 60,000 30,000 10.95 =27.537
19 46,154 60,000 30,000 10.95
20 46,154 60,000 30,000 10.95
21 46,154 60,000 30,000 10.95
22 46,154 60,000 30,000 10.95
23 46,154 60,000 30,000 10.95
24 46,154 60,000 30,000 10.95
25 46,154 60,000 30,000 10.95
48.858
*UFW is assumed to be 30 percent.

2. Supply of Water from the Two Alternatives of the Project

Whereas alternative 1 (ground water scheme) will be supplying the annual water
requirements of the town from year 1 to year 25 (see Column 5 of Table 4.B.1),
alternative 2 (surface water scheme) will be supplying the project from year 1 to year 8;
but from year 9 to year 25, the project water supply will be confined to 25,000 m3 per
day. The remaining quantity of 1,088 m3/day (= 26,088 m3 – 25,000 m3) in year 9 and


5,000 m3/day (= 30,000 m3 – 25,000 m3) from year 10 to year 25 will be met by water
diverted from agricultural use. This is shown in Table 4.B.2.

Table 4.B.2 Quantity of Water to be Produced
for the Ground water and Surface Water Alternative
Year Alternative 1 Alternative 2
(ground water) (surface water)
from the project from the project diverted from agricultural
(Mm3) (Mm3) use
0 - - (Mm3)
-
1 0.79 0.79 -
2 1.63 1.63 -
3 2.54 2.54 -
4 3.51 3.51 -
5 4.55 4.55 -
6 5.67 5.67 -
7 6.86 6.86 -
8 8.14 8.14 -
9 9.52 9.125 0.395
10 10.95 9.125 1.825
11 10.95 9.125 1.825
12 10.95 9.125 1.825
13 10.95 9.125 1.825
14 10.95 9.125 1.825
15 10.95 9.125 1.825
16 10.95 9.125 1.825
17 10.95 9.125 1.825
18 10.95 9.125 1.825
19 10.95 9.125 1.825
20 10.95 9.125 1.825
21 10.95 9.125 1.825
22 10.95 9.125 1.825
23 10.95 9.125 1.825
24 10.95 9.125 1.825
25 10.95 9.125 1.825


3. Construction Period

The project construction period is expected to be four years. The
physical progress determining the financial expenditure during the construction period
will be as follows:

Year Physical Progress
0 5%
1 30%
2 45%
3 20%
100%

4. Depletion Premium for Alternative 1 (Ground Water Supply)

The depletion premium worked out in section 4.3.2.2 is to be added as “other costs” in
the case of alternative 1 (see data in Table 4.5).

5. Opportunity Cost of Water for Alternative 2 (Surface Water Supply)

The opportunity cost of water diverted from agricultural use (0.395 million m3 in year 9
and 1.825 million m3 in years 10 to 25) are to be added as “other costs” (see data in
Table 4.4).

6. Capital Costs (Ground Water Supply) and (Surface Water Supply)

They are given in Tables 4.1 and 4.2.

7. Operation and Maintenance Costs

They are given in Table 4.3.


LEAST-COST SOLUTION OF THE CASE

1. Capital Costs:

A. Alternative 1 (ground water scheme)

The total economic cost of the scheme for a daily supply of 60,000 m3 is estimated at
VND229,779 million (from section 3.A below). The maximum water supply of the
project will be only half of 60,000 m3 per day i.e. 30,000 m3 per day. The cost function
of capital and O&M cost of the water supply scheme shows that the economics of scale
factor is 0.7 as ascertained in the Viet Nam Town by the RETA 5608 Study.

The cost function of water supply with the use of scale factor is as follows:
C = k (Q)α

Where C = Cost
k = constant
Q = Quantity
α = Scale factor

Applying this for 60,000 m3 water per day, the cost function is:
C60000 = k (60,000)0.7

To arrive at the cost for 30,000m3/day, the following relationship can be used:

C30000 k (30,000)0.7
------- = -----------
C60000 k (60,000)0.7

or
C30000 = C60000 (1/2)0.7
= (229,779) x (1/2)0.7
= 229,779 x 0.61557
= VND141,445 million.

This cost is expected to be distributed as follows during the construction period.


(Year) (%) VND Million

0 5% 7,072
1 30% 42,434
2 45% 63,651
3 20% 28,289
100% 141,446

B. Alternative 2 (surface water scheme)

The maximum amount of water which can be drawn from the canal is 25,000 m3 per
day. The remaining 5,000 m3 per day will be met by diverting water from existing
agricultural use. The capital economic cost for supply of 60,000m3/day has been worked
out to be VND208,710 million (from Section 3A below). Hence, the capital cost for a
supply of 25,000m3/day from the surface water scheme

= (208,710) x 25,000 0.7 = (208,710) x (0.54182) = VND113,083 million
60,000

The distribution of this cost over the construction period is as follows:

(Year) (%) VND million

0 5% 5,654
1 30% 33,925
2 45% 50,887
3 20% 22,617
100% 113,083

2. Operating and Maintenance Costs

A. For Alternative 1 (ground water scheme)

The economic O&M costs per year for supply of 60,000 m3/day was worked out to be
VND2,596 million (from Section 3.B below). The supply in year 1 is 2,160 m3/day and
it is expected to rise up to 30,000 m3/day in year 10. The scale factor is expected to be
the same 0.7 as O&M is proportional to the size of the plant. Hence, the O&M costs
will be:


2,160 0.7
In year 1: (2,596) x 60,000 = VND253.35 million

In year 10: (2,596) x 30,000 0.7 = VND1,598.03 million
60,000

B. Alternative 2 (surface water scheme)

The economic O&M costs per year for supply of 60,000 m3/day was worked out to be
VND3,095 million (from section 3.A below). Hence the O&M costs will be:
2,160 0.7
In year 1: (3,095) x = VND 302.05 million
60,000

25,000 0.7
In year 10: (3,095) x 60,000 = VND 1,676.92 million

3. Economic Costs of the Two Options

They can now be arrived at:

(A) Capital Costs for 60,000 m3/day Supply

Economic Costs = [Market Costs] x CFI
Economic costs = [VND210,806.5 mn] x [1.09] = VND229,779 mn
(Note: CFI = 1.09 from Table 4.6; Market costs are taken from Table 4.1.)

Alternative 2 (surface water supply)
Economic Costs = [Market Costs] x CF2
Economic Costs = [VND201,262.92 mn] x [1.037] = VND208,709 mn.
(Note: CF2 = 1.037 from Table 4.7; Market costs are taken from Table 4.2.)

(B) O&M Costs for 60,000m3/day Supply

Economic Costs = [Market Costs] x CFI
Economic Costs = [VND2,392.67mn] x [1.085] = VND2,596.05 mn
(Note: CFI = 1.085 from Table 4.6; Market costs are taken from Table 4.3.)


Alternative 2 (Surface Water Supply)
Economic Costs = [Market Costs] x CF2
Economic Costs = [VND2,882.09mn] x [1.074] = VND3,095.36 mn
(Note: CF2 = 1.074 from Table 4.7; Market costs are taken from Table 4.3.)

Table 4.B.3 Life Cycle Costs Stream of Alternative 1
(Ground Water Supply)
(A) Without Depletion Premium
Year Capital costs O&M Costs Total Costs Discount Factor Discounted value
for 12%
(VND106) (VND106) (VND106) discount rate (VND106)
0 7,072 - 7,072.00 1.0000 7,072.00
1 42,434 253.35 42,687.25 0.8929 38,115.54
2 63,651 421.91 64,072.91 0.7972 51,078.04
3 28,289 574.50 28,863.50 0.7118 20,545.04
4 720.71 720.71 0.6355 458.01
5 864.43 864.43 0.5674 490.48
6 1,007.81 1,007.81 0.5066 510.56
7 1,152.45 1,152.45 0.4523 521.25
8 1,299.23 1,299.23 0.4039 524.76
9 1,499.13 1,499.13 0.3606 522.55
10 1,598.03 1,598.03 0.3220 514.57
11-25 1,598.03 1,598.03 2.1929a/ 3,504.31
123,858.00
a/ Discount factor 2.1929 = 7.8431 – 5.6502 where 5.6502 is the sum of discount factors for the

first ten years.
PVEC = VND123,858.00 million.
The discounted value of water = 48,858 million m3 (from Table 4.B.1).
123,858
AIEC = 48.858 = VND2,535 per m3

(B) With Depletion Premium
Total PVEC = Total Discounted Costs
= [Discounted cost without D.P.]
+ [Discounted value of depletion premium (from Table 4.4)]
= (123,858) + (517.54) = VND124,375.54million.

Therefore, the AIEC = 124,375.54 = VND2,545 per m3
48.858


Table 4.B.4 Life Cycle Cost Stream for Alternative 2
(Surface Water)
Year Capital O&M costs Other costs Total D.F. for Discounted
Costs (VNDmn) from Table4.5 12% Cost
(VNDmn) (VNDmn) (VND mn) D.R. (VNDmn)
0 5,654 - 5,654.00 1.0000 5,654.00
1 33,925 302.05 34,227.00 0.8929 30,561.29
2 50,887 503.01 51,390.00 0.7972 40,968.11
3 22,617 684.94 23,302.00 0.7118 16,586.36
4 859.24 859.24 0.6355 546.00
5 1,030.59 1,030.59 0.5674 584.80
6 1,201.53 1,201.53 0.5066 608.70
7 1,373.97 1,373.96 0.4523 621.40
8 1,548.96 1,548.96 0.4039 625.60
9 1,676.92 2,202 3,878.92 0.3606 1,398.70
10 1,676.92 10,118 11,794.92 0.3220 3,798.00
11-25 1,696.72 10,118 11,794.92 2.1929a/ 25,865.10
127,818.06
a/ 2.1929 = 7.8431 − 5.6502
127,818.06
PVEC = VND 127818.06 million, and AIEC = = VND2,616.11 per m3
48.858
PVEC (without other costs) = VND101,578.26 million (in column 4)

Table 4.B.5 Equalizing Discount Rate
ALTERNATIVE I (Ground Water Supply) ALTERNATIVE II (Surface Water Supply)
Cost Stream Discounted Costs (VND10 6) Cost Stream Discounted Costs (VND106)
Year (excluding at 12% rate at 15% rate of (excluding at 12% rate of at 15% rate of
depletion premium) of discount discount depletion premium) discount discount
VND(106) (VND106)
0 7,072.00 7,072.00 7,072.00 5,654.00 5,654.00 5,654.00
1 42,687.25 38,115.54 37,120.80 34,227.00 30,561.29 29,763.80
2 64,072.91 51,078.04 48,445.50 51,390.00 40,968.11 38,856.00
3 28,863.50 20,545.04 18,977.80 23,302.00 16,586.36 15,321.07
4 720.71 458.01 412.10 859.24 546.00 491.30
5 864.43 490.48 429.80 1,030.59 584.80 512.40
6 1,007.81 510.56 435.70 1,201.53 608.70 519.40
7 1,152.45 521.25 433.20 1,373.96 621.40 516.50
8 1,299.23 524.76 424.70 1,548.96 625.60 506.40
9 1,499.13 522.55 426.20 3,878.92 1,398.70 1,102.80
10 1,598.03 514.57 395.00 11,794.92 3,798.00 2,915.70
11-25 1,598.03 3,504.31 2,309.60 11,794.92 25,865.10 17,047.20
123,858.00 116,882.40 127,818.06 113,206.57
Add discounted value of
depletion premium (from 517.54 347.25
Table 4.5)
124,375.54 117,229.65

DISCOUNTED
COSTS
Equalizing Discount Rate
6
(VND10 )
Alternative 1 (ground water)
127,818
Alternative 2 (surface water)
124,376
120,00

117,229.65

113,206.57
110,000

Equalizing
discount rate
100,000 13.39%
12% 13% 14% 15%

DISCOUNT RATES

Table 4.B.6 IRR of the Incremental Cash Flow (Alternative 1 - Alternative 2)
Year Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Difference in Discount Discounted value Discount Discounted value
(Ground water) (Surface Water) cost streams factor for of cost stream factors of cost-stream
Cost stream Cost stream (Alt 2 - Alt 1) 15% DR differences for 12% differences
(VND106) (VND106) (VND106) (VND106) DR (VND106)
0 7,072.00 5,654.00 -1,418.00 10000 -1,418.00 1.0000 -1,418.00
1 42,687.25 34,227.00 -8,460.25 0.8696 -7,357.74 0.8929 -7,553.79
2 64,072.91 51,390.00 -12,682.90 0.7561 -9,590.09 0.7972 -10,110.70
3 28,863.50 23,302.00 -5,561.5 0.6575 -3,656.78 0.7118 -3,958.57
4 720.71 859.24 +138.53 0.5718 +79.20 0.6355 +88.04
5 864.43 1,030.59 +166.16 0.4972 +82.61 0.5674 +94.28
6 1,007.81 1,201.53 +193.72 0.4323 +83.75 0.5066 +98.14
7 1,152.45 1,373.96 +221.51 0.3759 +83.27 0.4523 +100.20
8 1,299.23 1,548.96 +249.73 0.3269 +81.64 0.4039 +100.86
9 1,449.13 3,878.92 +2,429.79 0.2843 +690.79 0.3606 +876.21
10 1,598.03 11,794.92 +10,196.89 0.2472 +2,520.52 0.3220 +3,283.13
11-25 1,598.03 11,794.92 +10,196.89 1.4453a/ +14,738.39 2.1929b/ +22,360.92
-3,661.53 +3,960.69
a/ 1.4453 = 6.4641 − 5.0188
b/ 2.1929 = 7.8431 − 5.6502


Notes for Table 4.B.6:

(1) Without depletion premium in Alternative 1: 3,960.69
IRR of the incremental cash flow = 12 + (15 - 12) x 3,960.69 + 3,661.53

= 12 + 1.56 = 13.56%

(2) With depletion premium in Alternative 1:

Discounted value of depletion premium (refer to Table 4.5 in para. 4.3.2.2)
(i) at 12% Rate of Discount = VDN517.54 million
(ii) at 15% Rate of Discount = VND347.25 million

Discounted cost stream differential:
(i) at 12% Rate of Discount = 3,960.69 − 517.54
= 3,443.15
(ii) at 15% Rate of Discount = −3,661.53 − 347.25
= −4,008.78
3,443.15
IRR of the incremental cash flow = 12 + (15 - 12) x
3,443.15 + 4,008.78
= 12 + 1.39 = 13.39%

CHAPTER 5

FINANCIAL BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS


CONTENTS
5.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................123
5.2 Financial Revenues....................................................................................................................124
5.3 Project Costs ..............................................................................................................................126
5.3.1 Investments...................................................................................................................127
5.3.2 Operations and Maintenance .....................................................................................129
5.3.3 Reinvestments………………………………………………………………129
5.3.4 Residual Values ............................................................................................................129
5.4 Net Financial Benefits ..............................................................................................................130
5.5 Financial Opportunity Cost of Capital and
Weighted Average Cost of Capital………………………………………………….131
5.6 Calculating the Weighted Average Cost of Capital .............................................................131
5.7 Financial IRR and NPV ...........................................................................................................133

Tables
Table 5.1 Estimation of Project Revenues (1996 Prices)……………………………………125
Table 5.2 Project Cost Estimates………………………………………………………… 128
Table 5.3 Net Financial Benefits………………………………………………………… 130
Table 5.4 Sample Calculation of Weighted Average Cost of Capital……………………… 132
Table 5.5 Estimation of FIRR and FNPV (in Million VND, 1996 Prices)………………… 134

CHAPTER 5: FINANCIAL BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS 123

5.1 Introduction
1. The purpose of the financial benefit-cost analysis is to assess the
financial viability of the proposed project, i.e., if the proposed project is financially
attractive or not from the entity’s viewpoint. This analysis is done for the chosen least-
cost alternative which is identified following methodology described in Chapter 4.

2. In the financial benefit-cost analysis, the unit of analysis is the project and
not the entire economy nor the entire water utility. Therefore, a focus on the additional
financial benefits and costs to the water utility, attributable to the project, is maintained.
In contrast, the economic benefit-cost analysis evaluates the project from the viewpoint
of the entire economy whereas the financial analysis evaluates the entire water utility by
providing projected balance, income, and sources and applications of fund statements.
Financial analysis is the subject of the ADB Guidelines on the Financial Analysis of Projects.

3. The financial benefit-cost analysis includes the following eight steps:

(i) determine annual project revenues;
(ii) determine project costs;
(iii) calculate annual project net benefits;
(iv) determine the appropriate discount rate (i.e., weighted average cost of
capital serving as proxy for the financial opportunity cost of capital);
(v) calculate the average incremental financial cost;
(vi) calculate the financial net present value;
(vii) calculate the financial internal rate of return; and
(viii) risk and sensitivity analysis.

4. Project revenues, costs and net benefits are determined on a with-project
and without-project basis. They are estimated in constant prices for a selected year (e.g.,
constant 1998 prices), typically using the official exchange rate at appraisal. The revenues
of the project comprise of entirely user charges, that is, no government subsidies are
included.


5.2 Financial Revenues
5. The focus of the financial benefit-cost analysis is on the financial
benefits and costs of the project intervention. Hence, the project’s water sales revenues
are determined on a with-project and without-project basis. In this way, the
contribution of the project to the total revenues of the utility is estimated.

6. The project revenues are usually determined for different groups of
users, such as households, government institutions and private commercial/industrial
establishments. Each may have a different consumption pattern, may be charged a
different tariff and may respond differently to tariff increases. These price-quantity
relationships are part of the demand forecast presented in Chapter 3.

7. Table 5.1 illustrates the calculation of project revenues. In the example,
the existing water supply system has reached its maximum supply capacity. It has been
assumed that, without the project, the system will be properly maintained and operated
so that the present volume and quality of water supply can be maintained in the future.
With the project, the water supply system will be extended to supply (increased
quantities of) water to existing as well as new consumers. The project water supply and
revenues are determined as the difference between the with-project and the without-
project situations.


Table 5.1 Estimation of Project Revenues (1996 prices)
unit 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2005
1 Domestic consumers
2 Water supplied with-project ‘000 m³ 1,239 1,518 1,864 2,289 2,819 3,954
3 Water supplied without- ‘000 m³ 1,239 1,239 1,239 1,239 1,239 1,239
project
4 Project water supply ‘000 m³ 0 279 625 1,050 1,580 2,715
5 Average tariff VND/m³ 2,220 2,394 2,581 2,782 3,000 4,500
6 Project revenues VND mn 0 668 1,613 2,922 4,740 12,217
7 Government establishments
8 Water supplied with-project ‘000 m³ 293 300 308 315 324 454
9 Water supplied without- ‘000 m³ 293 293 293 293 293 293
project
10 Project water supply ‘000 m³ 0 7 15 22 31 161
12 Project revenues VND mn 0 21 50 80 124 726
13 Private establishments
14 Water supplied with-project ‘000 m³ 332 339 348 356 366 513
15 Water supplied without- ‘000 m³ 332 332 332 332 332 332
project
16 Project water supply ‘000 m³ 0 7 16 24 34 181
18 Project revenues VND mn 0 32 76 117 170 997
19 Subtotal water revenues
20 Total project water revenues VND mn 0 722 1,739 3,119 5,034 13,940
21 Total project water supply ‘000 m³ 0 293 656 1,096 1,645 3,058
22 Connection fees
23 Average connection fee ‘000 VND 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
24 New connections with- number 0 1,701 2,045 2,459 2,957 0
project
25 New connections without- number 0 0 0 0 0 0
project
26 Additional connections number 0 1,701 2,045 2,459 2,957 0
27 Project connection fees VND mn 0 2,552 3,068 3,689 4,436 0
28 Total project revenues VND mn 0 3,273 4,807 6,807 9,470 13,940
Note: Years 2001-2004 are not shown in this example.


8. The average tariff presented in constant 1996 prices as shown in Table
5.1, was projected to increase significantly with the implementation of the project, to
achieve a higher level of cost recovery, as follows (VND/m³):

Year
------------------------------------------------
consumers 1996 2000 2005
domestic 2,220 3,000 4,500
government 2,800 4,000 4,500
private 4,500 5,000 5,500

9. This tariff proposal took into account the ability to pay of domestic
consumers and involves some degree of cross-subsidization between domestic and non-
domestic consumers.

10. The water demand forecast used for illustrative purposes includes the
effect of price as well as real per capita income increases on demand. Overall increase in
water demand will mainly result from new domestic consumers connected to the new
water system project, as shown in Table 5.1.

5.3 Project Costs
11. Once the least-cost alternative has been selected, the preliminary project
cost estimates are typically worked out in greater detail by the engineer. The following
main categories are distinguished:

(i) investments;
(ii) operation and maintenance; and
(iii) re-investments during the life cycle.

12. Again, the costs should be attributed to the project on a with-project
and without- project basis. Only the additional costs due to the project should be taken
into account. The basis to attribute costs to the project should be the formulated with-
project and without-project scenarios. In Section 5.2 for example, it was assumed that
without the project, the existing water supply would be properly maintained and
operated, and that the present level of services would continue if the project were not
implemented. The project costs should be calculated on an annual basis and should be
equal to the with-project costs less the without-project costs. It should also be noted
that in many cases the system would deteriorate further in the without-project scenario.


5.3.1 Investments

13. The breakdown of an investment cost estimate of total US$83.00 million
(including IDC) is shown in Table 5.2 where foreign and local currency components
were distinguished to establish the foreign exchange implications of the project and
counterpart financing requirements. Following the general principles of discounting
according to which costs and benefits are entered in the analysis in the year in which
they occur, interest during construction (IDC) is excluded from the costs used in the
financial benefit-cost analysis.


Table 5.2 Project Cost Estimates a / ($ million)
Foreign Local b/ Total
Component Currency
A. WATER SUPPLY
1. Land - 1.17 1.17
2. Civil Works
-Drilling of Wells by Contractors 0.92 1.85 2.77
-Civil Works by Contractors 12.75 19.94 32.69
-Civil Works by WDs 1.85 10.15 12.00
3. Procurement of Equipment
-Pipes and Fittings 4.16 0.46 4.62
-Pumps and Motors 1.39 0.15 1.54
-Water Meters 2.78 0.30 3.08
-Office Equipment 0.28 0.03 0.31
-Stored Materials 1.60 0.47 2.07
4. Studies and Construction Management - 1.54 1.54
by Administration
Subtotal (A) 25.73 36.06 61.79
B. HEALTH EDUC & WATER TESTING
1. Health and Hygiene Education Program - 0.08 0.08
2. Water Quality Testing Program
a. Training for Staff and Conduct of Testing - 0.02 0.02
b. Civil Works - 0.18 0.18
c. Procurement of Equipment
- Equipment for Water Analysis 0.56 0.06 0.62
Laboratories
- Chemicals and Reagents 0.07 0.01 0.08
- Portable Water Analysis Kits 0.41 0.05 0.46
d. Land - 0.16 0.16
Subtotal (B) 1.04 0.56 1.60
C. INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
1. Capacity-Building Program
- Training of Water Districts’ Staff - 0.96 0.96
- LWUA’s Project Management Staff 0.06 0.03 0.09
2. Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation - 0.07 0.07
3. Consulting Services 1.60 3.25 4.85
Subtotal (C) 1.66 4.31 5.97
D. INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION 6.68 6.96 13.64
TOTAL 35.11 47.89 83.00
PERCENT 42.3 57.7 100.00
a/ August 1996 price level
b/ Local cost includes duties and taxes estimated at $6.4 million equivalent or 10% of civil
works, equipment, materials and consulting services.


5.3.2 Operation and maintenance

14. Estimates of operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are usually
provided to the economist by the engineer or financial analyst. In practice, different
ways of estimating O&M costs are used. One approach is to estimate the O&M costs as
a percentage of (accumulated) investment costs. Another approach might be to analyze
the utility’s past performance and to relate the total O&M costs to the volume of water
produced and/or distributed. And a third approach relates specific costs items to
specific outputs and totals them in a second step. For example, costs of electricity and
chemicals could be calculated on the basis of a specific requirement per m³ produced
and the labor requirements could be calculated on the basis of the number of employees
per connection.

15. The elements of O&M costs may include:

• labor;
• electricity;
• chemicals;
• materials;
• overhead;
• raw water charges;
• insurance;
• other.

5.3.3 Reinvestments

16. Different project investment assets have different lifetimes and need
replacement within the project lifetime. The cost of those reinvestments needs to be
included in the project’s benefit-cost calculation.

5.3.4 Residual values

17. The residual value of project assets at the end of the project life should
be included in the benefit-cost analysis as a negative cost (or benefit).


5.4 Net Financial Benefits
18. The project net benefit is the difference between the project revenues
and project costs. Sometimes, the net benefit stream is called the (net) cash flow.

19. An example of a net benefit calculation is shown in Table 5.3. Here,
the project revenues are drawn from Table 5.1. The project costs comprise of (i)
phased investment costs during 1996-1999; (ii) operation and maintenance costs
(VND1,400 per m³ water sold); (iii) sales taxes (1 percent on water sales, 3 percent on
connection fees); (iv) business and land taxes (lump sum of VND100 mn per year);
and (iv) connection costs (VND1.425 mn per connection).

Table 5.3 Net Financial Benefits (1996 VND mn)
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2005
2026
1 Project revenues
2 Water sales revenues
3 Domestic consumers 0 668 1,613 2,922 4,740 12,217
4 Government 0 21 50 80 124 726
establishments
5 Private establishments 0 32 76 117 170 997
6 Subtotal 0 722 1,739 3,119 5,034 13,940
7 Connection fees 0 2,552 3,068 3,689 4,436 0
8 Total project revenues 0 3,273 4,807 6,807 9,470 13,940
9 Project costs
10 Investments 7,184 43,107 64,660 28,738 0 0
11 Operation and 0 410 918 1,534 2,303 4,281
maintenance
12 Sales taxes 0 84 109 142 183 139
13 Business/land tax 0 100 100 100 100 100
14 Connection costs 0 2,424 2,914 3,504 4,214 0
15 Total project costs 7,184 46,125 68,702 34,018 6,800 4,520
16 Net financial benefit -7,184 -42,852 -63,895 -27,211 2,669 9,420
Note: Years 2001-2004 are no shown in this example.

20. Discounted at FOCC, the net benefit stream during the lifetime of the
project (30 years) shows the project’s worth. An internal rate of return calculated on
the net benefit stream shows the project’s profitability. Both profitability measures will
be further discussed in section 5.6. after the discount rate to be used is determined.


5.5 Financial Opportunity Cost of Capital
and Weighted Average Cost of Capital
21. For water supply projects (WSPs), the weighted average cost of
capital (WACC) is typically used as the benchmark to assess the financial viability of the
project. Although it is an accepted benchmark, it is important to understand that the
WACC may not fully reflect the financial opportunity cost of capital (FOCC) in the
market. Although a project may generate sufficient returns to allow full recovery of all
investment and O&M costs while still yielding a small return on investment, this return
may not be sufficient incentive for the owner to make the original investment or to
maintain the investment.

22. Private foreign investors will be looking for returns on equity that
also includes an allowance for risks, such as political and economic. Private domestic
investors will also have alternative investments, whether they be in financial assets, other
productive activities or areas such as real estate. Government investment may be guided
by whether the funds are fungible, by the real cost of investment funds and the
economic benefits of the project. If funds are fungible, they may be more interested in
investing in projects with higher returns, economic and/or financial.

23. Finally, projects with low returns are riskier to implement and
strain the financial sustainability of the corporate entity (public or private) charged with
its operation and maintenance. Consequently, it is important to keep these issues in
mind when comparing the FIRR of a project against a benchmark such as the WACC.
These issues become particularly important as the role of government in the supply and
operation and maintenance of infrastructure services changes and private sector
participation becomes more prevalent.

5.6 Calculating the Weighted Average Cost of Capital
24. The discount rate to be used in financial benefit-cost analysis is the
weighted average cost of capital (WACC). This WACC represents the cost incurred by
the entity in raising the capital necessary to implement the project. Since most projects
use several sources to raise capital and each of these sources may seek a different
return, the WACC represents a weighted average of the different returns paid to these
sources. The WACC is calculated first by estimating the nominal cost of the different


sources of capital. In Table 5.4, the nominal cost after corporate tax is shown. In a
second step, the WACC in nominal terms is corrected for inflation to form the WACC
in real terms, as shown in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4 Sample Calculation of Weighted Average Cost of Capital

Weight Nominal After Tax
Cost (Tax 40%)
ADB loan 40% 6.70% 4.02%
Commercial loan 20% 12.00% 7.20%
Grant 5% 0.00% 0.00%
Equity participation 35% 10.00% 10.00%
Total 100%
WACC,nominal 6.55%
Inflation rate 4.00%
WACC,real[(1+0.0655)/(1+0.0400)]-1 2.45%

25. In this example, the project provides its own equity capital (35 percent)
and raises additional capital from local banks (20 percent), from the ADB (40 percent),
and obtains a grant from the government (5 percent). The project entity pays a different
nominal return to each source of capital, including the expected return of 10 percent on
its equity to its shareholders.

26. Interest payments to the ADB and to the commercial bank are
deductible from pretax income, with corporate taxes of 40 percent (60 percent of
interest payments to the ADB and to the commercial bank remains as the actual cost of
capital to the project). Dividend paid to shareholders (if any) is not subject to corporate
tax; it might be subject to personal income tax, which does not impose a cost to the
utility.

27. The weighted average cost of capital in nominal terms is obtained by
multiplying the nominal cost of each source of capital after tax with its respective
weight. In Table 5.4, it is calculated as 6.55 percent. To obtain the WACC in real terms,
the nominal WACC is corrected for inflation of 4 percent as follows:

WACC real = {(1+ WACC nominal)/(1+inflation)} –1

28. In the example, the WACC in real terms amounts to 2.45 percent.
This is the discount rate to be used in the financial benefit-cost analysis of this particular
project as a proxy for the financial opportunity cost of capital (FOCC).


29. The sample calculation in Table 5.3 has been done “after tax”. For
the purpose of distribution analysis, however, the NPV is calculated “before tax”, using
a discount rate of 12 percent in both financial and economic analysis.

5.7 Financial IRR and NPV
30. The profitability of a project to the entity is indicated by the
project’s financial internal rate of return (FIRR). The FIRR is also the discount rate at
which the present value of the net benefit stream in financial terms becomes zero.

31. In Table 5.5, project revenues, project costs and project net benefits
have been presented for the full project period (i.e., 30 years) where, for the purpose of
the illustration, it has been assumed that revenues and costs will remain constant from
year 2006 onwards.


Table 5.5 Estimation of FIRR and FNP
(1996 prices )
Year Project Project Project Project
Water Cost Revenues Net Benefit
(‘000 m³) (VND mn.) (VND mn.) (VND mn.)
1996 0 7,184 0 -7,184
1997 293 46,125 3,273 -42,852
1998 656 68,702 4,807 -63,895
1999 1,096 34,018 6,807 -27,211
2000 1,645 6,800 9,470 2,669
2001 1,891 2,810 6,306 3,496
2002 2,153 3,193 7,795 4,602
2003 2,435 3,604 9,535 5,931
2004 2,736 4,045 11,568 7,522
2005 3,058 4,520 13,940 9,420
2006 3,058 4,520 13,940 9,420
2007 3,058 4,520 13,940 9,420
2008 3,058 4,520 13,940 9,420
2009 3,058 4,520 13,940 9,420
2010 3,058 4,520 13,940 9,420
2011 3,058 4,520 13,940 9,420
2012 3,058 4,520 13,940 9,420
2013 3,058 4,520 13,940 9,420
2014 3,058 4,520 13,940 9,420
2015 3,058 4,520 13,940 9,420
2016 3,058 4,520 13,940 9,420
2017 3,058 4,520 13,940 9,420
2018 3,058 4,520 13,940 9,420
2019 3,058 4,520 13,940 9,420
2020 3,058 4,520 13,940 9,420
2021 3,058 4,520 13,940 9,420
2022 3,058 4,520 13,940 9,420
2023 3,058 4,520 13,940 9,420
2024 3,058 4,520 13,940 9,420
2025 3,058 4,520 13,940 9,420
2026 3,058 4,520 13,940 9,420
PV@2.45% 52,440 224,359 240,285 15,925
Per m 3 4,278 4,582 304
FIRR 3.24%
FNPV @ 2.45% VNDmn 15,925
FNPV @ 3.24% VNDmn 0
FNPV @ 12.00% VNDmn –66,903


32. The discount rate at which the present value of the net benefits
becomes zero works out to be 3.24 percent. This is the FIRR, which should be
compared to the WACC. If the FIRR exceeds the WACC, the project is considered to
be financially viable. If the FIRR is below the WACC, the project would only be
financially viable if subsidized by the government. In the example, the FIRR of 3.24
percent is above the WACC of 2.45 percent, and hence the project is financially viable.

33. The financial net present value (FNPV) shows the present value of the
net benefit stream, or the projects’ worth today. The discount rate to be used here is the
WACC. A positive FNPV indicates a profitable project, i.e. the project generates
sufficient funds to cover its cost, including loan repayments and interest payments. If
the FNPV, discounted at the WACC of 2.45 percent, turns out to be positive, the
project is earning an interest of at least the required 2.45 percent. In the example, as the
FIRR is 3.24 percent, the project earns an interest of 3.24 percent. The project, thus,
earns more than the required 2.45 percent interest, recovers all investment and recurrent
costs, and yields a very small profit.

34. A negative FNPV points to a project that does not generate sufficient
returns to recover its costs, to repay its loan and to pay interest. Note that, as a general
principle of discounting cash flows for the purpose of IRR calculations, loan repayments
and interest payments are not considered part of the economic cost.

35. Discounted at the WACC of 2.45 percent, the FNPV of the project is
positive VND1.59 billion. The project is thus financially profitable. If a discount rate of
3.24 percent is used (equal to the FIRR), the FNPV equals (by definition) zero.

36. The example shows that if the discount rate used (2.45 percent) is below
the FIRR (3.24 percent), the FNPV is positive; vice versa, if the discount rate used (5,
10, 12 percent) is above the FIRR (3.24 percent), the FNPV is negative.

37. The last line of Table 5.4 has included the discounted volume of project
water and the discounted values of project costs, revenues and net benefits. The AIFC
is VND4,278 per m3 calculated as the present value of project costs divided by the
present value of the quantity of project water. Similarly the present value of project
revenues divided by the present value of project water represents the average financial
revenue per m³, in the example VND4,582 per m³; and the present value of project net
benefits divided by the present value of project water indicates the profit (loss) per m³,
in the example VND304 per m³.

CHAPTER 6

ECONOMIC BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS


CONTENTS

6.1 Identification of Economic Benefits and Costs ..............................................................140
6.1.1 Basic Principles ......................................................................................................140
6.1.2 With and Without-cases: Comparison ...............................................................140
6.1.3 Nonincremental and Incremental Inputs and Outputs...................................141
6.1.3.1 Introduction..............................................................................................141
6.1.3.2 Nonincremental Inputs ..........................................................................142
6.1.3.3 Incremental Inputs ..................................................................................142
6.1.3.4 Nonincremental Output.........................................................................142
6.1.3.5 Incremental Output.................................................................................142
6.1.4 Demand and Supply Prices..................................................................................142
6.2 Quantification of Economic Costs....................................................................................143
6.2.1 Taxes, Duties, and Subsidies ...............................................................................143
6.2.2 External Effects.....................................................................................................144
6.2.3 Working Capital.....................................................................................................144
6.3 Quantification of Economic Benefits ...............................................................................144
6.3.1 Benefits from a Water Supply Project................................................................144
6.3.2 Measuring Other Benefits of a Water Supply Project .....................................148
6.3.2.1 Health Benefits ........................................................................................148
6.3.2.2 Time Cost Saving Benefit.......................................................................149
6.3.2.3 Demand Curve Analysis and other Benefits .......................................149
6.4 Valuation of Economic Benefits and Costs.....................................................................150
6.4.1 General....................................................................................................................150
6.4.2 Principle of Shadow Pricing (Economic Pricing).............................................151
6.4.2.1 Opportunity Cost ....................................................................................151
6.4.3 Conversion Factors and Numeraire ...................................................................152
6.4.3.1 Numeraire .................................................................................................152
6.4.3.2 Border Price..............................................................................................153
6.4.3.3 Traded and Nontraded Goods and Services......................................153
6.4.3.4 Conversion Factors .................................................................................155
6.5 Valuation of Economic Benefits and Costs of Water Supply Projects .......................158
6.5.1 Economic Benefits of Water Supply Projects ..................................................158
6.5.2 Economic Value of Water Supply Input ...........................................................162
6.5.3 Summary of Basic Criteria Used In Economic Valuation
of the Project Outputs and Inputs .....................................................................164
6.6 Economic Benefit-Cost Analysis: An Illustration...........................................................164
6.6.1 Financial and Economic Statement of a Water Supply Project .....................164
6.6.2 Economic Benefits................................................................................................167
6.6.2.1 Water Sold ................................................................................................167
6.6.2.2 Unaccounted for Water ..........................................................................167

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS 139

6.6.3 Economic Costs.....................................................................................................168
6.6.4 Results .....................................................................................................................169
6.6.5 Basic Differences between Financial
and Economic Benefit-cost Analyses.................................................................169

Figures
Figure 6.1 With- and Without-Project vs. Before- and After-Project………………….…141
Figure 6.2 Concept of Gross Benefits…………………………………………………….146
Figure 6.3 Nonincremental and Incremental Benefits…………………………………….147

Boxes
Box 6.1 Value of Time Spent on Water Collection………………………………………..149
Box 6.2 Calculating Opportunity Cost of Water…………………………………………..152
Box 6.3 SCF and SERF…………………………………………………………………...155
Box 6.4 Calculation of Economic Valuation of Benefit
(Using Domestic Price Numeraire)……………………………………………….160
Box 6.5 Calculation of Economic Valuation of Benefit
(Using World Price Numeraire)……………………………………………………161
Box 6.6 Calculation of Economic Valuation of Input
(Using Domestic Price Numeraire)………………………………………………...163

Tables
Table 6.1 Shadow Prices of Project Outputs and Inputs …………………………………143
Table 6.2 Unit of Account ……………………………………………………………152
Table 6.3 Economic Price of Electricity (per kWh)………………………………………….157
Table 6.4 Basis for Economic Valuation of Project Outputs and Inputs…………………….164
Table 6.5 Financial Statement………………………………………………………………..165
Table 6.6 Economic Statement……………………………………………………………...166
Table 6.7 Conversion of Financial into Economic Costs…………………………………….168
Table 6.8 Conversion of Financial Operation and Maintenance Cost………………………...169


6.1 Identification of Economic Benefits and Costs

6.1.1 Basic Principles

1. After choosing the best among project alternatives and verifying the
financial viability of the selected option, the next step is to test the economic viability of
that option. The initial step in testing the economic viability of a project is to identify,
quantify and value the economic costs and benefits. Two important principles to be
followed are:

(i) Comparison between with- and without-project situations; and

(ii) Distinction between nonincremental and incremental inputs (costs) and
outputs (benefits).

6.1.2 With- and Without-cases: Comparison

2. The comparison between “with” and “without” the project is often
different from the comparison between “before” and “after” the project. The without-
project situation is that which would prevail if the project is not undertaken. For
example, population in the project area will grow leading to an increase in the use of
water; and water sources will become increasingly scarce and remote, contributing to a
higher cost of water to the consumers. The situation, therefore, will not remain static at
the level just “before” the project.

3. The project inputs and outputs should be identified, quantified and
valued by comparing the without-project situation with that of the with-project to cover
the relevant project benefits and costs. Figure 6.1 shows the differences of the real
economic cost of water in the with- and without-project and the before- and after-
project situations. A similar diagram could also be used to show the differences in the
benefits between the various project situations.


Figure 6.1 “With” and “Without” Project vs. “Before” and “After” Project

Real economic
cost of Water
Without the Project

Just “Before” the Project

Just “After” the Project

With the Project

0 Life of the Project 30 years (say)
TIME (YEAR OF THE PROJECT)
“With” and “Without”- “Before” and “After” -

6.1.3 Nonincremental and Incremental Inputs and Outputs

6.1.3.1 Introduction

4. In identifying project benefits and costs, a distinction is to be made
between nonincremental and incremental inputs (costs), and between nonincremental
and incremental outputs (benefits). This distinction is important because nonincremental
and incremental effects are valued in different ways. Nonincremental inputs are project
demands that are met by existing supplies while incremental inputs are project demands
that are met by an increase in the total supply of the input. Nonincremental outputs are
project outputs that replace existing outputs while incremental outputs expand supply to
meet new or additional demands.

5. Inputs (either nonincremental or incremental) to a water supply project
(WSP) may include expenditure categories such as water, electricity, labor, equipment
and materials, etc., while outputs (either nonincremental or incremental) may include
water supply and/or sanitation services.


6.1.3.2 Nonincremental Inputs

6. In some cases, water supply to a user of water, say an industrial plant, is
to be met (partly or fully) by an existing stock of available water without expansion of
overall supply. For example, such supply is met by withdrawing water from existing users
in, say, agriculture. Such water is defined as nonincremental water input.

6.1.3.3 Incremental Inputs

7. If a water demand is to be met by an expansion of the water supply
system, the water supply input should be considered as incremental supply of water.

6.1.3.4 Nonincremental Output

8. If the output of a WSP replaces the existing supply to the users, that
output is defined as nonincremental output. For example, if the present source of water
to the consumers is from vendors or from wells, a canal and or a river (with time and
effort spent on such use of water), the supply of water from the project which replaces
this is to be considered nonincremental.

6.1.3.5 Incremental Output

9. The supply of water from a project that meets additional or induced
demand (possibly as a result of availability of higher quality of water at lower cost) is to
be considered as incremental output.

6.1.4 Demand and Supply Prices
10. In economic analysis, the market prices of inputs and outputs are
adjusted to consider the effects of government intervention and market failures. Shadow
prices based either on the supply price or the demand price, or a weighted average of the
two, are used. Different shadow prices are used for incremental output, nonincremental
output, incremental input and nonincremental input. Incremental outputs and
nonincremental inputs are valued in the same manner, i.e., in terms of their adjusted
demand price or willingness to pay. Nonincremental outputs and incremental inputs are
valued in terms of their adjusted supply price or opportunity costs. This is shown in
Table 6.1.


Table 6.1 Shadow Prices of Project Outputs and Inputs
Incremental Nonincremental
Outputs Adjusted demand price Adjusted supply price
or willingness to pay or opportunity cost

Inputs Adjusted supply price Adjusted demand price
or opportunity cost or willingness to pay

6.2 Quantification of Economic Costs
11. In estimating the economic costs, some items of the financial costs are to
be excluded while some items not considered in the financial costs are to be included.
This is to reflect costs from the viewpoint of the economy as a whole rather than from
the viewpoint of the individual entity. They are summarized below:

6.2.1 Taxes, Duties, and Subsidies
12. Taxes, duties, and subsidies are called transfer payments because they
transfer command over resources from one party (taxpayers and subsidy receivers) to
another (government, the tax receivers and subsidy givers) without reducing or
increasing the amount of real resources available to the economy as a whole. Hence,
such transfer payments are not economic costs.

13. However, these transfer payments are to be included in the economic
costs in certain circumstances, including:

(i) if the government is correcting environmental costs through a tax or a
pollution charge;

(ii) if the water supply input is nonincremental (refer to para. 6.1.3 above).
For example, the volume of water withdrawn from existing agricultural
use which is supplied to a newly established industrial plant is to be
considered as water. Its economic cost is based on the demand price of
agricultural water and as such, the transfer element (tax or subsidy) is a
part of the demand price.


6.2.2 External Effects
14. These refer to such effects of a WSP on the activities of
individuals/entities outside the project that affect their costs and benefits but which are
not directly reflected in the financial cash flow of the project. For example,
environmental effects of a WSP, such as river water pollution due to discharge of
untreated wastewater effluent, affect activities like fishing and washing downstream.

15. Other examples include the following:

(i) a WSP uses ground water from an aquifer and the natural rate of
recharge of that aquifer is less than the withdrawal rate of water. This
results in a “depletion” of the resource for which a premium is to be
imposed as an economic cost to the project.

(ii) a WSP uses scarce or limited water resources and there is competition
among the users of raw water. This may lead to withdrawing water from
existing users (e.g., irrigation) to provide water to a new industrial estate,
thus imposing a disbenefit to the existing agriculture users. This case is
referred to as (nonincremental) water inputs in paragraph 6.1.3 above.

6.2.3 Working Capital
16. A certain amount of working capital is normally required to run a WSP.
This working capital includes inventories and spare parts which must be available to
facilitate smooth day-to-day operations. Items of working capital reflect not only
inventories but also loan receipts, repayment flows, etc. However, for the purpose of
economic analysis, only inventories that constitute real claims on a nation’s resources
should be included.

6.3 Quantification of Economic Benefits

6.3.1 Benefits from a Water Supply Project
17. Gross benefits from a WSP can be estimated conveniently by
apportioning the supply of water into nonincremental output and incremental output.


These were explained in para. 6.1.3.

18. The following example, with calculation and diagram, explains the
concepts of valuing incremental and nonincremental demand.

Data:

A piped WSP is proposed to meet a growing demand for an area from its existing level
of 150 m3 per year to 250 m3 per year. The present supply of 150 m3 per year is met as
follows: 25 percent from vendors and 75 percent from household wells, at the following
financial prices which include the cost of home processing of water to a quality closer to
that of piped supply.

Sources Proportion Annual Quantity Cost/m3
Private vendors 25% 37.5 m3 5L
Household wells 75% 112.5 m3 3L
Average of supply price 4L/m3

This is a public water supply scheme and the price of piped water supply is only 1.5 liters
per m3, which is lower than the present cost of supply. Due to the higher quality and
lower price of piped supplies, the existing supply of water by vendors and household
wells will be fully replaced. The concept of gross benefits is illustrated in Figure 6.2.


Figure 6.2 Concept of Gross Benefits
Price of water per m³
8.00 Demand curve/
WTP
7.00
3
6.00 Demand price “W o” = 4/m

5.00
Demand price “W” = 1.5/m3
4.00 (Tariff charged)
Supply Line “W o”
3.00

2.00 A B

1.00 Supply Line “W”

0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Water Consumption (m³/year)
Quantity of Water

Quantity consumed:
Qwo =150 m3/yr = water from vendors and wells
Qw =250 m3/yr = water from the project
Prices:
Pwo =4L/m3 = cost of water (existing)without-project
Pw =1.5L/m3 = tariff with-project

Non-incremental benefit due to full replacement of existing supply
(based on average supply price) = AREA A
= (Qwo) x (Pwo)
= 150 x 4
= 600 L


Incremental benefit due to future increase of water use
(based on average demand price) = AREA B
= 1/2 (Pwo + Pw) x (Qw - Qwo)
= 1/2 (4 + 1.5 ) x (250 - 150)
= 275 L

Total gross benefit = Area A + Area B
= 600 + 275
= 875 L

The prices used in this example are in financial terms. They are to be expressed in
economic terms by applying economic valuation methodology described in Section 6.4.

19. From the example, it can be seen that the nonincremental part of the
gross benefit is based on the average supply price of water in the without-project
situation whereas the incremental part is based on the average demand price of water. In
the example, the demand curve is taken to be a straight line. But if the demand curve is
arrived at by some other method including the contingency valuation method, the actual
demand curve (which may not be a straight line) can be used to arrive at the gross
benefit of incremental water by calculating the area below the demand curve, as shown
in Figure 6.3.

Figure 6.3 Nonincremental and incremental Benefits

Price or
cost of
water
/m3

m3

Nonincremental Incremental Water Consumption
Qwo Qw


6.3.2 Measuring Other Benefits of a Water Supply Project

6.3.2.1 Health Benefits

20. WSPs have been justified on the basis of expected public and private
health benefits, which are likely to occur with the project due to the overall improvement
in the quality of drinking water. Such benefits are likely to occur provided the adverse
health impacts of an increased volume of wastewater can be eliminated or minimized.

21. Drinking unsafe water may cause water-related diseases, such as
Diarrhoea, Roundworm, Guinea Worm and Schistosomiasis. People affected by these
diseases may have to purchase medicines, consult a doctor or lose a day’s wage.
Accordingly, health benefits due to the provision of safe water have two dimensions:
avoided private/public health expenditures; and economic value of days of sickness
saved.

22. Whether for the existing use of water (nonincremental) or its future
extended use (incremental), it is often difficult to estimate the health benefits in
monetary terms. The reasons include:

(i) improved health due to safe water and sanitation alone is difficult to
arrive at. For example, public health programs may promote boiling or
chemical treatment of water and improve the overall health conditions.
Such improvement could not be attributed to the provision of safe water.

(ii) the supply of safe water alone may not improve health unless
complementary actions are taken, such as hygienic use of water through
hygiene education, nutritional measures, etc.

(iii) The ultimate effect of health benefit is the increased labor productivity
due to the “healthy life days” (HLDs) saved, which may possibly be
estimated in quantitative terms; but to arrive at the value of increased
productivity in monetary terms is difficult and complicated as appropriate
data is rarely available.

23. Because of these reasons, it is customary to confine the health benefit-
related analysis to cost effectiveness analysis and arrive at HLDs saved per unit of money
spent. In the case of projects with a low EIRR or where the EIRR cannot be calculated,
the alternative with the highest HLDs per unit of money spent should be selected.


24. In practice, health benefits are often not valued but treated as non-
quantifiable benefits. If health benefits are expected to be significant, the EIRR analysis
should then be supplemented with a qualitative, if possible quantitative, assessment of
the importance of such benefits. There may be cases where a valuation of health benefits
can be done.

6.3.2.2 Time Cost Saving Benefit

25. In the without-project situation, time spent in collecting water from the
nearest source of water supply (e.g., wells, tank, river, standposts on the road) may be
considerable, especially during the dry season. An important benefit from a piped water
supply and provision of public taps is that it brings the source of water very near to the
households. Time saved in with- and without-project situations can be estimated. What
is difficult, however, is how to value time in monetary terms. Different approaches have
been used by different agencies and authorities. Box 6.1 shows three such examples.

Box 6.1 Value of Time Spent on Water Collection
There are different approaches to value time savings:
• The Inter-American Development Bank assumes that time savings should be valued at 50
percent of the market wage rate for unskilled labor;
• Whittington, et al (1990) conclude that the value of time might be near- or even above-the-
market wage rate for unskilled labor;
• A 1996 WB SAR on the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project in Nepal, has taken (i) 30
percent of time saved, devoted to economic activities, at the full rural market wage; (ii) 16
percent of time saved, devoted to household activities, at 50 percent of the rural market wage;
and the remainder 54 percent at 25 percent of the rural market wage. This comes to a
weighted average of 51.5 percent of the rural market wage.

26. It is, however, difficult to find out the precise value of time without a
considerable amount of research and data. As an approximation, it is suggested that the
value of time saved is calculated on the basis of the local minimum wage rate for casual
unskilled labor.

6.3.2.3 Demand Curve Analysis and Other Benefits

27. It is suggested in para. 6.3.1 that a demand curve be estimated by
establishing the user’s behavior in the without-project situation (such as vendor’s charges
paid or costs of well’s operation) as one point on the demand curve and the water
charges levied by the government or water authorities as a second point on the demand
curve. Water charges for piped water are the basis for the future water use with-project.


Alternatively, a surrogate demand curve may be derived using the contingency valuation
method to derive gross economic benefits. If such demand curves are well established
and reflect the user’s marginal willingness to pay, then again bringing in health benefits
and time saving benefits separately will lead to double counting.

28. Costs due to ill-health (arising out of unsafe water) and costs of time
spent in collecting water in the existing without-project situation (if at all it can be valued
in monetary terms) may, however, be used to arrive at the point in the demand curve in
the without-project situation.

6.4 Valuation of Economic Benefits and Costs

6.4.1 General
29. Once the costs and benefits, including external effects, have been
identified and quantified, they should be valued. Decisions by the producers and users
of project output are based on financial prices. To appraise the consequences of their
decisions on the national economy, benefits and costs are to be valued at economic
prices. Therefore, the (financial) market prices are to be adjusted to account for the
effects of government interventions and market structures.

(i) transfer payments - taxes, duties and subsidies incorporated in market
prices of goods and services;

(ii) official price of foreign exchange where government controls foreign
exchange markets;

(iii) wage rates of labor where minimum wage legislation affects wage rates;
and,

(iv) commercial cost of capital where government controls the capital market.

30. Hence, as market rates in those cases are poor indicators of the economic
worth of resources concerned, they need to be converted into their shadow prices for
economic analysis.


6.4.2 Principle of Shadow Pricing (Economic Pricing)

6.4.2.1 Opportunity Cost

31. Opportunity cost is the benefit foregone from not using a good or a
resource in its next best alternative use. To value the benefits (outputs) and costs, the
opportunity cost measured in economic prices is the appropriate value to be used in
project economic analyses.

32. Opportunity Cost of Labor. Assuming that surplus labor is available in
the project area, the economic cost of labor employed in a new project will approximate
the economic value of net output lost elsewhere, which is reflected in the rural labor
wage of casual labor (say 40 taka per day). The labor rate used in the financial analysis of
the project is the government controlled minimum wage rate of 60 taka per day. The
ratio of the economic opportunity cost of labor to the project wage rate will be 40/60 =
0.67. This means that the true economic cost of labor is two-thirds of the wages paid in
financial prices.

33. Opportunity Cost of Land. The economic value of land in a project is
best determined through its opportunity cost. For example, for new projects in a rural
area, the opportunity cost of land will typically be the net agricultural output foregone,
measured at economic prices.

34. Opportunity Cost of Water. Depending on the source of water, the
opportunity cost of water may vary from zero to a very high figure. If the water in the
area is abundant, the opportunity cost of using such water is zero; but if, on the contrary,
the water is scarce and an urban water supply scheme has to use some water by taking it
away from existing agriculture or industrial use, the opportunity cost of water will be
equal to the value of net agricultural or industrial production lost by diverting water from
these alternative uses. Box 6.2 shows a typical calculation.


Box 6.2 Calculating Opportunity Cost of Water

Water for drinking purposes is required to be diverted from present agricultural use.

(1) Annual net income from 1 ha. of paddy is
from (existing) irrigated land = Tk11,600
annual net income from rainfed land = Tk7,100
(in future when irrigation water is not available) -----------------
Benefit from irrigation = Tk4,500

(2) Farmers’ need of water = 8,000m3 per ha.
for irrigation at present

(3) Incremental net benefit from irrigation = Tk4,500/8,000m3
= Tk0.56 / m3

(4) Opportunity cost of diverted water = Tk0.56 / m3

Note: Net income = total production output (sales) - total production costs

6.4.3 Conversion Factors and Numeraire

6.4.3.1 Numeraire

35. Economic pricing can be done in two different currencies and at two
different price levels. The choice of currency and the price level specifies the numeraire
or unit in which the project effects are measured, such as:

(i) Domestic price level numeraire, when all economic prices are expressed
in their equivalent domestic price level values; and

(ii) World Price level numeraire, when all economic prices are expressed in
their equivalent world price levels.

Table 6.2 Unit of Account
Currency
Price Level National Foreign
Domestic Prices Domestic, taka Domestic, dollars
World Prices World, taka World, dollars


36. As the Guidelines for the Economic Analysis of Projects makes clear, provided
equivalent assumptions are made in the analyses, the choice of the numeraire (whether
the world price or the domestic price level numeraire) will not alter the decision on a
project. However, in some special cases, especially in WSPs, it is convenient to conduct
the economic analysis of a project in units of domestic prices. These cases relate to
projects where distributional effects and the question of a subsidy to users below the
poverty line are important policy issues.

37. The example in section 6.5 shows the relevant calculation using both
numeraires.

6.4.3.2 Border Price

38. The world price mentioned in Table 6.2 is represented by the country’s
price of imported or exported goods at the border.

(i) for imported items, the border price is the c.i.f. value (cost, insurance and
freight) expressed in domestic currency by using the official exchange
rate (OER).

Example: The c.i.f. value of an imported water supply pump is
$20,000.00 and the OER is P40 = $1. The economic border price of the
pump expressed in domestic currency is 20,000 X 40 = P800,000.

(ii) for exported items the border price is the f.o.b. value (free on board)
expressed in domestic currency using the OER.

6.4.3.3 Traded and Nontraded Goods and Services

39. Goods and services which are imported or exported are known as traded
items and their production and consumption affect a country’s level of exports or
imports. Using the world price numeraire in economic valuation (c.i.f. for imports and
f.o.b. for exports expressed in domestic currency by using OER), there is no need for
any further conversion. If, however, the domestic price level numeraire is used in
economic valuation, the c.i.f. and f.o.b. values are to be converted to their domestic price
equivalent by using the relevant conversion factor (e.g., shadow exchange rate factor,
SERF) which is the reciprocal value of the standard conversion factor (SCF).

40. The link between the domestic and world price numeraire is provided by
a parameter reflecting the average ratio of world to domestic prices for an economy. If


the analysis is done in world price or border price equivalent, this parameter is the
standard conversion factor (SCF) which compares world prices with domestic prices. In
a domestic price system, its reciprocal − the ratio of the shadow to the official exchange
rate (SER/OER), sometimes termed the foreign exchange conversion factor − is used.
In either system, the relative valuation of traded to nontraded goods is provided by the
average ratio of world to domestic prices.

41. Box 6.3 shows the commonly used equation for calculating the SCF.


Box 6.3 SCF and SERF

Border price Official exchange rate (OER)
SCF = ----------------- ≈ ---------------------------------------
Domestic price Shadow exchange rate (SER)

M+X
= ---------------------------------------------
{ M (1 + tm - sm)} + {X (1 - tx + sx)}

Where:
M&X - are total imports and exports, respectively, in a particular year at world prices and
converted into local currency at the OER.
tm & tx - are the average rate of taxes on imports and exports, respectively, calculated as the
ratio of tax collected to M and X.
sm & sx - are the average rate of subsidy on imports and exports, respectively, calculated as the
ratio of subsidy paid to M and X.

Illustration: Philippines 1994
M = 495,134 million pesos
X = 202,698 million pesos
Tax on imports = 88,278 m pesos tm = 88,278 / 495,134 = 0.178
Subsidy on imports = 0 sm = 0
Tax on exports = 17 million peso tx = 17 / 202,698 = 0.00008
Subsidy on exports = 0 sx = 0

(495,134) + (202,698)
Hence, SCF = --------------------------------------------------------------------
{495,134 x (1 + 0.178)} + {202,698 x (1 - .00008)}
= 0.888

Also, SERF = SER/OER = 1/SCF = 1 / 0.888 = 1.126 – 1.13 (Rounded).
In other words a SCF = .888 results in a 13 percent premium on foreign exchange.

6.4.3.4 Conversion Factors

42. To remove the market distortions in financial prices of goods and
services and to arrive at the economic prices, a set of ratios between the economic price
value and the financial price value for project inputs and outputs is used to convert the
constant price financial values of project benefits and costs into their corresponding
economic values. The general equation is as follows:


CFi = EPi / FPi

where CFi = conversion factor for i
EPi = economic value of i
FPi = financial value of i

43. Conversion factors can be used for groups of similar items like
engineering, construction, transport, energy and water resources used in a particular
project, or for the economy as a whole as in the SCF or SERF. The former are referred
to as project specific conversion factors for inputs while the latter refer to national
parameters. These are briefly discussed hereafter.

National parameters:

44. Several nontraded inputs occur in nearly all projects. These include
construction, transport, water, power and distribution. It is useful to calculate specific
conversion factors for these commonly occurring inputs on a country basis so that
consistent values are used across different projects in a country. These are known as
national parameters. Their determination is normally the work of national institutions,
such as the Ministry of Finance and/or an Economic Development Unit or Central
Planning Organization, if any. In countries where national parameters are not available,
international financial institutions (World Bank, regional development banks like ADB)
attempt to use conversion factors (e.g., SWR, SER and SCF) derived from recent
consultant reports or research studies available in the country concerned and try to
update them periodically.

Project specific conversion factors for inputs:

45. Where the supply of nontraded inputs is being expanded, specific
conversion factors can be calculated through a cost breakdown at financial prices. The
following calculations show an illustration of electricity charges in a WSP.

National conversion factors:
SCF = 0.885
SERF = 1.13
Labor (unskilled) = 0.7 in domestic price(=SWR)
Labor (skilled) = 1.0 in domestic price


Cost breakdown of electricity supply per kWh:
Fuel (traded) = P 0.900
Skilled labor = P 0.015
Unskilled labor = P 0.025
Capital charges
Traded element = P 0.300
Nontraded element = P 0.340
Domestic materials (nontraded) = P 0.120
-----------
Subtotal = P1.700
Government tax = P0.170
-----------
Total = P1.870

Table 6.3 Economic Price of Electricity (per kWh)
World Price Domestic Price
Numeraire Numeraire
Financial Conversion Economic Conversion Economic
Cost Factor Value (P) Factor Value (P)
Fuel (traded) 0.900 1.0 0.900 1.13 1.017
Skilled labor 0.015 1.0 x 0.885 0.013 1.00 0.015
Unskilled labor 0.025 0.7 x 0.885 0.015 0.70 0.018
Capital charge
Traded 0.300 1.0 0.300 1.13 0.339
Nontraded 0.340 0.885 0.301 1.00 0.340
Domestic Materials 0.120 0.885 0.106 1.00 0.120
(nontraded)
Government tax 0.170 0 0.000 0.00 0.000
1.870 1.635 1.849

C.F. in world price numeraire = 1.635 / 1.87 = 0.874

C.F. in domestic price numeraire = 1.849 / 1.87 = 0.989

The financial price of electricity has to be adjusted to its economic price by multiplying
with this project specific conversion factor.


6.5 Valuation of Economic Benefits and Costs
of Water Supply Projects

6.5.1 Economic Benefits of Water Supply Projects
46. This can be best explained by an illustration. The benefit evaluation in
financial terms of the nonincremental and incremental components of demand discussed
in Section 6.3.1 will be used for this purpose.

47. The data are again shown below:

Qwo = quantity without-project = 150 m3/yr
Qw = quantity with-project = 250 m3/yr
Pwo = financial cost/price of existing
water supply = 4 P/m3
Pw = (financial) tariff with project = 1.5 P/m3

Nonincremental benefit based on average supply price= 600 P
Incremental benefit based on average demand price = 275 P
---------
Total gross benefit per year in financial terms = 875 P

Letter P may refer to any other local currency unit.

For economic valuation purposes, the breakdown of the items into traded, nontraded,
labor and transfer payments (if any) is needed. The numerical values of the national
parameters, i.e.: SCF/SERF, SWRF, etc. should also be known.

Demand and supply:

48. The existing annual demand is met partly (25 percent) by the supply from
private vendors and partly (75 percent) by the operation of household wells at the
following financial prices, which include the costs of home processing of water to a
quality close to that of piped supplies:


Sources Proportion Yearly Quantity Cost(P)/m3
Private vendors 25% 37.5 m3 8.61
Household wells 75% 112.5 m3 2.46
Total 100% 150.0 m3 4.00
(weighted average)

Breakdown of costs

1. Private vendors’ supply price (8.61 P/m3)
Unskilled labor = 4.31 P/m3 = 50%
Nontraded materials = 3.44 P/m3 = 40%
Traded element = 0.86 P/m3 = 10%
Total = 8.61 P/m3 = 100%

2. Household wells’ price (2.46L/m3)
Traded element = 1.72 P/m3 = 70%
Unskilled Labor = 0.37 P/m3 = 15%
Nontraded materials = 0.37 P/m3 = 15%
Total = 2.46 P/m3 = 100%

The steps followed in calculating the economic benefit are shown in Box 6.4 (using
domestic price numeraire) and in Box 6.5 (using world price numeraire).


Box 6.4 Calculation of Economic Benefits
(Using Domestic Price Numeraire)

SWRF = 0.7
SERF = 1.2
Premium = .2

A. Economic Valuation of Nonincremental Benefits
Source of Cost Conversion Economic
Water Components Amount Factor Price (P)
Private Vendors Traded 0.86 1.20 1.03
Unskilled labor 4.31 0.70 3.02
Nontraded materials 3.44 1.00 3.44
Total 8.61 7.49
Household wells Traded 1.72 1.20 2.06
Total 2.46 2.69

Weighted average economic value of nonincremental water
= (0.25 x 7.49) + (0.75 x 2.69)
= 1.87 + 2.02 = 3.89 P/m3

B. Economic Valuation of Incremental Benefits

Average cost/price of water without-project = 4 P/m3
Tariff of water with-project = 1.5 P/m3

Average demand price with- and without-
project (using domestic price numeraire) = (4 + 1.5) / 2
= 2.75 P/m3

C. Economic Value of Water Supply Project (using domestic price numeraire)

Gross economic benefits of water supply project
= (Economic value of + (Economic value of
nonincremental water) incremental water)
= (150 x 3.89) + (250 – 150) x 2.75
= 858.5 P


Box 6.5 Calculation of Economic Benefits
(Using World Price Numeraire)

SCF = 1/SERF = 1/1.2 = 0.83
SWRF = 0.7 x SCF = 0.58

A. Economic Value of Nonincremental Benefits
Source of Cost Conversion Economic
Water Components Amount Factor Price (P)
Private Vendors Traded 0.86 1.00 0.86
Total 8.61 6.22
Household wells Traded 1.72 1.00 1.72
Total 2.46 2.24

Weighted average economic value of nonincremental water
= (0.25 x 6.22) + (0.75 x 2.24)
= 3.235 P/m3 = 3.24 P/m3 (rounded)

B. Economic Valuation of Incremental Benefits
Average cost/price of water without-project = 4 P/m3
Tariff of water with-project = 1.5 P/m3

Average demand price with and without the
Project (in financial prices) = (4 + 1.5)/2
= 2.75 P/m3

World price equivalent of average demand price = 2.75 x SCF
= 2.75 x 0.83
= 2.28 P/m3

C. Economic Value of Water Supply Project (in world price numeraire)
Gross economic benefits of water supply project
= (Economic value of + (Economic value of
nonincremental water) incremental water)
= (150 x 3.24) + (250 – 150) x 2.28
= 714.00 P


6.5.2 Economic Value of Water Supply Input
49. This can best be illustrated by an example. A newly established industrial
plant needs a large quantity of water from the public water supply. Two thirds of the
total requirement of the industrial plant (180,000 m3 per year) will be met from an
expansion of the existing water supply. To meet the remaining one third of the supply
to the industrial plant, it will be necessary for the public water supply organization to
withdraw this water from existing agricultural use as there is a strict limitation to the
water resource. Hence, the water supply to the industrial plant will be as follows:

Nonincremental water input = 1/3 of 180,000
(diverted from agricultural use) = 60,000 m3

Incremental water input = 2/3 of 180,000
(to be met from expansion) = 120,000 m3

Data:

The financial cost breakdown of the incremental water input is as follows:

Taka/10m3
Tradable inputs = 37.5
Power = 90.0
Capital charges
Construction (nontraded) = 31.3
Equipment (traded) = 8.7
Unskilled labor = 92.5
Nontraded domestic materials = 16.3
Subtotal = 276.3
Taxes and duties = 27.6
Total = 303.9 per 10 m3

Therefore, the financial cost per cubic meter is 30.39 taka.

The economic valuation of water supply input is illustrated in Box 6.6.


Box 6.6 Economic Valuation of Inputs (Using Domestic Price Numeraire)

Conversion factors (national parameters):
SERF = 1.25
SWRF = 0.68

A. Economic Price of Incremental Water input (120,000 m3) in domestic price numeraire
Financial Cost Breakdown of
Breakdown Conversion Economic Price
Items (Taka/10 m3) Factor (Taka/10m3)
Tradable inputs 37.5 1.25 46.88
Power 90.0 0.989 */ 89.01
Capital Charges
Construction (nontraded) 31.3 1.00 31.30
Equipment (traded) 8.70 1.25 10.88
Labor 92.5 0.68 62.90
Nontraded domestic
materials 16.3 1.00 16.30
Taxes and duties 27.6 0 -
Total 303.9 257.27
*/ - worked out separately. This shows there is a heavy subsidy in power supply.
The economic price per cubic meter is 25.73 taka.

B. Economic Price of nonincremental water input (60,000m3)
Water diverted from agricultural use to meet the industrial demand is estimated through the
marginal loss of net agricultural output, at shadow prices per unit of water diverted to the new
users.
Opportunity cost of water in financial price diverted from agricultural use is 0.56 taka per m3
of water. The data used here is taken from paragraph 6.4.2.1 in Box 6.2.

C. Conversion factor for the agricultural product lost by withdrawing water from agriculture
Agricultural prices for the crops grown in the area are regulated and some of the inputs like
‘energy’ and ‘water’ are subsidized. The net effect is expressed in a conversion factor relative to
the financial cost of a unit of water. The conversion factor is calculated as 2.55 in domestic price
numeraire.
Economic price of nonincremental water input for industrial use (diverting from agricultural
use) can now be worked out: 0.56 x 2.55 = 1.428 Taka per m3.

Total value of the water input for industrial use
= (Economic price of incremental water) + (Economic price of nonincremental water)
= (120,000 x 3.03) + (60,000 x 1.428)
= 363,600 + 65,520
= 429,120.00 Taka


6.5.3 Summary of Basic Criteria Used In Economic
Valuation of the Project Outputs and Inputs
50. The basic criteria used in the economic valuation of incremental and
nonincremental outputs and inputs are summarized in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4 Economic Valuation of Project Outputs and Inputs
Incremental Nonincremental
Basic Illustration Basic Illustration
Criteria (refer to..) Criteria (refer to..)

Outputs Adjusted demand Example in Adjusted supply price Example in
price or WTP para. 6.5.1.1 or opportunity cost para 6.5.1.1
(B) (A)

Inputs Adjusted supply price Example in Adjusted demand Example in para.
or para. 6.5.2 price or WTP 6.5
opportunity cost (A) (B)

6.6 Economic Benefit-Cost Analysis: An
Illustration
51. This section shows a simple illustration of an economic benefit cost
analysis. The example starts with the financial benefit-cost analysis, so that the links and
differences between both analyses can be brought out.

6.6.1 Financial and Economic Statement of a WSP
52. Table 6.5 shows the financial statement of a WSP providing 1.00 Mm³ of
water per year. The quantity of water sold is assumed to build up annually by batches of
200,000 m³, from year 1998 to reach full project supply by 2002. At an average tariff of
Rs2.00 per m³, the financial revenues of this project will eventually reach Rs2 mn per
year.


Table 6.5 Financial statement
Year Water Financial Financial costs Net
Sold revenues Investment O&M Total Financial Benefit
'000 m³ Rs '000 Rs '000 Rs '000 Rs '000 Rs '000
A B D E F G=E+F H=D-G
1997 0 0 11,000 0 11,000 -11,000
1998 200 400 440 440 -40
1999 400 800 440 440 360
2000 600 1,200 440 440 760
2001 800 1,600 440 440 1,160
2002 1,000 2,000 440 440 1,560
2003 1,000 2,000 440 440 1,560
2004 1,000 2,000 440 440 1,560
2005 1,000 2,000 440 440 1,560
2006 1,000 2,000 440 440 1,560
2007 1,000 2,000 440 440 1,560
2008 1,000 2,000 440 440 1,560
2009 1,000 2,000 440 440 1,560
2010 1,000 2,000 440 440 1,560
2011 1,000 2,000 440 440 1,560
2012 1,000 2,000 440 440 1,560
NPV @7% 6,876 13,752 10,280 3,745 14,026 -274
Per m³ sold 2.00 1.50 0.54 2.04 -0.04
AIFC
FIRR = 6.5%

53. The investment cost of the project amounts to Rs11.00 million and the
annual operation and maintenance cost is estimated to be 4 percent of the investment.
The weighted average cost of capital (WACC) is 7 percent. The calculation of the WACC
is not shown in this example. The financial net present value of the project, discounted
at 7 percent, is negative (Rs274,000). The FIRR is 6.5 percent, which is below the
WACC of 7 percent. The AIFC at 7 percent is Rs2.04 per m³.

54. The economic benefit-cost analysis of the project involves the
conversion of financial into economic values and introduces a new cost element: the
opportunity cost of water. In this example, the domestic price numeraire is used. The
economic statement is given in Table 6.6.

Table 6.6 Economic Project Resource Statement
Year Water sold UFWa/ Total Total Gross benefits Resource costs Net
Non- Incr. Total NTLb/ TLc/ Total water water Non- Incr. NTL Total Invest O&M OCW Total economic
incr. prod. cons. incr. Benefit ment cost benefit
'000m3 '000m3 '000m3 '000m3 '000m3 '000m3 '000m3 '000m3 Rs'000 Rs'000Rs'000 Rs'000 Rs'000Rs'000 Rs'000 Rs'000 Rs'000
A B C D=B+C E F G=E+F H=D+G I=D+E J K L M=J+K+L N O P Q=N+O+P R=M-Q
1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,100 0 0 12,100 -12,100
1998 80 120 200 29 57 86 286 229 400 360 109 869 447 57 504 365
1999 160 240 400 57 114 171 571 457 800 720 217 1,737 447 114 561 1,176
2000 240 360 600 86 171 257 857 686 1,200 1,080 326 2,606 447 171 618 1,988
2001 320 480 800 114 229 343 1,143 914 1,600 1,440 434 3,474 447 229 675 2,799
2002 400 600 1,000 143 286 429 1,429 1,143 2,000 1,800 543 4,343 447 286 732 3,611
2003 400 600 1,000 143 286 429 1,429 1,143 2,000 1,800 543 4,343 447 286 732 3,611
2004 400 600 1,000 143 286 429 1,429 1,143 2,000 1,800 543 4,343 447 286 732 3,611
2005 400 600 1,000 143 286 429 1,429 1,143 2,000 1,800 543 4,343 447 286 732 3,611
2006 400 600 1,000 143 286 429 1,429 1,143 2,000 1,800 543 4,343 447 286 732 3,611
2007 400 600 1,000 143 286 429 1,429 1,143 2,000 1,800 543 4,343 447 286 732 3,611
2008 400 600 1,000 143 286 429 1,429 1,143 2,000 1,800 543 4,343 447 286 732 3,611
2009 400 600 1,000 143 286 429 1,429 1,143 2,000 1,800 543 4,343 447 286 732 3,611
2010 400 600 1,000 143 286 429 1,429 1,143 2,000 1,800 543 4,343 447 286 732 3,611
2011 400 600 1,000 143 286 429 1,429 1,143 2,000 1,800 543 4,343 447 286 732 3,611
2012 400 600 1,000 143 286 429 1,429 1,143 2,000 1,800 543 4,343 447 286 732 3,611
NPV 1,859 2,789 4,649 664 1,328 1,992 6,641 5,313 9,297 8,368 2,524 20,18810,804 2,716 1,328 14,848 5,341
@
12%
Per m³ 1.75 1.58 0.48 3.80 2.03 0.51 0.25 AIEC= 2.79 1.01
consumed
a/ Unaccounted for water EIRR
b/ Non-technical losses 19.0%
c/ Technical losses

6.6.2 Economic Benefits
6.6.2.1 Water Sold

55. The economic benefit-cost analysis distinguishes between
nonincremental and incremental water. Forty percent of the total annual volume of
water sold (column D) displaces water previously obtained from other sources (i.e.
nonincremental water, column B). The remaining 60 percent is an addition to total water
demand (i.e. incremental water, column C).

56. The methodology for valuing nonincremental and incremental water is
different. Nonincremental water is valued on the basis of resource cost savings. This
proxy for the economic supply price of water without the project is estimated to be
Rs5.00 per m³. Incremental water is valued on the basis of willingness to pay as proxy for
the average demand price with (Rs2.00/m³) and without (assumed at Rs4.00/m³) the
project. It is estimated to be Rs3.00 per m³. All these prices are in economic terms.
Columns J and K give the total economic values of nonincremental and incremental
water sold, derived by multiplying the quantity of non-incremental and incremental water
by their respective values.

6.6.2.2 Unaccounted-for-Water

57. Thirty percent of the volume of water produced will not generate any
financial revenue; this unaccounted-for-water (column G) is lost during the distribution
process. The concept of unaccounted-for-water (UFW) is used by the engineer to
estimate the required volume of water production (column H) and production capacity.

58. A portion of UFW may, in practice, be consumed. The reason why it is
administratively lost is that it is either consumed illegally or that its consumption has not
been metered. This portion of UFW is called nontechnical losses. In the example, it has
been estimated to be 10 percent (column E) of the total water production. The
remaining 20 percent of UFW is leakage, known as technical losses (column F).

59. The economic benefit-cost analysis is concerned with all participants in
the economy and the benefits are the benefits to the entire society. As such, the focus is
on water consumed instead of water sold; this is why the value of nontechnical losses
should be taken into account. In the example, it is assumed that nontechnical losses
occur for both nonincremental and incremental water. Therefore, the value of
nontechnical losses per m³ is determined as the weighted average of the economic value
of incremental and nonincremental water per m³; in the example this would be Rs3.80
per m³ (40% x Rs5.00 + 60% x Rs3.00). Such weighing is not necessary if nontechnical


losses would only occur for nonincremental water. The economic value of NTL would
then be Rs5/m3.

6.6.3 Economic Costs
60. In this example, the domestic price numeraire is used. The SERF is 1.25
and the SWRF 0.80. Nontraded inputs have been valued at the domestic price, using a
conversion factor equivalent to 1.0. The breakdown of the investment cost into different
components and the conversion to economic cost are shown in Table 6.7.

Table 6.7 Conversion of Financial into Economic Costs
Financial CF Economic
Rs'000 Rs'000
Traded 6,000 1.25 7,500
Non-traded
Unskilled labor 2,000 0.80 1,600
Local Materials 3,000 1.00 3,000
Total 11,000 12,100

61. The economic cost of the investment is Rs12.1 million. The financial
annual operation and maintenance cost of the project (i.e., 4 percent of the investment)
has been shadow-priced in Table 6.8. The conversion factor for electricity is 1.10 which
indicates that electricity is a subsidized input.

Table 6.8 Conversion of financial operation and maintenance cost
Financial CF Economic
% %
Traded 30.0% 1.25 37.5%
Non-traded
Unskilled labor 40.0% 0.80 32.0%
Electricity 20.0% 1.10 22.0%
Local Materials 10.0% 1.00 10.0%
Total 100% 101.5%
CF = (101.5/100) = 1.015


62. The average weighing of conversion factors for the O&M costs results in
a CF of 1.015. The annual O&M cost is calculated as 11,000 x 4% x 1.015 = 447. The
third cost component considered in this example is the opportunity cost of
water,estimated as Rs0.20 per m³ of water produced. This estimate is arrived at as a
separate exercise not shown in this example. In year 2001, the OCW is equal to 1,143 x
.2 = 229.

6.6.4 Results
63. Table 6.6 shows that project is viable from the economic viewpoint: the
ENPV at 12 percent discount rate is positive Rs5.3 million and the EIRR 19.0 percent.
The AIEC at 12 percent is Rs2.79 per m³ while the economic benefit per m³ is Rs3.80.
The net economic benefit per m³ is Rs1.01.

6.6.5 Basic Differences between Financial and Economic
Benefit-cost Analyses
64. The examples show the basic differences between financial benefit cost
analysis and economic benefit-cost analysis:

(i) the financial benefit-cost analysis is concerned with the project entity
whereas the economic benefit-cost analysis is concerned with the entire
economy;

(ii) in financial benefit-cost analysis, discounting is done at the FOCC
(approximated by the WACC) whereas in economic benefit-cost
analysis, discounting is done at the EOCC of 12 percent. The Bank’s
Guidelines for the Economic Analysis of Projects provide an explanation of the
chosen discount rate.

(iii) in financial benefit-cost analysis, benefits are valued on the basis of water
sold whereas the economic benefit-cost analysis values its benefits on the
basis of water consumed. The difference is the nontechnical loss;

(iv) the average incremental financial cost (AIFC) is based on the present
value (at the FOCC) of water sold (6.876 Mm³ in Table 6.5) and the
average incremental economic cost of water (AIEC) on the present value
(at the EOCC) of water consumed (5.313 Mm³);


(v) the valuation of economic benefits differentiates between incremental
and nonincremental demand for water in the calculation of financial
revenues. This distinction is not necessary;

(vi) in economic analysis, project inputs are shadow-priced to show their true
value to the society. Some inputs may not have a financial cost and are
not shown in the financial benefit-cost analysis (e.g., if raw water at the
intake is available to the water supply utility for free). However, they
should be shown in the economic benefit-cost analysis if the input has a
scarcity value (e.g., if raw water is diverted from another alternative use
such as irrigation or hydropower);

(vii) in financial benefit-cost analysis, the FIRR should be compared with the
FOCC, and in economic benefit-cost analysis, the EIRR should be
compared with the EOCC, to assess the project’s viability in financial or
economic terms, respectively.

CHAPTER 7

SENSITIVITY AND RISK ANALYSES


CONTENTS

7.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................173
7.2 The Purpose of Sensitivity Analysis.......................................................................................174
7.3 How to Carry Out Sensitivity Analysis..................................................................................174
7.4 Risk Analysis ..............................................................................................................................181
7.4.1 Qualitative Risk Analysis ..........................................................................................181
7.4.2 Quantitative Risk Analysis........................................................................................183

Tables
Table 7.1 Base Case of a Water Supply Project………………………….………………………179
Table 7.2 Sensitivity Analysis: A Numerical Example……………….…………………………...180

Boxes
Box 7.1 Definitions……………………………………………...……………………………..173
Box 7.2 Variables in Water Supply Projects to be considered in
Sensitivity Analysis………………………………………………...……………….…..176
Box 7.3 Use of Sensitivity Indicators and Switching Values……………………..……………...177

CHAPTER 7: SENSITIVITY & RISK ANALYSES 173

7.1 Introduction
1. The financial and economic benefit-cost analysis of water supply projects
(WSPs) is based on forecasts of quantifiable variables such as demand, costs, water
availability and benefits. The values of these variables are estimated based on the most
probable forecasts, which cover a long period of time. The values of these variables for
the most probable outcome scenario are influenced by a great number of factors, and
the actual values may differ considerably from the forecasted values, depending on
future developments. It is therefore useful to consider the effects of likely changes in
the key variables on the viability (EIRR and FIRR) of a project. Performing sensitivity
and risk analysis does this.

Box 7.1 Definitions
Sensitivity Analysis shows to what extent the viability of a project is influenced by
variations in major quantifiable variables.
Risk Analysis considers the probability that changes in major quantifiable variables will
actually occur.

2. The viability of projects is evaluated based on a comparison of its
internal rate of return (FIRR and EIRR) to the financial or economic opportunity cost
of capital. Alternatively, the project is considered to be viable when the Net Present
Value (NPV) is positive, using the selected EOCC or FOCC as discount rate. Sensitivity
and risk analyses, therefore, focus on analyzing the effects of changes in key variables on
the project’s IRR or NPV, the two most widely used measures of project worth.

3. In the economic analysis of WSPSs, there are also other aspects of
project feasibility which may require sensitivity and risk analysis. These include:

(i) Demand Analysis: to assess the sensitivity of the demand forecast to
changes in population growth, per capita consumption, water tariffs, etc.

(ii) Least Cost Analysis: to verify whether the selected least-cost
alternative remains the preferred option under adverse conditions;

(iii) Sustainability Analysis: to assess possible threats to the sustainability of
the project.

(iv) Distributional Analysis: to analyze whether the project will actually
benefit the poor.


This chapter aims at explaining the general concept of sensitivity and risk analysis.

4. Sensitivity and risk analyses are particularly concerned with factors, and
combinations of factors, that may lead to unfavorable consequences. These factors
would normally have been identified in the project (logical) framework as “project risks”
or “project assumptions”. Sensitivity analysis tries to estimate the effect on achieving
project objectives if certain assumptions do not, or only partly, materialize. Risk analysis
assesses the actual risk that certain assumptions do not, or only partly, occur.

7.2 The Purpose of Sensitivity Analysis
5. Sensitivity analysis is a technique for investigating the impact of changes
in project variables on the base-case (most probable outcome scenario). Typically, only
adverse changes are considered in sensitivity analysis. The purpose of sensitivity analysis
is:

(i) to help identify the key variables which influence the project cost and benefit
streams. In WSPs, key variables to be normally included in sensitivity analysis
include water demand, investment cost, O&M cost, financial revenues,
economic benefits, financial benefits, water tariffs, availability of raw water
and discount rates.

(ii) to investigate the consequences of likely adverse changes in these key
variables;

(iii) to assess whether project decisions are likely to be affected by such changes;
and,

(iv) to identify actions that could mitigate possible adverse effects on the project.

7.3 Performance of Sensitivity Analysis
6. Sensitivity analysis needs to be carried out in a systematic manner. To
meet the above purposes, the following steps are suggested:

(i) identify key variables to which the project decision may be sensitive;


(ii) calculate the effect of likely changes in these variables on the base-case IRR
or NPV, and calculate a sensitivity indicator and/or switching value;
(iii) consider possible combinations of variables that may change simultaneously
in an adverse direction;
(iv) analyze the direction and scale of likely changes for the key variables
identified, involving identification of the sources of change.

The information generated can be presented in a tabular form with an accompanying
commentary and set of recommendations, such as the example shown in 7.2. The different
steps are described in the following paragraphs:

Step 1: Identifying the Key Variables

7. The base case project economic analysis incorporates many variables:
quantities and their inter-relationships, prices or economic values and the timing of
project effects. Some of these variables will be predictable or relatively small in value in
the project context. It is not necessary to investigate the sensitivity of the measures of project
worth to such variables. Other variables may be less predictable or larger in value. Variables
related to sectoral policy and capacity building may also be important. As they are more
difficult to quantify, they are not further considered hereafter but should be assessed in a
qualitative manner.

8. As a result of previous experience (from post-evaluation studies) and
analysis of the project context, a preliminary set of likely key variables can be chosen on the
following basis:
(i) Variables which are numerically large. For example: investment cost,
projected water demand;
(ii) Essential variables, which may be small, but the value of which is very
important for the design of the project. For example: assumed population
growth and water tariffs;
(iii) Variables occurring early in the project life. For example: investment costs
and initial fixed operating costs, which will be relatively unaffected by
discounting;
(iv) Variables affected by economic changes, such as, changes in real income.

Important variables to be considered in WSPs include :


Box 7.2 Variables in Water Supply Projects to be considered
in Sensitivity Analysis
Possible Key Variables Quantifiable Variables Underlying Variables
Water Demand • Population growth • Price Elasticity
Achieved coverage • Income Elasticity
Household Consumption
• Non Domestic Consumption
• Unaccounted for Water
Investment Costs • Water Demand
(Economic & Financial) • Construction Period
• Real Prices
• Conversion Factors
O&M Costs • Personnel Costs (wages/No. of
staff, etc.)
• Cost of Energy
• Cost of Maintenance
• Efficiency of Utility
Financial Revenues • Quantity of water consumed • Water Tariffs
• Service level • UFW (bad debts)
• Income from connection fees
Economic Benefits • Water Demand • Willingness to Pay
• Resource Costs Savings
Cost Recovery • Water Tariffs
• Subsidies

Step 2 and 3: Calculation of Effects of Changing Variables

9. The values of the basic indicators of project viability (EIRR and ENPV
should be recalculated for different values of key variables. This is preferably done by
calculating “sensitivity indicators” and “switching values”. The meaning of these concepts is
presented in Box 7.3 and a sample calculation immediately follows.
Sensitivity indicators and switching values can be calculated for the IRR and NPV, see Box
7.3.


Box 7.3 Use of Sensitivity Indicators and Switching Values
Sensitivity Indicator Switching Value
Definition 1. Towards the Net Present Value 1. Towards the Net Present Value The
Compares percentage change in NPV percentage change in a variable or
with percentage change in a variable or combination of variables to reduce the
combination of variables. NPV to zero (0).
2. Towards the Internal Rate of 2. Towards the Internal Rate of Return
Return Compares percentage change in The percentage change in a variable or
IRR above the cut-off rate with combination of variables to reduce the
percentage change in a variable or IRR to the cut-off rate (=discount rate).
combination of variables.

Expression 1. Towards the Net Present Value 1. Towards the Net Present Value
(NPVb - NPV1) / NPVb (100 x NPVb) (Xb – X1)
SI = ------------------------------ SV = ----------------- x -----------
(Xb - X1 ) / Xb (NPVb - NPV1) Xb
where: where:
Xb - value of variable in the base case Xb - value of variable in the base case
X1 - value of the variable in the X1 - value of the variable in the sensitivity
sensitivity test test
NPVb - value of NPV in the base case NPVb – value of NPV in the base case
NPV1 - value of the variable in the NPV1 – value of the variable in the
sensitivity test sensitivity test
Return
(100 x (IRRb – d) (Xb – X1)
(IRRb - IRR1) / (IRRb – d) SV = ---------------------- x -----------
SI = ------------------------------------------ (IRRb - IRR1) Xb
(Xb - X1 ) / Xb where:
where:
Xb - value of variable in the base case
Xb - value of variable in the base case
X1 - value of the variable in the sensitivity
X1 - value of the variable in the test
sensitivity test
IRRb - value of IRR in the base case
IRRb - value of IRR in the base case
IRR1 – value of the variable in the
IRR1Value of the variable in the
sensitivity test
sensitivity test
d - discount rate
d - discount rate


Box 7.3 Use of Sensitivity Indicators and Switching Values
Sensitivity Indicator Switching Value
Calculation 1. Towards the Net Present Value 1. Towards the Net Present Value
example Base Case: Base Case:
Price = Pb = 300 Price = Pb = 300
NPVb = 20,912 NPVb = 20,912
Scenario 1: Scenario 1
P1 = 270 (10% change) P1 = 270 (10% change)
NPV1 = 6,895 NPV1 = 6,895

(20,912 – 6,895) / 20,912 (100 x 20,912) (300-270)
SI = --------------------------- = 6.70 SV = ------------------ x ----------- = 14.9%
(300 – 270) / 300 (20,912 – 6,895) 300

Return
Base Case:
Base Case:
Price = Pb = 300
Price = Pb = 300
IRRb = 15.87%
IRRb = 15.87%
Scenario 1:
Scenario 1:
P1 = 270 (10% change)
P1 = 270 (10% change)
IRR1 = 13.31%
IRR1 = 13.31%
d = 12%
d = 12%
(100 x (0.1587-0.12)) (300-270)
(0.1587 – 0.1331) / (0.1587- 0.12)
SV = ------------------------- x ----------
SI = -----------------------------------------
(0.1587 - 0.1331) 300
(300 – 270) / 300
= 15.1%
= 6.61
Interpretation (i) percentage change in NPV A change of approximately 15 % in the price variable
respectively is necessary before the NPV becomes zero or before
(ii) percentage change in IRR above the cut-off the IRR equals the cut-off rate.
rate (12%)is larger than percentage change in
variable: price is a key variable for the project.
Characteristic Indicates to which variables the project result is Measures extent of change for a variable which will
or is not sensitive. Suggests further examination leave the project decision unchanged.
of change in variable.

10. The switching value is, by definition, the reciprocal of the sensitivity
indicator. Sensitivity indicators and switching values calculated towards the IRR yield slightly
different results if compared to SIs and SVs calculated towards the NPV. This is because the


IRR approach discounts all future net benefits at the IRR value and the NPV approach at
the discount rate d.

Table 7.1 Base Case of a Water Supply Project
Economic PV 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
statement @12%
Benefits:
- Non-incremental 1,674 0 225 270 315 360 405 450 450 450 450
water
- Incremental 167 0 23 27 32 36 41 45 45 45 45
water
- Non-technical 263 0 35 42 50 57 64 71 71 71 71
losses
Total 2,104 0 283 339 396 453 509 566 566 566 566
Costs:
- Investment 1,687 1,889 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- O&M 291 0 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61
Total 1,978 1,889 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61
Net cash flow 126 -1,889 222 278 335 391 448 505 505 505 505

11. In the base case, the ENPV is 126 and the EIRR is 13.7 percent. The
sensitivity of the base case ENPV has been analyzed for (adverse) changes in several key
variables, as follows:

(i) An increase in investment cost by 20 percent;

(ii) A decrease in economic benefits by 20 percent;

(iii) An increase in costs of operation and maintenance by 20 percent.

(iv) A delay in the period of construction, causing a delay in revenue generation
by one year.

Proposed changes in key variables should be well explained. The sensitivity analysis should
be based on the most likely changes. The effects of the above changes are summarized in
Table 7.2 below.


Table 7.2 Sensitivity Analysis: A Numerical Example
Item Change NPV IRR SI SV
% (NPV) (NPV)
Base Case 126 13.7
Investment + 20% - 211 9.6 13.3 7.5%
Benefits - 20% -294 7.8 16.6 6%
O&M Costs + 20% 68 12.9 2.3 43.4%
Construction delays one year -99 10.8 NPV 178% lower
SI = Sensitivity Indicator, SV = Switching Value
Source: Based on the data in Table 7.1.

12. Combinations of variables can also be considered. For example, the effect
on the ENPV or EIRR of a simultaneous decline in economic benefits and an increase in
investment cost can be computed. In specifying the combinations to be included, the project
analyst should state the rationale for any particular combination to ensure it is plausible.

Step 4: Analysis of Effects of Changes in Key Variables

13. In the case of an increase in investment costs of 20 percent, the sensitivity
indicator is 13.34. This means that the change of 20 percent in the variable (investment cost)
results in a change of (13.3 x 20 percent) = 266 percent in the ENPV. It follows that the
higher the SI, the more sensitive the NPV is to the change in the concerned variable.

14. In the same example, the switching value is 7.5 percent which is the
reciprocal value of the SI x 100. This means that a change (increase) of 7.5 percent in the key
variable (investment cost) will cause the ENPV to become zero. The lower the SV, the
more sensitive the NPV is to the change in the variable concerned and the higher the risk
with the project.

15. At this point the results of the sensitivity analysis should be reviewed. It
should be asked: (I) which are the variables with high sensitivity indicators; and (ii) how likely
are the (adverse) changes (as indicated by the switching value) in the values of the variables
that would alter the project decision?


7.4 Risk Analysis
7.4.1 Qualitative Risk Analysis

16. In cases where project results are expected to be particularly sensitive to
certain variables, it has to be assessed how likely it is that such changes would occur.
This likelihood can be assessed by studying experiences in earlier, comparable projects
and by investigating the situation in the sector as a whole.

17. Steps should be taken to reduce the extent of uncertainty surrounding those
variables where possible. This may require remedial actions at the project, sector or national
level. Examples of actions are:

(i) At the project level,

(a) make specific agreements to ensure contractor performance and
project quality during construction works to reduce the likelihood of
delays;

(b) enter into an agreement of long term supply contracts at specified
quality and prices to reduce uncertainty of operating costs;

(c) formulate capacity building activities to ensure appropriate technical
and financial management of water supply systems;

(d) conduct information or awareness building/educational programs to
ensure the involvement of customers and to improve the hygienic
use of water;

(e) incorporate the cost of sanitation or wastewater collection and
treatment into project economic costs to ensure that
environmental effects can be mitigated;

(f) implement a pilot phase to test technical assumptions and observe
user’s reactions, in case there is considerable uncertainty in a large
project or program;

(g) set certain criteria which have to be met by subprojects before
approval; for example, in rural WSPs, villages would have to fulfill


certain criteria (e.g., community involvement) to be included in the
program. This is especially important in sector loans where most
(small) subprojects will be prepared after loan approval.

(ii) At the sector level,

(a) make price and tariff adjustments to ensure sufficient revenues for
utilities and to ensure their financial liquidity and sustainability;

(b) conduct technical assistance programs to develop appropriate
project and operational management skills for staff in water
enterprises;

(c) implement loan covenants to prompt necessary (policy) institutional
and legal reforms.

(iii) At the national or macro level,

(a) implement changes in tax and credit policy to influence incentives
and simplify procedures for the import of goods;

(b) reformulate incentives (e.g. corporate taxes for utilities) to encourage
higher levels of investment;

(c) implement legislative reform and regulation to provide an enabling
environment for productive activities.

18. The results of the sensitivity analysis should be stated along with the
associated mitigating actions being recommended, and the remaining areas of
uncertainty that they do not address. Sensitivity analysis is useful at all stages of project
processing: at the design stage to incorporate appropriate changes; at the appraisal stage
to establish a basis for monitoring; and, during project implementation to take
corrective measures. The uncertainty surrounding the results of the economic and
financial analysis is expected to decrease as the project moves into the operational
phase.

19. For the key variables and combinations of such variables, a statement
can be presented including: the source of variation for the key variables; the likelihood that
variation will occur; the measures that could be taken to mitigate or reduce the likelihood of
an adverse change; and the switching values and/or sensitivity indicators.


7.4.2 Quantitative Risk Analysis

20. The purpose of quantitative risk analysis is to estimate the probability
that the project EIRR will fall below the opportunity cost of capital; or that the NPV,
using the EIRR as the discount rate, will fall below zero. A statement of such an
estimate means that decisions can be based not just on the single base-case EIRR but
also on the probability that the project will prove unacceptable. Projects with smaller
base-case EIRRs may involve less uncertainty and have a higher probability of being
acceptable in implementation. Projects with higher base-case EIRRs may be less certain
and involve greater risk. Risk analysis can be applied also to projects without
measurable benefits, for example to assess the probability that unit costs will be greater
than a standard figure.

21. Undertaking a risk analysis requires more information than for sensitivity
analysis. It should be applied to selected projects that are large or marginal, or where a
key variable is subject to a considerable range of uncertainty. A large project is one
which takes a high proportion of government or the country's investment resources, for
example a project using more than 5 percent of the government’s investment budget in
the peak project investment years. A marginal project is one where the base-case EIRR
is only marginally higher than the opportunity cost of capital. A decision should be
taken at an early stage of analysis whether to include a risk analysis in the appraisal
or not.

CHAPTER 8

FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS


CONTENTS
8.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................187

8.2 Financial Sustainability .............................................................................................................187
8.2.1 Project Funding and Fiscal Impact .........................................................................189
8.2.2 Cost Recovery from Beneficiaries ...........................................................................189
8.2.3 User Charges................................................................................................................190
8.2.3.1 Economic Effect of Charges.....................................................................190
8.2.3.2 Case of Expansion of Supply Network ...................................................190
8.3 Issue of Subsidy.........................................................................................................................190

8.3.1 Subsidy and its Justification......................................................................................191

8.4 Affordability and Income Transfers.......................................................................................192
8.4.1 Affordability of Charges Paid by Users at Different Levels of Income ...........192
8.4.2 Cost Recovery and Tariff Design
(based on Affordability Considerations and Cross-subsidization)....................196
8.5 Demand Management...............................................................................................................196

8.6 Financial Returns to the Project Participants .......................................................................200
8.6.1 Return to Equity.........................................................................................................200
8.6.2 Assessment of “Return to Equity” of 4.3 percent................................................202
8.7 Financial Analysis at the Enterprise Level ............................................................................205

Boxes
Box 8.1 The “Five Percent Rule” for Improved Water Services:
Can Households Afford More……………………………………………………...195
Box 8.2 Real Rate of Interest Calculation…….……………………………………………...201

Tables
Table 8.1 Mysore Water Supply and Sanitation Component Affordability Analysis…………194
Table 8.2 Supply Expansion with Financial Price Below AIFC……………………….……..198
Table 8.3 Supply Expansion and Demand Management
with Financial Price Equal to AIEC……………………………………………....199
Table 8.4 Cash Flow Statement….………………………………………………………….204

ANNEX……………………………………………………………………………...206

CHAPTER 8 : FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS 187

8.1 Introduction
1. Sustainable development is development that lasts. Economic viability of
a water supply project (WSP) depends on its financial viability, i.e., sustainability of the
project’s financial returns. The economic analysis of projects should include an analysis
of the financial viability of project agencies and environmental sustainability of project
inputs and outputs. Unless such factors are taken into account, economic benefits may
not be sustained at the level necessary to generate an acceptable EIRR over the useful
life of the project.

2. This chapter focuses on the relationship between financial sustainability
and economic viability of WSPs. Environmental sustainability is not explicitly defined or
discussed in this handbook; to the extent possible, environmental costs and benefits
should be internalized into the economic cost and benefit estimation of the WSP per se.

3. There are other dimensions of sustainabilityinstitutional sustainability
and technical sustainability. With regard to institutional sustainability, the financial
impact of the project on the concerned institutions needs to be evaluated and the
question to be asked is whether or not these institutions are able to pay the financial
subsidies that may be needed for the WSP to survive. Economic analysis may also
suggest institutional changes or policy measures needed to sustain the financial and
economic benefits generated by the project. Technical sustainability is looked after as
part of the analysis of alternatives and determination of the least-cost option, which is
done in the early project preparation or feasibility stage.

8.2 Financial Sustainability
4. There are mainly three aspects of financial sustainability in connection
with a given WSP:

(i) First, project funding and fiscal impact on government budget. WSPs are
frequently funded by the government and full cost recovery especially
from poor water users may not be possible even for their basic
minimum needs.

(ii) Second, full or partial cost recovery of project costs from project
beneficiaries. WSPs, like projects in other sectors, can hardly be
sustained on government subsidy alone, without the revenue generation


from the sector itself. Cost recovery and proper design of water tariff
based on the costs of supply are required.

(iii) Third, financial incentives are necessary to ensure participation in the
project of all stakeholders. In the context of a WSP, the participants
include:

• lenders who lend money for capital investment;

• guarantors who guarantee the loan (In public projects like WSPs, the
government is often the guarantor.);

• suppliers of inputs to the project;

• users of project output (households/industries); and

• the organization which sponsors and runs the project (water
enterprise).

5. Each of these participants must have sufficient incentives to participate,
i.e., must have sufficient returns from the project.

• lenders must have their original loan amount and interests paid back
in time as per the debt-repayment schedule agreed between the
project entity and the lenders;

• the guarantor should have profit-tax paid by the project especially
when the project is run by a corporate entity so that there is an
incentive to guarantee;

• suppliers of project inputs should have their payments in time by the
project entity;

• users must be willing to pay and pay on time the charges levied for
their use of water outputs.

6. The above items are dealt with in two financial statementsincome
statement and cash flow statement which are an essential part of the financial analysis of
the project. The incentive for the project entity to participate is reflected by the “return
to equity”, which has to be worked out from the cash flow statement of the financial


analysis of the project. Equity funding also includes the shareholders who contribute to
the project. An example is shown in section 8.6.

8.2.1 Project Funding and Fiscal Impact

7. A financial plan at constant prices is necessary to assess the need for
funds to finance project expenditures, both during the construction or implementation
phase and the period of operation. If the project does not generate sufficient funds to
cover all operating expenditures, then steps should be taken to ensure that the utility or
government commits adequate funds for operational purposes (fiscal impact).

8. Similarly, through tax revenues and concession fees, projects can impact
positively on the utility or government budget. Consequently, a fiscal impact assessment
is an important consideration when structuring user charges, operator fees and taxes.

9. Where the funds required to operate the project are not covered through
budgetary reallocation or efficiency improvements, they will have to be met through
extra taxation or from borrowing. The economic effects of extra taxes and borrowing
by government can be assessed at the national level. In either case, it is important to
consider the effects of extra taxation or borrowing on the groups who are the principal
project beneficiaries, especially the poor.

10. Assessing the fiscal impact is particularly important for projects where
subsidies are involved and for undertakings (e.g., rural WSPs) where the government is
the main project sponsor.

8.2.2 Cost Recovery from Beneficiaries

11. User charges from the beneficiaries to finance operational expenditures
involve several issues, such as:

(i) economic effect of water charges;

(ii) charges for existing and new users in the case of expansion of the supply
network;

(iii) affordability of tariff by different users; and


(iv) cost recovery.

8.2.3 User Charges
8.2.3.1 Economic Effect of Charges

12. The basic principle behind user charges is that users should pay the
economic cost of the water services as the economic price of water should ensure the
optimum “economic efficiency” of water charges. Theoretically, this ensures the
optimum use of waterneither over-use (i.e., waste) nor under-use (below the
minimum quantity to sustain adequate health and other criteria).

13. The appropriate cost for users to pay is the “Long-Run Marginal
Economic Cost” (LRMEC) which includes both the investment and O&M costs. This is
approximated by the Average Incremental Economic Cost (AIEC) derived from the
least-cost method of supplying the water. This cost should be taken as the appropriate
target for charging water users where a project stands alone.

8.2.3.2 Case of Expansion of Supply Network

14. Where a project extends an existing network, the tariff should be related
to the AIEC of the water supply but spread over existing as well as new users.

8.3 Issue of Subsidy
15. Financial “adequacy” will be achieved only if the average financial
cost can be recovered from users. As mentioned in paragraph 13, AIEC should be the
appropriate target for charging water users. AIEC can, however, be more than or less
than AIFC. First, if the AIEC is less than the AIFC, charges based on AIEC will create
financial deficiency and financial sustainability will not be achieved based on user’s
charges alone. Second case, if AIEC is more than the AIFC, which may happen
especially in the later years of the project, there is no difficulty in achieving the financial
sustainability if water charges are based on AIEC. The first case requires governmental
intervention in the form of “subsidy”.

16. The difference between the average financial price of water charged and
the AIFC is referred to as the AFS (average financial subsidy). Similarly, the difference


between the AIEC and the economic price of water charged is referred to as the AES
(average economic subsidy). AFS and AES may not coincide due to market distortions,
magnitude of nontechnical losses in the water supply system and externalities like
environmental costs and benefits. Bank’s policy is to eliminate “subsidy” over time
where they are not justified. However, in projects like WSPs particularly in the rural
areas, the subsidy arises in most cases.

8.3.1 Subsidy and its Justification

17. Generally, subsidies should be progressively reduced or phased out to
the extent feasible because they may lead to macro-economic pressures via the budget
and inefficient resource allocation. However, in certain conditions, subsidies may be
justified. The ADB’s document “Criteria for Subsidies” identifies conditions under
which subsidies could be justified.

(i) Situations exist in which positive externalities occur where social returns
from a project exceed private returns, like when health benefits to
beneficiaries or environmental improvements due to the water supply
projects are not reflected in the flow of financial benefits.

(ii) In industries with decreasing costs (due to e.g. economies of scale), say
water industries, the cost of producing the marginal unit of output does
not cover the full average costs. This would entail a loss for producers.
Producers need to be subsidized to attain the economically (and socially)
optimal levels of output.

(iii) There may be a need to compensate for the effects of market distortions
which may have to be offset through subsidies. For example, a
government may have a very high tax on imported machinery but may
consider it appropriate to provide a general subsidy for the purchase of
equipment for water supply.

(iv) A fourth situation is the case of redistribution, where subsidies are
targeted at the poor; it is often considered desirable to provide subsidies
for basic minimum water consumption to these groups.

(v) In case of positive environmental effects generated by the project which
would not directly benefit the users, it may be justifiable to subsidize at
least part of the costs made to generate these benefits.


(vi) There are special considerations that may require subsidies, such as in
the context of transitional economies where the market institutions are
yet to develop fully.

8.4 Affordability and Income Transfers
18. Although subsidies may be justifiable on the basis of the above
considerations, it will be preferable as a first step to take recourse to “income transfer”.
For example, a cross-subsidy from the rich household users to poor household users is
built into the water tariff structure. This may eliminate the need for subsidizing the
water supply operations as a whole.

19. Tariff structures can be designed to ensure that those who use more
water per capita (high income group) pay more than the single average tariff for all the
groups and compensate for the lower than average tariff paid by the low income and
poor households.

20. Subsidy from the central exchequer should be avoided as much as
possible in an effort to avoid transfers from other sectors to water supply sector as this
hampers the self-sufficiency of the water supply sector, which is needed to ensure
financial sustainability of WSPs.

8.4.1 Affordability of Charges Paid by Users at Different Levels
of Income

21. For any project to be financially sustainable, consumers must be able to
afford to pay the price charged and the total monthly or annual bill. Affordability
analysis typically compares the household cost of water consumption with a measure of
household income.

22. Household consumption varies with several factors as discussed in
Chapter 3. These factors may include household size, income, quantities used for basic
uses such as drinking, cooking, and cleaning associated with the low-income group and
non-basic uses such as watering lawn or washing cars etc. associated with the middle or
high-income groups.


23. Affordability analyses are mainly meant for the low-income group in the
project area and the poor households, i.e., those below the poverty line. A monthly bill
based on the designed water tariff and projected average water consumption is worked
out for an average household of the low-income group and compared with the average
monthly income of the household in that group. A typical analysis of affordability for
the town of Mysore in India is shown in Table 8.1 on the next page.

Table 8.1 Mysore Water Supply and Sanitation Component Affordability Analysis
Item Estimated Projected
FY 1993 FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005
Tariffs and Monthly Bill
Domestic Water and 0.76 1.23 1.47 1.99 3.36 4.20 4.62 5.08 7.62 8.38 9.22 10.14 11.16
Sewerage Tariff(Rs/m3)
Monthly Water Consumption 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0
- LIG Household (m3)
Monthly Bill 14 22 26 36 60 76 83 91 137 151 166 183 201
- LIG Household (Rs)
Monthly Water Consumption 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0
- EWS Household (m3)
Monthly Bill 11 18 22 30 50 63 69 76 114 126 138 152 167
- EWS Household (Rs)
Household Incomes
Upper Limit of LIG 2,650 2,891 3,153 3,439 3,752 4,092 4,464 4,869 5,311 5,794 6,320 6,894 7,519
(Rs/month)
Upper Limit of EWS 1,250 1,364 1,487 1,622 1,770 1,930 2,106 2,297 2,505 2,733 2,981 3,252 3,547
(Rs/month)
Percent of
Household Income
Devoted to
Water and Sewerage
Upper Limit of LIG 0.5 0.8 0.8 1 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7
Upper Limit of EWS 0.9 1.4 1.5 1.8 2.8 3.3 3.3 3.3 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7
LIG - Low-income Group
EWS – Economically
weaker section


24. It can be seen from the Box that a household at the upper limit of
the low-income group with only Rs2,650/month in 1993 would pay approximately 2.7
percent of income (i.e., a monthly bill of Rs201 as a percentage of a household income
of Rs7,519) for water and sanitation upon the full implementation of tariff (increased
from Rs0.76/m3 to Rs11.16/m3) in ten years’ time in 2005. Even the household earning
as low as only Rs1,250/month in 1993 would pay only 4.7 percent of income for water
and sanitation in the year 2005. Cost recovery was thus justified for the project loan as
the household expenditure on water supply and sanitation facilities did not exceed 5
percent of the household income, which is generally accepted as norm by international
development banks and financial institutions.

25. However, affordability indicators of this nature are somewhat
arbitrary and crude and, therefore, must be used with great care allowing for variation of
circumstances in different locations and different countries. The Box 8.1 below shows
an example where households from some Moroccan towns were willing to pay more
than 5 percent of their income if house connections were given.

Box 8.1 The “Five Percent Rule” for Improved Water Services:
Can Households Afford More?
Results of a household-willingness-to-pay survey in five small Moroccan cities revealed that
respondents would pay 7 to 10 percent of total household income for individual water
connections, and subsequent commodity charges despite already having a reliable and free
standpost service.

Source: McPhail, Alexander A. 1993. Quoted from: The “Five Percent Rule” For Improved Water Service:
Can Households Afford More? The World Bank, World Development, Vol. 21, No 6, pp. 963-973.

26. If the result of the affordability analysis is that the low-income
households would have to spend a relatively high proportion of their income to cover
their basic needs for water, the following actions may be appropriate:

• comparison is to be made between the predicted expenditures on water
with-project and expenditures without-project. If users are actually
paying the same or higher costs without-project, they may be expected
to spend at least a similar portion of their income for future water
consumption provided by the project.


• consideration should be given as to whether or not users will still be
interested to obtain lower service levels in which case cost to households
can be reduced and brought within the affordable level; and

• consideration is to be given as to whether cross-subsidization from
higher income groups to the low-income group can be incorporated in
the tariff design so that the average cost recovery is almost equal to
AIFC.

8.4.2 Cost Recovery and Tariff Design (based on Affordability
Considerations and Cross-subsidization)

27. The annex to this chapter has an illustration of a tariff design for a town
in India showing an increasing water consumption from low (with 40 liters per capita
per day, lcd) to middle (80 lcd) to high income groups (150 lcd), incorporating cross
subsidization from the higher income groups to lower income groups. The AIFC is
Rs6.96/m3 and the AIEC is Rs6.71/m3,using domestic price numeraire for arriving at
economic costs. The AIEC is lower because of the high value of non-technical losses
(water consumed but not paid for) which represent a benefit in the economic analysis.
The charges are, therefore, based on AIFC for ensuring financial sustainability.

8.5 Demand Management
28. The economic cost of subsidies to the water industry may be quite large.
The sustainability of WSPs may be adversely affected if the subsidy required is very
large. In such a situation, successful demand management can yield economic savings
which may be greater than economic benefits from supply expansions. Depending on
the price elasticity of demand, the result of an increase in the price of water may be:

• a decrease in the quantity of water demanded;
• an increase in sales revenue; and
• a reduction in capital costs.

29. This is best explained through the following illustration relating to a
WSP in India, the Channapatna/Ramanagaran WSP. Tables 8.2 and 8.3 −Water Supply
Expansion with Financial Price below AIFC and Water Supply Expansion with Demand


Management Option with Financial Price equal to AIFC − contain the data and
calculations for two cases. The results are summarized as follows:

A. Supply expansion with Financial Price below AIFC: (See Table 8.2)

AIFC = Rs6.96 per m3
Financial Price = Rs5.00 per m3
Present Value at 12% Discount Rate
- Financial Benefit = Rs151.25 x 106
- Quantity Demanded = 30250 m3
- Financial Costs = Rs210.4 x 106
- Net Financial Cost = Rs.59.15 x 106
= Rs (210.4-151.25) x 106

B. Supply expansion and Demand Management with Financial Price equal
to AIFC: (See Table 8.3)

AIFC = Rs6.96/m3
Financial Price = Rs.6.96/m3
Present Values @ 12% Discount Rate:
- Financial Benefit = Rs184.4 x 106
- Quantity Demanded with application of price
= 26529.25 m3
- Price Elasticity of demand = -0.4
- Value of Financial Costs = Rs184.5 x 106
- Net Financial Costs = 0

30. Without demand management, the financial subsidy (the difference
between the average price and the AIFC) is equal to Rs1.96/m3 (= Rs6.96 – Rs5.0).
This subsidy represents 28.16 percent of the costs. With demand management, higher
charge for water and lower demand (but also lower investment costs), the final subsidy
is reduced to zero as the full financial cost is being met.


Table 8.2 Supply Expansion with Financial Price Below AIFC
Year Financial Quantity Financial Financial Financial Total Financial Net Financial
Price Demanded Benefit Costs Costs Costs Benefits
(Rs/m3) (000m3) (Rs 106) (Rs 106) (Rs 106) (Rs 106) (Rs 106)
(A) (B) (AxB = C) (D1) (D2) (D= D1+D2) (E=C-D)
0 0 0 39.4 0 39.4 -39.4
1 5 82 0.41 90.0 0 90.0 (89.59)
2 5 130 0.65 73.1 0 73.1 (72.45)
3 5 179 0.895 22.5 0 22.5 (21.61)
4 5 3,500 17.50 3.7 3.7 13.80
5 5 4,885 24.43 2.7 2.7 21.73
6 5 5,204 28.02 2.9 2.9 25.12
7 5 5,807 26.54 2.9 2.9 23.64
8 5 5,412 27.06 3.5 3.5 23.56
9 5 5,896 29.48 7.8 7.8 21.68
10 5 6,059 30.30 8.1 8.1 22.20
11 5 6,226 31.13 8.3 8.3 22.83
12 5 6,397 31.98 8.5 8.5 23.48
13 5 6,812 34.06 9.0 9.0 25.06
14 5 6,948 34.76 9.3 9.3 25.46
15 5 7,086 35.43 9.5 9.5 25.93
16 5 7,112 35.56 10.0 10.0 25.56
17 5 7,112 35.56 10.0 10.0 25.56
18 5 7,112 35.56 10.0 10.0 25.56
19 5 7,112 35.56 33.7 10.0 10.0 (8.14)
20-34 5 7,112 35.56 10.0 10.0 25.56
Present value 30,250 151.25 210.4 (59.15)
@12%
Average cost in Rs. Per m3 5 AIFC=6.955 (1.96)


Table 8.3 Supply Expansion and Demand Management
with Financial Price Equal to AIEC
Year Financial Quantity Financial Financial O&M Financial Net Financial
Price Demanded Benefit Costs Costs Costs Costs
(Rs/m3) (‘000m3) ( Rs 106) (Rs 106) (Rs 106) (Rs 106) ( Rs 106)
(A) (B) (C = AxB) (D1) (D2) (D= D1+D2) (E=C-D)
0 - 0 0 34.55 0 34.55 (34.55)
1 6.96 71.91 0.500 78.9 0 78.93 (78.93)
2 6.96 114.01 0.794 64.11 0 64.11 (64.11)
3 6.96 156.98 1.092 19.73 0 19.73 (19.73)
4 6.96 3,069.50 21.36 3.25 3.25 18.11
5 6.96 4,284.15 29.82 2.37 2.37 27.45
6 6.96 4,563.91 31.76 2.54 2.54 29.22
7 6.96 4,654.24 32.39 2.54 2.54 29.85
8 6.96 4,746.32 33.03 3.07 3.07 29.96
9 6.96 5,170.79 35.99 6.84 6.84 29.15
10 6.96 5,313.74 36.98 7.10 7.10 29.88
11 6.96 5,460.20 38.00 7.28 7.28 30.72
12 6.96 5,610.17 39.05 7.45 7.45 31.60
13 6.96 5,974.12 41.58 7.89 7.89 33.69
14 6.96 6,093.40 42.41 8.16 8.16 34.25
15 6.96 6,214.42 43.25 8.33 8.33 34.92
16 6.96 6,237.22 43.41 8.77 8.77 34.64
17 6.96 6,237.22 43.41 8.77 8.77 34.64
18 6.96 6,237.22 43.41 8.77 8.77 34.64
19 6.96 6,237.22 43.41 29.55 8.77 8.77 34.64
20 6.96 6,237.22 43.41 8.77 8.77 34.64
21 6.96 6,237.22 43.41 8.77 8.77 34.64
22 6.96 6,237.22 43.41 8.77 8.77 34.64
23 6.96 6,237.22 43.41 8.77 8.77 34.64
24 6.96 6,237.22 43.41 8.86 8.86 34.55
25-33 6.96 6,237.22 43.41 9.91 9.91 33.50
34 6.96 6,237.22 43.41 10.00 10.00 33.41
Present value 26,529.25 184.40 184.5 -0.1
@12%
Average cost in Rs. per m3 6.96 AIFC = 6.96


Notes:
Q2 = Q1 x { (1 + e x A/2) / (1 – e x A/2) }
Where: Q2 = Quantity demanded as a result of price increase to Rs 6.95/m3 = P2
Q1 = Quantity demanded at the original price of Rs 5.00/m3 = P1
e = Price elasticity of demand = -0.4 assumed
(P2 – P1)/ (P2 + P1) (6.95 – 5.0)/ (6.96 + 5.0)
and A= = = 0.3278
2 2

Hence, Q2 = Q1 x {1 + (-.4) x 0.3278/2} = Q1 x 0.877
{1 – (-.4) x 0.3278/2}

8.6 Financial Returns to the Project Participants
31. In cases where the main project participant is a corporation, either
public or private, the income statement and cash flow statement built up in the project’s
financial analysis show the net income generated by the project investment after
allowing for loan flows, loan payments and taxation of profit. After meeting all these
financial obligations and financing the need for working capital where applicable, the
residual money is the return to the project sponsor’s own contribution and contribution
to shareholders who have also a stake in the project investment. This return to equity is
to be worked out and it should be high enough to attract their participation in the
project.

8.6.1 Return to Equity

32. The following illustration relates to the Channapatna/Ramanagaran WSP
in Karnataka State of India which is to be implemented through a corporate entity. The
income and cash flow statements of the project have been worked out based on the
following basic features:

1) Initial investment is spread over four years.

2) The loan from the Bank which covers 80 percent of the total investment
has a grace period of 5 years and is then repayable over a 20-year period
at an interest rate of 6.9 percent. However, consistent with government
policy, this is re-lent to the water entity by the government at a nominal
interest of 12 percent. The anticipated inflation is 3.2 percent per
annum. Thus, the real rate of interest amounts to 8.5 percent. The
calculation is shown in Box 8.2 below.


Box 8.2 Real Rate of Interest Calculation

The relationship between inflation, nominal interest rate and real interest rate is stated in the
following equation:
(1 + i) (1 + rr) = (1 + rn)

or rr = {(1 + rn)/(1 + i)} - 1

where i = annual rate of inflation
rr = real rate of interest
rn = nominal rate of interest
In this case,
i = 0.032
rn = 0.12
hence,
(1 + .032) (1 +rr) = (1 + 0.12)

or rr = 8.5 percent

3) The remaining 20 percent of the investment comes from a government
grant to the water entity for which no payment of interest or principal is
to be made.

4) Project assets are operated for 31 years, after which there is no
residual value.

5) O&M costs increase gradually with increasing supply of water.

6) The average price of water rises over the 35-year project period from
Rs1.72 per m3 to Rs6.18 per m3 in real terms.

7) Water sales on the basis of project supplies increase over the first 12
years of
the project, then remain at a constant level.

8) Twenty percent of UFW are nontechnical losses and do not
generate any revenue.

9) The water entity would become liable for profit tax (remuneration


to the guarantorthe government) at the rate of 46 percent of gross
profit from the year onward when accumulated profit is no more
negative.

33. The cash flow statement is shown in Annex 3 (Table 8.3) of this chapter.
The “return to equity” works out to be 4.3 percent.

8.6.2 Assessment of “Return to Equity” of 4.3 percent

34. The return to equity of 4.3 percent is generally considered to be low.
The following key questions are:

(i) will this low return induce foreign investment funds, or private domestic
investment, or even government investment?

(ii) does a 4.3 percent return to equity provide sufficient incentive to the
project owner to undertake and maintain the investment?

(iii) is the return to equity as low as 4.3 percent sufficient to justify an
operation of the water supply project on a corporate basis?

Case of Foreign Investment

35. Most private foreign investors in many countries would be looking for
returns of 16 to 20 percent in real financial prices. Hence, a return of only 4.3 percent
per annum would not appear to be acceptable to foreign investors.

Case of Private Domestic Investment

36. Private domestic investors are likely to have alternative investment
opportunities that yield much higher than 4.3 percent in real terms. They will, therefore,
also be excluded in such an investment with low return to equity.

Case of Government Investment

37. Government investment, again, depends on the cost of investment
funds. What is the opportunity cost of investment funds for most of the member
countries? Combining estimates of returns to savers and investors and allowing for the
elasticity of demand and supply of investment funds suggest that the cost of investment
in real financial prices is between 10 percent and 12 percent. Government may wish to


achieve these rates of interest in project investments in financial terms. Hence, it is
unlikely that government funds will be available for a WSP generating a low return of 4.3
percent. However, governments may still support this WSP, considering the economic
and environmental benefits not captured in the financial benefit calculation.

Project Implementation Risk

38. A return of 4.3 percent to equity is too low to justify the project. The
risk is high as the small return may quickly become zero, or negative in case there is a
high cost-overrun in implementing the project and/or if the projected level of demand
for water does not materialize. This will then require an undesirable level of subsidy to
be sustained over the life of the project.

39. However, if instead of relending the loan (with Bank’s rate of 6.9
percent) to the domestic water entity at a high rate of 12 percent (resulting in a real rate
of 8.6 percent, see Box 8.3) , the government sets the relending equal to the Bank’s
terms (such as, five years of grace period at 6.9 percent interest rate), the return to
equity improves considerably and becomes 11.9 percent. This rate of return would then
be sufficient for a water authority to be set up on a corporate basis.

40. A change in onlending rate (refer to para. 39 above ) raises the issue of
who carries the foreign exchange risk. The issues of foreign exchange movements and
risk sharing are important in cases where the water enterprise uses external finance but
gets its main revenue from the domestic household and industrial/commercial sector. In
the example presented in section 8.6.2, the lowering of the relending rate from 12
percent to 6.9 percent means that the government has to shoulder the foreign exchange
risk. Any adverse foreign exchange movements may then have an impact on fiscal
sustainability .

Table 8.4 Cash Flow Statement
Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Cash Inflows
Water Sales 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.6 11.8 25.1 27.2 28.3 29.4 32.2 33.3 34.3 35.5 37.9 38.9 39.8 40.2 40.4
Loan 31.5 72.1 58.5 18.0
Total Cash Inflows 31.5 72.2 58.7 18.6 11.8 25.1 27.2 28.3 29.4 32.2 33.3 34.3 35.5 37.9 38.9 39.8 40.2 40.4
Cash Outflows
Capital Costs 39.4 89.9 72.9 21.9
O&M Costs 2.2 4.6 5.1 5.3 5.9 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.2 7.4 8.0 8.0 8.0
Loan Repayments 5.0 5.4 5.9 6.4 6.9 7.5 8.2 8.9 9.6 10.5 11.4 12.4 13.4
Interest Payments 21.0 20.5 20.1 19.6 19.0 18.4 17.8 17.1 16.3 15.5 14.6 13.6 12.5
Tax Payments 5.4 6.1 6.8
Total Cash Outflows 39.4 89.9 72.9 21.9 2.2 30.6 31.1 31.3 31.9 32.2 32.4 32.6 32.8 33.2 33.4 39.4 40.1 40.8
Net Cash Flows -7.9 - 17 .7 -14.2 -3.3 9.6 -5.5 -3.9 -3.0 -2.5 0.0 0.9 1.7 2.7 4.7 5.5 0.4 0.1 -0.4
Note: Loan inflow is calculated as 80 percent of capital investment cost over the four years of project implementation.
Table 8.4 Cash Flow Statement (continuation)
Items 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Cash Inflows
Water Sales 40.6 40.8 41.0 41.2 41.5 41.6 41.9 42.1 42.2 42.5 42.7 42.9 43.1 43.3 43.6 43.8 44.0
Loan
Total Cash Inflows 40.6 40.8 41.0 41.2 41.5 41.6 41.9 42.1 42.2 42.5 42.7 42.9 43.1 43.3 43.6 43.8 44.0
Cash Outflows
Capital Costs 33.6
O&M Costs 8.0 8.0 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
Loan Repayments 14.6 15.9 17.2 18.7 20.3 22.1 24.0
Interest Payments 11.4 10.1 8.8 7.3 5.7 3.9 2.1
Tax Payments 7.5 8.2 9.0 9.8 10.7 11.7 12.7 13.4 13.6 13.7 13.8 14.0 14.1 14.3 14.4 14.6 14.7
Total Cash Outflows 41.5 75.8 43.0 43.9 44.8 45.8 46.9 22.4 22.6 22.7 22.8 23.0 23.1 23.3 23.4 23.6 23.7
Net Cash Flows -0.9 -35.0 -2.0 -2.7 -3.3 -4.2 -5.0 19.7 19.6 19.8 19.9 19.9 20.0 20.0 20.2 20.2 20.3
IRR = 4.3% ≈ return to equity


8.7 Financial Analysis at the Enterprise Level
41. Project sustainability is also contingent upon the overall financial
performance of the enterprise, either public or private, undertaking the project and the
enterprise’s incentive to invest in the project. That is, in addition to the project
generating sufficient incentive (i.e., profitability and/or return to investment) to the
project sponsor undertaking and maintaining the investment, the financial performance
of the enterprise must also be sufficient to attract capital to the project and the
forecasted cash flow of the enterprise must be sufficient to finance the project.

42. The financial performance of the enterprise prior to the project
investment must be sound in order to attract capital to the project. This analysis is
undertaken as part of the financial analysis for each project in accordance with the
Bank’s Guidelines for the Financial Analysis of Projects, in three financial statementsincome
statement, cash flow statement and balance sheet.

43. Assuming that requisite financial analysis has been performed and the
project has been found to be financially viable, an analysis of the projected financial
statements of the enterprise will identify any cash flow implications on the financial
sustainability at both the project and the enterprise level.


Annex
Tariff Design for Financial Sustainability
(an Illustration)
Based on data from Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development Project

(1) Population in year 5 of the project = 80,000

(2) Household size = 4

(3) No. of households = 20,000

(4) High income group = 0.15 x 20,000 = 3,000 nos. households
(Rs5,000 to Rs7,000 per month)

(5) Middle income group = 0.65 x 20,000 = 13,000 nos. households
(Rs2,400 to Rs5,000 per month)

(6) Low income group households = 0.20 x 20,000 = 4,000 nos.
(Rs1,250.00 per month to Rs2,400 per month)

(7) Consumption per capita per day: (liters per capita per day = lcd)
• one connection outside house = 40.00 lcd (for low income group)
• one connection inside house = 80.0 lcd (for middle income group)
• two connections inside house = 150.0 lcd (for high income group)

(8) Total consumption per day: (in m3)
1
(3,000 x 4 x 150) + (13,000 x 4 x 80) + (4,000 x 4 x 40) = 6,600m3
1000
(9) Consumption per day by commercial and small industrial plants
= ten percent of total consumption = 660m3

(10) Quantity of water sold per day = (6,600 + 660) m3 = 7,260 m3

(11) AIFC = Rs6.96/m3
AIEC = Rs.6.71/m3 (using domestic price numeraire)

(12) Total financial cost to be met per day
= 7260 x 6.96 = Rs50,529.60


(13) Provision for uncollected water charges = six percent of total water sales.

(14) Charges for commercial businesses and industrial plants = Rs10.00/m3
As AIFC < Rs10/m3, the commercial/industrial sector cross-subsidizes the
household sector.

(15) Payments (per day) by commercial houses and industrial plants
= (660) x (10) = Rs6,600.00

(16) Remaining financial costs (per day) are to be met by the households
= Rs50,529.6 – Rs660.00
= Rs43,929.60

(17) Charges for different income groups

• low income group = Rs5.00/m3 < AIFC (40 for lcd)
• middle income group
first 40 Lcd = Rs5.00/m3 < AIFC
next 40 Lcd = Rs8.00/m3 > AIFC
• high income group
first 40 Lcd = Rs5.00/m3 < AIFC

(18) Total charges from households per day:

from low income group

= 4,000 x (4 x 40 x 5) = Rs3,200.00
1,000
from middle income group
(4 x 40 x 5) + (4 x 40 x 8)
= 13,000 x = Rs27,040
1,000
for high income group
(4 x 40 x 5) + (4 x 40 x 8.0) + (70 x 4 x 13.00)
= 3,000 x 1,000
= Rs17,160.00


TOTAL CHARGES FROM ALL HOUSEHOLDS (PER DAY)
= Rs3,200.00 + Rs27,040 + Rs17,160 = Rs47,400.00

Total water sales (per day) from commercial/industrial sector and households
= Rs47,400.00 + Rs6,600.00 = Rs54,000.00

(19) Provision for uncollected water sales value (per day) as a percentage of total sales
(54,000.00 – 50,529.60)
= 100 x (54,000.00) = 6.4%

(20) Test for “affordability”:

Lowest income group
Monthly payment from = (3,200.00/4,000) x 30 = Rs24.00
each household

Lowest monthly income = Rs1,250.00
of low income group
24.00
Water charges as a = =
1,250.00 x 100 = 1.92%
percentage of monthly income

Middle income group
Monthly payment from = (27,040/13,000) x 30 = Rs62.4
each household

of middle income group
62.4
Water charges as a = x 100 = 2.6%
2,400

High income group
Monthly payments from = (17,160/3,000) x 30 = Rs171.60
each household

of high income group
171.60
Water charges as a = 5,000 x 100 = 3.43%


Remarks:

Key questions to be asked for the tariff design are:

• Have we got adequate finance to ensure financial sustainability?
• Are the water charges “affordable” to the consumers, especially to the
poorer section of the community?
• Is the economic price covered by the water charges?

The answers to these questions are “yes”.

• Is there any “subsidy” involved?
There is no general subsidy, either financial or economic. However,
there is cross-subsidy from the high-income group to the low-income
group, as can be seen below:

Low-income group: -
(100% @ Rs5.00/m3)
This is less than AIFC = Rs6.96/m3
Middle income group : -
(50% @ Rs5.00/m3 and 50% @ 8.00/m3)
Weighted average rate = 0.5 x 5 + 0.5 x 8 = Rs6.5/m3
This is slightly less than AIFC = Rs6.96/m3
High-income group: -
(0.267 @ Rs5.00/m3, 0.267 @ Rs8.0/m3 and 0.466 @ Rs
3
13.0/m )
Weighted average rate = 0.267 x 5.0 + 0.267 x 8 + 0.466 x 13
= Rs9.53
This is higher than AIFC = Rs6.96/m3

• Weighted average price of water

660 640 4,160 1,800
= ------- x 10 + ------- x 5 + ------- x 6.5 + ------- x 9.53
7,260 7,260 7,260 7,260

= Rs7.44/m3

CHAPTER 9
DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
AND IMPACT ON POVERTY


CONTENTS

9.1 Concept and Rationale..............................................................................................................213
9.2 Distribution of Project Benefits and Costs...........................................................................213
9.3 Analysis of Beneficiaries ..........................................................................................................218
9.4 Distribution Analysis ................................................................................................................219
9.5 Poverty Impact Analysis .........................................................................................................221
9.6 Limitations of the PIR..............................................................................................................222

Tables
Table 9.1 BasicData…………………………………………………………………………214
Table 9.2 Piped Water Demand and Production………………………………………..…...215
Table 9.3 Project Financial Benefits and Costs………………………………………….…...216
Table 9.4 Volumes of Water from which Economic Benefits are Derived…………….…….217
Table 9.5 Project Economic Benefits and Costs………………………………………..…...218
Table 9.6 Distribution of Net Economic Benefits………………………………………….220
Table 9.7 Poverty Impact Ratio…………………………………………………………….222
Table 9.8 Sensitivity of the PIR…………………………………………………………….223

CHAPTER9 : DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS/IMPACT ON POVERTY 213

9.1 Concept and Rationale
1. The cost and benefits of a water supply project (WSP) are shared among
different groups. Based on the results from the financial and economic benefit-cost
analysis, an assessment of the distribution of project benefits and costs can be given to
show which participant will gain from the project or incur a loss.

2. For example, consumers might gain due to the project if they can obtain
water with the project at a lower price than without the project. Meanwhile, farmers
might loose with the project when less irrigation water is available, and the government
might loose when it subsidises the utility if it does not generate sufficient financial funds.

3. In general, distribution analysis is useful:

i) to assess whether the expected distribution of project effects
corresponds with the objectives of the project (e.g., increased well-
being) ;

ii) to assess the likely impact of policy changes on the distribution of
project benefits (e.g., pricing and exchange rate policy); and

iii) to provide the basis for the poverty impact assessment (Section 9.5).
This assessment evaluates which portion of the net gains of the project
will ultimately benefit the poor.

4. The distribution analysis depends on data from both the financial and
economic benefit-cost analyses. As financial benefit-cost analysis is done using the
domestic price level numeraire, the latter will be used in the examples throughout this
chapter.

9.2 Distribution of Project Benefits and Costs
5. The following is an example of a statement on the distribution of project
benefits and costs in a WSP. The assumptions used to derive the economic benefits and
costs are presented in Table 9.1.


Table 9.1 Basic data
Demand without-project 200 ‘000m³/year
Price of water without-project 2.50 Rs/m³
Price of water with-project (tariff) 1.50 Rs/m³
Price elasticity of demand -0.5
Demand with-project 240 ‘000m³/year
Incremental water 40 ‘000m³/year
Nonincremental water 200 ‘000m3/year
Average demand price with-& without- project 2.00 Rs/m³
Economic supply price of water without-project 2.25 Rs/m³

Unaccounted for water 30%
non-technical losses 10%
and technical losses 20%

Investment costs (financial)
Equipment 1,37 Rs‘000
1
Installation (labor) 171 Rs‘000

Operation and Maintenance
Operating labor (% investment) 1.0%
Electricity (% investment) 1.5%
Other operating costs (% investment) 0.5%

Conversion factors (domestic price numeraire)
Equipment (traded component) 1.11 SERF
Installation (labor) 0.90 SWR
Operating (labor) 0.90 SWR
Electricity (subsidized) 1.20 CF
Other operating costs 1.00 CF

Opportunity cost of water
Opportunity cost of water 0.10 Rs/m³ prod.

6. The with-project demand forecast for year 2002, the time horizon for
this project, has been assessed on the basis of the following assumptions:

(i) the project is expected to replace a demand from alternative sources of
200,000 m³/year (nonincremental demand);

(ii) the average financial price of water without the project is Rs2.50 per m³;

(iii) the average financial price or tariff with the project will be Rs1.50 per
m³;


(iv) the price elasticity of demand is -0.50.

7. As a result of a 40 percent price decrease [(2.50-1.50)/2.50] x 100, the
demand with the project is expected to increase by 20 percent [(-0.50 x -0.40) x 100],
from 200,000 m³ to 240,000 m³ per year.

8. This demand would build up during five years, from 50 percent of the
ultimate demand forecast in 1997, 60 percent in 1998 until full supply capacity is
reached in 2002. On the basis of an unaccounted-for-water (UFW) of 30 percent, the
project water production would be [240,000/(1 - 0.30)] or 343,000 m³ (rounded). The
demand and production of piped water with the project is shown in the table below.

Table 9.2 Piped Water Demand and Production
Piped Water Demand Unit 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
and Production
- Demand/Capacity 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100%
build- up with-project
- Piped water demand ‘000 m3 120 144 168 192 216 240 240 240 240
-UFW (30% of production) ‘000 m3 51 62 72 82 93 103 103 103 103
Piped water production ‘000 m 3 171 206 240 274 309 343 343 343 343

9. The financial cash flow statement of the project during the project life is
presented in Table 9.3. The project lifetime is for presentational purposes, assumed to
be ten years.

10. The revenues are calculated on the basis of the forecasted demand and
tariffs. For example, in 1997, revenues are equal to (50% x 240,000 x 1.5) or Rs180,000.
The investment cost of the project is Rs1,371,000 for equipment and Rs171,000 for
installation labor. Operating labor is estimated at 1 percent of the total investment of
Rs1.543 mn, electricity at 1.5 percent and other O&M at 0.5 percent. At the projected
tariff level, the water utility will not recover the full incremental cost of the project at
financial prices, discounted at 12 percent which is the assumed WACC. At this rate, the
utility will have a loss of Rs259,000 in present value. So, the project is only viable if
subsidized.


Table 9.3 Project Financial Benefits and Costs
(Rs’000, 1996 prices)
Financial statement PV 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
@12%
Benefits:
- Revenue 1,339 180 216 252 288 324 360 360 360 360
Total 1,339 180 216 252 288 324 360 360 360 360
Costs:
- Equipment 1,224 1,371
- Installation (labor) 153 171
- Operating labor 73 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
- Electricity 110 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23
- Other operating costs 37 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Total 1,598 1,543 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46
Net cash flow -259 -1,543 134 170 206 242 278 314 314 314 314

11. The economic analysis of the project introduces the following
considerations:

(i) with the project, increased quantities of water will be available at a lower
cost, representing an economic benefit to the user. Nonincremental
water (200,000 m³/year) has been valued by its economic supply price
without the project of Rs2.25 per m³ and incremental water (40,000
m³/year) by its average demand price of Rs2.00 per m³ [(1.50 +
2.50)/2].

(ii) water consumed but not sold (non-technical losses) does not generate
revenues for the utility. It, however, does benefit the consumer. At full
capacity, the volume of the non-technical losses is 10 percent of water
produced, or 34,300 m³ per year (10% of 343,000). Valued at the
weighted average economic value of incremental and nonincremental
water of Rs2.21 per m³ (5/6 x 2.25 + 1/6 x 2), the worth of NTL is
Rs76,000 (rounded) per annum, as of year 2002. From Table 9.4, it can
be seen that the weights 5/6 and 1/6 are constant during 1997-2005.

Volumes of incremental and nonincremental water demand, and of
nontechnical losses are shown in the table below. The economic
benefits derived from this water consumed are comprised in Table 9.5.


Table 9.4 Volumes of Water from which Economic Benefits are Derived
Unit 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Demand/Capacity 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100%
build- up with-project
Water demand ‘000 m3 120 144 168 192 216 240 240 240 240
with-project 1/
Water demand ‘000 m3 100 120 140 160 180 200 200 200 200
without-project 2/

Nonincremental water ‘000 m3 100 120 140 160 180 200 200 200 200
Incremental water ‘000 m3 20 24 28 32 36 40 40 40 40
Nontechnical losses ‘000 m3 17 21 24 27 31 34 34 34 34
(10% of production)
1/ Piped water demand, ultimately reaching 240,000 m3 per year, building up according to percentages

given.
2/ Water from alternative sources, to be replaced by the project, ultimately reaching 200,000 m3,

building up according to percentages given.

(iii) there is a difference between the economic price of foreign exchange
and the official exchange rate. A SERF of 1.11 has been estimated for
the country, implying that foreign exchange components have a higher
economic than financial cost to the country. All equipment has to be
imported;

(iv) the economic cost of labor is below the financial cost. The SWRF has
been estimated at 0.90 and is applied to the installation labor and to
operating labor;

(v) electricity is subsidized by the government. The economic cost of
electricity is 20 percent higher than the financial cost;

(vi) the benefit foregone in agricultural production (opportunity cost of
water) has been estimated at Rs0.10 per m³ of water produced (343,000
m³ at full capacity).

12. The financial project statement has been adjusted taking into account the
above considerations to arrive at the project economic statement, as given in Table 9.5.
This Table also shows the annual flow of benefits, other than revenue. The discounted
economic benefits are now larger than the discounted economic costs. The economy
will benefit as the project has a positive present value of Rs392,000. The project is
economically justified.


Table 9.5 Project Economic Benefits and Costs
(Rs’000, 1995 prices)
Economic statement PV@ 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
12%
Benefits:
- Nonincremental water 1,674 225 270 315 360 405 450 450 450 450
- Incremental water 298 40 48 56 64 72 80 80 80 80
- Non-technical losses 282 38 45 53 61 68 76 76 76 76
Total 2,253 303 363 424 485 545 606 606 606 606
Costs:
- Equipment 1,361 1,524
- Installation 138 154
- Operating labor 66 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
- Electricity 132 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
- Other operating costs 37 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
-Opportunity cost 128 17 21 24 27 31 34 34 34 34
of water
Total 1,861 1,678 67 70 73 77 80 84 84 84 84
Net cash flow 392 -1,678 236 293 351 408 465 522 522 522 522

9.3 Analysis of Beneficiaries
13. In the example, the following beneficiaries of the project have been
identified:

(i) Consumers. These will benefit from the project because of the lower
cost of water and the accompanied induced increase in consumption.
They also reap economic benefits because of the economic value of
non-technical losses;

(ii) Government/economy. Because of the overvaluation of the domestic
currency at the official exchange rate, the economic cost of the
equipment exceeds its financial cost by the extent of the SERF. The loss
is borne by the government and economy; the government is providing
a subsidy on electricity, this represents a cost (loss) to the government.

14. The diverted water is assumed to result in a lower agricultural production
value, as expressed by the opportunity cost of water. This loss is borne by the
government or by the farmers who are treated as a part of the economy.


(i) Labor. The financial cost of labor exceeds its opportunity cost; the
difference accrues as a gain to the laborers;

(ii) Utility. There is a loss to the utility because not all of the full financial
costs including capital costs, are recovered.

9.4 Distribution Analysis
15. The financial and economic statements are shown in Table 9.6. The
gains and losses to different participants in the project (distribution of project effects)
are also indicated. The gains and losses to the different participants are determined by
the difference between financial and economic benefits and costs.

16. The overall results are a negative financial net present value (FNPV) of
Rs 259,000 and a positive economic net present value (ENPV) of Rs392,000. The
ENPV exceeds the FNPV by Rs651,000.

17. Two participants lose from the project. The utility will suffer a loss
of Rs259,000. The rest of the economy will suffer a loss of:

(i) Rs136,000, because foreign exchange is available at a price lower
than its economic price;

(ii) Rs22,000, because the financial price of electricity is below the
economic cost; and

(iii) Rs128,000, because water previously used in irrigated agriculture
will be diverted to household use.

The result is a total loss of Rs286,000.

18. On the other hand, two participants are expected to gain. Labor will gain
by Rs23,000 at the projected wages, and consumers will gain by Rs914,000. These gains
and losses in part compensate for each other; the net gain is positive and equal to the
ENPV of Rs392,000.


Table 9.6 Distribution of Net Economic Benefits
(Rs’000, present values at 12% discount rate)
Difference Distribution of Project Effects
Financial Economic Economic
Present Conversion Present minus Gov't/
Values Factor Values Financial Utility Economy Labor Consumers Total
Benefits:
Total benefits 1,339 2,253 914 914 914
Costs:
- Equipment 1,224 1.11 1,361 136 -136 -136
- Installation (labor) 153 0.90 138 -15 15 15
- Operating labor 73 0.90 66 -7 7 7
- Electricity 110 1.20 132 22 -22 -22
- Other operating 37 1.00 37 0 0
costs
- Opportunity 128 128 -128 -128
cost of water
Total costs 1,598 1,861 263
Net benefits -259 392 651 -259 -259
Gains and Losses -259 -286 23 914 392

CHAPTER 9: DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS/IMPACT ON POVERTY 221

9.5 Poverty Impact Analysis
19. The initial step required to trace the poverty reduction impact of a
project is to evaluate the expected distribution of net economic benefits to different
groups as summarized in Table 9.6. The next step is to assign the economic benefits
to the poor and to the non-poor. The poor are defined as those living below the
country specific poverty line. An example of a calculation of a poverty impact ratio
is given in Table 9.7 and discussed below.

20. The first line in Table 9.7 repeats the gains and losses for the
government/economy, consumers and laborers from the last line in Table 9.6. In
the second line, it has been assumed that the negative financial return to the utility of
Rs259,000 is subsidized by the government, resulting in an additional loss to the
government. This represents a loss of potential fiscal resources which could be used,
for instance, in poverty alleviation programs.

21. The proportion of benefits accruing to the poor are estimated as
follows for losses and gains to:

(i) Government/economy. An assessment of the targeting of
government expenditures shows that on average, 50 percent of all
government expenditures reach the poor. Losses/gains to the
government/economy are decreasing/increasing the available
government funds, therewith decreasing/increasing government
expenditures directly targeted to the needs of the poor;

(ii) Labor. Thirty-three percent of the operating and installation
labor needed for the project is carried out by poor people;

(iii) Consumers. A socioeconomic survey has been conducted in
the project service area and it was found that 40 percent of the new
consumers are below the poverty line.

22. A poverty impact ratio (PIR), expressing the proportion of net
economic benefits accruing to the poor, can be calculated by comparing net
economic benefits to the poor with the net economic benefits to the economy as a
whole. In this case, as shown in Table 9.7, the PIR is 0.26 (= 101/392), which
indicates that 26 percent of the economic benefits (present value) of the project will
reach the poor.


Definition of Poverty Impact Ratio (PIR)

Benefits to the poor
PIR = -----------------------------
Total economic benefits

23. The PIR should be assessed in relation to the population, which is
poor in the project area. For example, if 20 percent of the population in the area is
poor, and the PIR amounts to 0.26, the project would have a positive poverty
reducing impact.

Table 9.7 Poverty Impact Ratio
(Rs’000, present values at 12% discount rate)
Gov't/
Economy Labor Consumers Total
Gains and Losses (NEB-NFB) -286 23 914 651
Financial return utility -259 -259
Benefits -544 23 914 392
Proportion of poor 0.50 0.33 0.40
Benefits to poor -272 7 366 101
Poverty impact ratio: 101 / 392 = 0.26

9.6 Limitations of the PIR
24. The distribution analysis and PIR calculation consider the economic
benefits of the project. A part of this benefit is the economic cost of water replaced
by the project, such as the cost of water sold by vendors, households’ wells and
kerosene. The PIR does not take into account the question whether this
replacement affects poor or non-poor people. For example, if vendors will loose
their jobs as a result of the project, the expressed PIR does not take this into
account.

25. The proportion of benefits going to the poor is difficult to estimate.
For the consumer benefits, the estimate is usually based on survey data. The portion
of the economic benefits to the economy affecting the poor, or cost that the project
imposes on the government or economy, can be estimated on the basis of the
existing budgetary policy of the government. The portion of project labor that is

CHAPTER 9: DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS/IMPACT ON POVERTY 223

carried out by poor people has to be based on some broad assumptions but may be
easier to estimate.

26. Note that the distribution analysis and the PIR calculation can only
be done if the same discount rate is used in both financial and economic benefit-
costs analysis. In the example a discount rate of 12 percent has been used in both
the economic and financial analysis. Sensitivity analysis using other discount rates
might be appropriate. Such an analysis is presented in Table 9.8.

Table 9.8 Sensitivity of the PIR
(at different discount rates)
Discount rate PIR
12% 0.26
10% 0.32
7% 0.37

27. Different discount rates result in different PIRs. In this example, it
appears that the higher the discount rate, the lower the PIR and vice versa. A relative
high discount rate (e.g., 12 percent) gives relatively high weight to costs and benefits
in the early project years, and relatively low weight to costs and benefits that accrue
in later years. On the other hand, a relatively low discount rate (e.g., 7 percent) gives
relatively low weight to costs and benefits in the early project years, and relatively
high weight to costs and benefits that accrue in later years.


A.1 Methods of Data Collection..................................................................................... 227
A.1.1 Collection of Secondary Data....................................................................... 227
A.1.2 Reconnaissance Survey ................................................................................ 227
A.1.3 Collection of Primary Data .......................................................................... 228
A.2 Contingent Valuation Method (CVM)....................................................................... 230
A.2.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 230
A.2.2 Concept of CVM and Advantages ................................................................ 230
A.2.3 Use of WTP Data ....................................................................................... 231
A.2.4 Design of WTP Questions........................................................................... 232
A.2.5 Reliability of WTP Data .............................................................................. 233

A.3 Sample Socioeconomic Survey Questionnaire (Household)…………………………237

APPENDIX A: DATA
COLLECTION 227

A.1 METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION

A.1.1 Collection of Secondary Data

1. When preparing new projects, examination of seconday data will always have
to take place, whereas gathering of primary data is only needed when secondary data are
considered insufficient or unreliable. The sources of secondary data are given in the box below.

Box 1 Sources of Secondary Data

1. Water enterprises: Financial and Technical Reports, Customer Information,
reports of utilities in similar areas;
2. Local government agencies: Urban and Regional Development Plans, Demographic Data,
Socioeconomic Reports, Statistical Reports, etc.
3. Non-governmental organizations: Survey Reports, Publications, etc.
4. Universities: Research Publications, scientific work;
5. Public health authorities: Data on Public Health, Waterborne Diseases.

2. Data on population projections are often available from secondary sources.
Information on current water consumption, income and current water sources can also be
collected from secondary data in many cases. Estimating consumption through analysis of time
series data can be applied when data are available on water consumption level and on
explanatory variables such as income, service levels, alternative sources, water tariffs and
weather conditions. A prerequisite for this type of analysis is that the data are applicable to the
new project situation. Econometric analysis can be carried out for projects in larger urban areas
where piped water has been available for a longer period of time, where alternative resources are
limited and where existing water tariffs are close enough to the expected future tariffs in the
with project scenario.

A.1.2 Reconnaissance Survey

3. During a reconnaissance survey, secondary and primary data are collected. Such
surveys are useful to obtain a more detailed picture of the project area. During the survey,
technical and non-technical data may be collected from local organizations, or data may be
based on own observations.

4. To stimulate integrated formulation of the project scope, the composition of
the survey team should include technical experts (water supply engineers) as well as economists.
The viability of different service levels or technical options should be investigated at this early
stage.

5. During the reconnaissance survey, it is also useful to consult with certain key
actors in the project area such as government officials and community leaders, and to carry out a


small number of representative interviews with community members to obtain a good picture of
the local situation and conditions (situational analysis).

A.1.3 Collection of Primary Data

6. Primary data can be collected through field observations or, more importantly,
by conducting surveys among selected households and/or industries and institutions. These
surveys should be undertaken if insufficient secondary data are available on one or more of the
following items: existing water use patterns; present expenditures for water (financial and non-
financial); preferred service levels; willingness to pay for water and connection fees; and income.

7. It would be carrying it too far to include in this Handbook an extensive guide
on how to conduct these surveys. A sample questionnaire is given in Appendix A.3. Lessons
learned in carrying out the four case studies under RETA 5608 are as follows:

(i) Local Research Organizations. During the field studies it was found that in
all countries, there exists sufficient capability and capacity to carry out surveys
for primary data collection and processing. These sources may include
universities, research institutes, consultancy firms, community organizations,
etc. It was also found that it is of the utmost importance that the surveyor be
closely involved in the preparation and implementation of customer surveys.

(ii) In-depth surveys versus larger surveys. The researcher should consider the
usefulness of obtaining data by means of either a larger household survey or a
smaller in-depth survey. In the case of Rawalpindi, e.g., where the persons
interviewed were mostly the (male) heads of the household and where no
water meters were installed, it appeared impossible to obtain reliable data about
existing water consumption from the larger household survey. Instead, it was
necessary to carry out a smaller in-depth survey involving the women in the
households to obtain more reliable estimates.

(iii) Timeframe and preparation. It is often thought that the implementation of
household surveys requires extensive resources and a long period of time. In
the case studies carried out under RETA 5608, the experience has been that
when working with an experienced domestic team, surveys can be carried out
rather swiftly. The cost of carrying out the household survey in the four case
studies in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan and Viet Nam was between $5,000
to $8,500 per survey among, on average, 300 households. The survey included
preparation of questionnaire and field survey, implementation of the survey,
processing, and analysis of data and report writing. A typical timeframe for
carrying out a household survey is shown in Box 3.7.

APPENDIX A: DATA
COLLECTION 229

Box 2. Timeframe for Conducting Household Survey

Before start of the survey
Preparation of questionnaire
Preparation of survey team
Analysis of secondary data
Inform relevant authorities
Preliminary stratification

day 1: Discussions with survey team
Field testing of questionnaire
Visit relevant authorities and obtain introductory letter

day 2: Adapt and finalize questionnaire
Training of surveyors including further field tests

day 3: Finalize training of surveyors
Start of the survey

day 4-5: Monitoring of first results
Adapt/change questions where needed

The actual survey may need between five to ten days, depending on the number of surveyors and the
number of interviews to be conducted. Normally, one surveyor is able to conduct between five and ten
interviews per day and therefore, a survey team consisting of five persons would be able to conduct
between 125 and 250 interviews per week.

Source: RETA 5608: Economic Evaluation of WSPs

(iv) Length of the questionnaire. In this context, it is useful to note that most
questionnaires contain questions which are later not used in the analysis. An
important reason is that different actors are involved in the design of the
questionnaires and that each of these actors has his/her own wishes. It is
recommended to carefully assess the usefulness of each question and to keep
the questionnaire (which should be in local language) as short as possible. An
example of a household questionnaire is attached as Appendix A.3.

(v) Defining the new water service level. In many cases, it may be difficult to
clearly and realistically define the new product (improved water supply) to be
used as a basis for the willingness-to-pay questions. In the case of the
Rawalpindi water supply project (WSP) for example, it was not considered
feasible to achieve 24 hours water supply at good pressure within a foreseeable
period of time. Instead, project engineers expected that they would be able to
achieve ten hours per day of clean water supply at good pressures.


8. It is also important to present alternative options, where these exist. In urban
areas, these may include public taps. In the case of rural water supply, potential customers may
not always have a clear idea of different technical options, and it may be necessary to bring
pictures or drawings of the new faciltities required for each option.

A.2 CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD (CVM)

A.2.1 Introduction

9. This section draws on the 1988 WASH Guidelines for Conducting Willingness-to-Pay
Studies for Improved Water Services in Developing Countries. This very useful Guidelines contains
detailed examples on how to design and conduct a willingness-to-pay (WSP) survey.

A.2.2 Concept of CVM and Advantages

10. The CVM is a direct means of estimating the economic benefits of an improved
water supply. One simply asks how much the consumer is willing to pay for a given level of
service. The method is called “contingent valuation” because the respondent is asked about what
he or she would do in a hypothetical (or contingent) situation in which the level of service is
expected to be improved.

11. This approach has the following advantages:

(i) one can observe the current water situation of the households, inquire about
the level of service people want and how much they are willing to pay for it;

(ii) the consumer can value services for which indirect approaches would be
imperfect (e.g., what are the benefits of increased reliability, higher water
quality, etc.);

(iii) the analyst can estimate the reactions of households to prices or technologies
beyond the range of past experience;

(iv) the answers of respondents to WTP questions are easily understood by non-
economists and decision-makers;

(v) CVM can be used to easily derive estimates of economic benefits without the
use of econometric techniques;

(vi) the CVM could also be used to assess the benefits of improved water services
to industries and commercial establishments.

APPENDIX A: DATA
COLLECTION 231

12. One possible drawback of the CVM approach is that the full economic benefits
(e.g. health improvements) of an improved level of water service may not be well perceived by
the beneficiaries and that answers may be unreliable and give biased estimates of WTPs for a
number of reasons discussed further below.

A.2.3 Use of WTP data

13. Both policy makers and water resource planners in developing countries are
becoming increasingly interested in conducting WTP studies to learn more about households’
preferences for improved water supplies and their willingness and ability to contribute to the
costs of operation, maintenance and construction. Water sector professionals now consider it
necessary to incorporate communities’ preferences regarding proposed water supply systems in
the design of the project. WTP studies can provide useful information to assist policy makers,
planners and project analysts in making four types of decisions:

• Setting Priorities. If a water agency or donor has a limited budget and must
choose between villages or towns to receive a piped water supply, WTP surveys
can assist in prioritizing investments or site selection. For example, villages
which show high WTP for improved water supplies are likely to benefit
considerably from a new piped water system, and the potential for cost recovery
of the operation and maintenance costs is likely to be high. Similarly, if a village
has many high-quality traditional water sources nearby, WTP for a piped water
supply system is likely to be low.

• Choice of service level. Planners in developing countries have often assumed
that a community should be provided with the highest level of service possible,
as long as the cost for households to obtain the water does not exceed 5
percent of the household income. It has also been assumed that as long as this
5 percent is not exceeded, households would abandon their existing water
supply in favor of the improved system. These assumptions have proven to be
incorrect in many cases. WTP surveys can assist in defining the appropriate
technology and service level;

• Tariff design. Water utilities are under increasing pressure to be financially
viable and to raise the prices they charge for water to reflect better the cost of
the service. However, few water utilities in developing countries have adequate
information on which to base decisions regarding tariff design. If prices are set
too low, revenues will not be sufficient to cover the costs of supplying water. If
prices are set too high, households may not be able to afford connecting to a
piped water supply, and again revenues will be low. With WTP information, the
relationship between the price of water, the number of households connected
and revenues can be estimated;


• Project design and benefit-cost analysis. Provided that households
understand all the changes and perceive all the benefits which will result from
an improved water supply, the WTP bids can serve as a measure of the
economic benefits of the project.

A.2.4 Design of WTP Questions

14. In general, WTP surveys are based on either of two types of questions:

(i) respondents may be asked a direct, open-ended question such as: “What is the
maximum amount of money you would be willing to pay (for a specified good or service)?” or,

(ii) respondents are presented with a specific choice which requires a yes/no
answer, like “Suppose a water distribution line were installed in front of your house, and
assuming the connection fee was x (in local currency), and that the monthly tariff was y (flat
charge or per m³) would you choose to connect to the new water distribution system?”

Different questions can be combined and bidding games can be developed.

Box 1 Bidding Game
(Tariff per month)

When the new project starts, and assuming (i) if piped water quantity is increased to 12 hours supply
per day at adequate pressure so that you can get the additional supply of water of good quality and (ii)
the tariffs are re-fixed at Tk …. per month, would you want a connection and pay for the bill? [go to
the bidding game]

1. (a) No, I do not want a connection.
(b) Yes, I want a connection; if 1(b), then go to 2.
2. Tk400 If “Yes”, then stop; if “No”, go to 3
11 Tk25 If “Yes”, then stop; if “No”, explain.

15. In Box 6.7, the bidding game starts at the higher amount of Tk400. The
selection of the initial amount is important and should reflect realism; e.g., the initial amount
should generally not be higher than two times the unit cost of the enhanced level of service.

APPENDIX A: DATA
COLLECTION 233

A.2.5 Reliability of WTP Data

16. Professionals are often concerned about the validity and reliability of
respondents’ answers to hypothetical WTP questions. Two main concerns are at issue here. The
first is whether respondents will answer WTP questions honestly and accurately. The second is
whether WTP responses are reliable measures of economic benefits.

17. Systematic (non-random) differences between respondents’ answers to WTP
questions and their true WTP can arise for many reasons:

Strategic bias

18. Strategic biases may occur when the respondent believes he or she can
influence a decision or plan by not answering the enumerator’s question honestly.

Box 2 Strategic Bias

A research team from the University of Karachi was conducting a WTP study for the World Bank and
went into a poor peri-urban area of Karachi to pre-test an early version of their WTP questionnaire. A
neighborhood was selected and a community leader was informed about the purpose of the research
team’s visit.

The team went to the first house on the block to conduct the first interview and within five minutes
after starting the interview, a truck rolled by. The driver leaned out his window and shouted that the
water situation in the neighborhood was terrible and that the research team should arrange for the
government to provide a water distribution line immediately.

In such an environment, there is clearly a risk that misinformation and rumors about a WTP study will
affect the answers respondents give and possibly encourage them to attempt to influence the results of
the study by giving biased responses to the WTP questions. In this example, WTP would probably be
an underestimate of the economic benefits because the respondent might believe that not he but the
government should pay for the water service.

Source: Wash, 1988

19. Strategic biases occur when respondents understate their true willingness to
pay for an improved level of water service while others pay for the provision of the good or
service. On the other hand, if the price to be charged for the improved water service is not tied
to an individual’s WTP and the respondent is aware of this, he may overstate his true WTP to
ensure its provision.


20. The problem of strategic biases can be reduced by carefully stressing the
importance of a truthful answer. The questionnaire used in Phan Thiet (Viet Nam) started with
the following opening statement, which the enumerator was asked to read exactly as it was given
and not paraphrase it.

Box 3 Opening Statement

As you are aware, the present water supply system in Phan Thiet town has been unreliable and
it has not been possible to improve the service level due to lack of financial funds. Now, the Water
Supply and Drainage Company of Binh Thuan Province intends to improve and extend the water
supply system in the town. The intended improvements of the system will be better water quality and
higher pressure 24 hours a day. To do this, the company has planned to borrow the money from the
Asian Development Bank. Repayments of the loan and operation and maintenance expenditures will
have to be covered by the revenues from all water users.
Now, I’m going to ask you some questions to learn whether your household is interested in
having a connection and would be willing to pay to make use of the water supply system (non-
connected households) or improve the reliability of the water supply scheme serving this town (already
connected households). It is important that you answer the questions as truthfully as you can so that
we can really know whether you wish to have a better quality of service or not, and which amount you
can afford and are willing to pay for it. If you and the other people we interview say that you cannot
pay anything or anything more than you are currently paying, even if these statements are not true,
then perhaps it is not possible to improve and extend the water supply system. If what you say is that
what you can pay is actually too much, then you might not be able to pay your monthly water bill. It is
therefore important to answer the questions honestly.

Source: RETA 5608 Case Study on the Provincial Towns Water Supply and Sanitation Project, Phan Thiet, Viet
Nam

21. According to Hanley and Spash (1993), the available empirical evidence
suggests that contingent valuation studies are less prone to strategic bias than was once believed.
If strategic biases do occur, the use of WTP bids to measure the economic benefits of a water
supply, becomes a doubtful operation.

Design Bias

22. The design of a WTP study includes the way information is presented to
individuals, the order in which it is presented, the question format and the amount and type of
information presented. The following items can affect the response:

• Choice of the bid question. Open-ended questions or bidding games may influence
the average WTP;

APPENDIX A: DATA
COLLECTION 235

• Starting point bias. In bidding games, the starting point given to respondents can
influence the final bid offered. This can be caused by impatience of the
respondent or can happen because a starting point may suggest what size of a
bid is appropriate;

• Nature of information provided. The amount of effort enumerators spent on
describing the positive features (pressure, availability, quality) of a (improved)
piped water supply might influence the WTP of respondents.

23. Empirical research indicates that a bidding game with a higher starting point is
less prone to biases than that with a low starting point; it is recommended to start the bidding
game with the highest bid and come down until the respondent indicates that he/she is willing
to pay the indicated amount. An appropriate starting point might be two to three times the
estimated cost of the service. If field testing of the questionnaire indicates that large proportions
of the sample have chosen the highest bid, then the top bid should be increased.

Hypothetical Bias

24. A respondent who does not know his willingness to pay and does not wish to
exert the mental energy to think about his preferences may simply guess at an answer to a WTP
question. The enumerator should pay particular attention if this situation occurs and endeavor to
reduce the bias through careful explanation about the benefits of the project.

Compliance Bias

25. Respondents in a particular cultural context may feel it appropriate to answer
some kinds of questions in specific ways or may attempt to give answers that they think will
please the enumerator. This compliance bias can result in substantial differences between
reported and true WTP values.

26. WASH (1988) experience indicates the importance of using enumerators with
close ties to the community in which the surveys are to be conducted. The enumerators may be
local school teachers, secondary school graduates or government employees; but, whatever their
occupation, they should be respected within the community and have a good understanding of
the local economy, social traditions, the design and benefits of the proposed project.

Existing tariffs

27. In situations where a piped water supply exists, individuals with and without a
piped water supply may feel that the existing (subsidized) tariff constitutes a fair WTP bid. An
improved level of water service should normally result in an expressed WTP which is higher
than the existing tariff, assuming there are no biases in the answer and the respondent is fully
aware about the full economic benefits.


Gender bias

28. The point of concern here is that in many cultures, fetching water is a job for
women and often children. Thus, the provision of improved water supplies may have important
implications for traditional social roles of men and women. If a woman whose time would be
saved is married, her husband might consider the change in his wife’s traditional role improper.
He might disapprove not merely because of the potential change of power relations in the
family, but also because the new “modern” roles and lifestyles may seem to him to depart from a
right and customary way of life. The husband’s valuation of the consequences of the improved
water supply might thus be negative, or diminished. Consequently, WTP by male respondents
might be less than WTP by female respondents.

29. Therefore, the survey should attempt to cover an equal number of men and
women. This might implicate that a part of the survey is conducted during the day, and another
part during the evening. In some cultures, especially Islamic, female surveyors might have a
better access to the women in the household.

Health

30. Willingness to pay measures the economic benefits correctly only to the extent
that all health and non-health related benefits are fully perceived by the beneficiaries. This may
not always be the case at the time of the survey, especially when respondents have low
educational status. Health education campaigns may enhance the people’s WTP over time.

APPENDIX A: DATA
COLLECTION 237

A.3 SAMPLE SOCIOECONOMIC SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Part 1
General Information
ALL HOUSEHOLDS 1

Identification:
Location : ________________________________
Serial No.: ________________________________

Household Head

A.1 Interviewee is head of the household _______
(1) Yes (2) No

A.2 Head of the household _______
(1) Male (2) Female

A.3 Education of the head of the household _______
(1) No Schooling
(2) Primary Education (1-5 years)
(3) Secondary Education (6-12 years)
(4) Higher Education (> 12 years)

A.4 Occupation of the head of the household _______
(1) Agriculture or fishing
(2) Own business
(3) (Semi-)Government employee/Retired
(4) Private employee
(5) Housewife
(6) Others

A.5 Number of persons living in the household
No. of adults (> 16 years) _______
No. of minors (< 16 years) _______

A.6 Mode of Transport: _______
(1) Bicycle
(2) Motorbike
(3) Own Car
(4) Public Transport
(5) By foot
(6) Others


Housing Characteristics

A.7 Tenurial status of the house _______
(1) Owned (2) Rented (3) Others

A.8 Type of Dwelling _______
(1) Concrete
(2) Wood
(3) Tin-shed
(4) Others

A.9 Rental value of the dwelling per month _______

Source of Water

A.10 Primary Source of Water _______
(1) House connection
(2) Public street hydrant
(3) Neighbor
(4) Private tubewell
(5) Dugwell
(6) Pond
(7) River
(8) Others

Note: If source is 1, go to Schedule B
If source is 2, go to Schedule C
If source is 3 through 8, go to Schedule D

APPENDIX A: DATA
COLLECTION 239

Part 2
FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITH IN-HOUSE CONNECTIONS

B.1 Two most important reasons
for having a connection _______ & _______ (1)
Convenience
(2) Health
(3) Reliability
(4) Modernization
(5) Alternative source is not sufficient
(6) Cheaper
(7) Others

B.2 Last monthly bill _______
Consumption per month (m³) _______

B.3 Do you sell piped water to others, e.g. neighbors? _______
(1) Yes (2) No
If yes, how many cubic meters per month? _______

B.4 How many persons outside your household use
water delivered through your connection? _______

B.5 Water availability _______
(1) Sufficient all year
(2) Insufficient during dry season
(3) Sometimes insufficient
(4) Insufficient mostly

B.6 How many hours per day do you receive water
from the piped system? _______

How many days per week do you receive water
from piped system? _______

In summer/dry season, how many days do you
receive water from piped system? _______

In winter/rainy season, how many days do you
receive water from piped system? _______

B.7 What do you think of the quality of the water
delivered?
a. Taste _______
(1) Good (2) Average (3) Bad
b. Smell
(1) Good (2) Average (3) Bad _______


c. Color
(1) Good (2) Average (3) Bad _______

B.8 Is there any relation between the quality
of water and the illnesses in your household?
(1) Yes (2) No _______

B.9 How many persons in your household were ill
during the last year due to the consumption
of unsafe water? _______

How many days of sickness per person? _______

If the sick person got treatment, how much was
the medical cost? _______

B.10 Which of the following diseases occurred in
your household during the last year in your area? _______
(insert a list of waterborne diseases)

B.11 Water pressure: _______
(1) Strong (3) Generally strong
(2) Weak (4) Sometimes weak

B.12 How do you treat water? _______
(1) Boil and filter
(2) Boil
(3) Filter
(4) Others
(5) None

B.13 What type of storage do you have; what is
the total volume of your storage and how much
was the installation cost?

Type Liters or Gallons Installation Cost
(1) Overhead tank
(2) Underground tank
(3) Drum
(4) Bucket/vessel
(5) Others
(6) None

APPENDIX A: DATA
COLLECTION 241

B.14 Water from secondary source, if any:

Secondary Distance If source is used Use of source Monthly Inst
Sources from Source Exps.a Costb
(meter) Consumption(l Collecting Time Days/ Mos./y LC/ LC
itre/day) (min./day) Mo. r month
Neighbor
Public Street
Hydrant
Private
Tubewell
Dugwell
Pond
River
Water
Vendors
Others

a/ Include Operations and Maintenance costs, payments made to the delivery person or the tanker, cost of electricity, etc.
b/ Include construction cost of well, cost of pump and its installation etc.

B.15 How many additional hours per day of water supply
will be required to meet all your needs? _______

B.16 Do you prefer a: _______
(1) Fixed Charge (2) Metered Bill

Bidding Game
(Tariff per month)

B.17 When the new project will start, and if piped water quantity is sufficiently increased to 24
hours supply per day at adequate pressure so that you can get the additional supply of water needed
with a good quality, and if the tariff rates are re-fixed at ______(local currency) per month, would you
pay for the bill? (Go to the Bidding Game.)
(1) > 400 LC/month (6) 150 LC/month
(2) 350 LC/month (7) 100 LC/month
(5) 200 LC/month (10) 25 LC/month (existing tariff)


Part 3
FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITH PRIMARY SOURCE OF
PUBLIC STREET HYDRANT

C.1 Distance from the public street hydrant: _______

C.2 Consumption (liter/day) _______

C.3 Collecting time (min/day) _______

C.4 Monthly charges, if any. _______

C.5 Water availability _______

C.6 How many hours per day do you receive water
from the public street hydrant? _______

How many days per week do you receive water
from the public street hydrant? _______

In summer/dry season, how many days do you
receive water from the public street hydrant? _______

In winter/rainy season, how many days do you
receive water from the public street hydrant? _______

C.7 What do you think of the quality of the water
delivered?
a. Taste _______
b. Smell
(1) Good (2) Average (3) Bad _______
c. Color
(1) Good (2) Average (3) Bad _______

C.8 Is there any relation between the quality
of water and illnesses in your household? _______
(1) Yes (2) No

C.9 How many persons in your household were ill

APPENDIX A: DATA
COLLECTION 243



C.10 Which of the following diseases occurred in
your household during the last year? _______

C.11 Water flow: _______
(1) Strong (3) Generally strong
(2) Weak (4) Sometimes weak

C.12 How do you treat water? _______
(1) Boil and filter
(2) Boil
(3) Filter
(4) Others
(5) None

C.13 What type of storage do you have, what is

(1) Overhead tank
(3) Drum
(4) Bucket/vessel
(5) Others
(6) None


C.14 Water from secondary source, if any:

Sources from Exps.a Costb
Source
(meter) Consumption Collecting Time Days/ Mos./ LC/ LC
(litre/day) (min./day) Mo. yr month
House
Connection
Neighbor
Private
Tubewell
Dugwell
Pond
River
Water
Vendors
Others


C.15 Reasons for not having in-house connection: __________
(1) Connection fee too high
(2) Monthly charges too high
(3) Connection is not available
(4) Present arrangement satisfactory
(5) Rented house
(6) Waiting list
(7) Others, specify: __________

APPENDIX A: DATA
COLLECTION 245

Bidding Game
(Tariff per month)

C.16 If piped water quantity is sufficiently supplied 24 hours per day at adequate pressure so
that you can get sufficient piped water with a good quality, and the tariff rates are re-
fixed at LC .. per month, would you want a connection and pay for the bill? [Go to the
Bidding Game.]
(1) Yes (2) No _______

C.17 If yes, how much you are willing to spend for the connection fee and material and labor?
(1) > 400 LC/month
(2) 350 LC/month
(3) 300 LC/month
(4) 250 LC/month
(5) 200 LC/month
(6) 150 LC/month
(7) 100 LC/month
(8) 75 LC/month
(9) 50 LC/month
(10) 25 LC/month
(11) < 25 LC/month; Explain

C.18 Do you prefer a: _______


Part 4
FOR HOUSEHOLDS WHOSE PRIMARY WATER SOURCE
IS NON-PIPED WATER

D.1 Sources of Water

Sources from Source Exps.a Costb
(meter) Consumption Collecting Time Days/ Mos./yr LC/ LC
(litre/day) (min./day) Mo. month
House
Connection
Neighbor
Private
Tubewell
Dugwell
Pond
River
Water
Vendors
Others


D.2 Water availability _______

D.3 What do you think of the quality of the water
delivered?
a. Taste _______
b. Smell
(1) Good (2) Average (3) Bad _______
c. Color
(1) Good (2) Average (3) Bad _______

D.4 Is there any relation between the quality
of water and illnesses in your household? _______
(1) Yes (2) No

APPENDIX A: DATA
COLLECTION 247

D.5 How many persons in your household were ill



D.6 Which of the following diseases occurred in
your household during the last year? _______

D.7 How do you treat water? _______
(1) Boil and filter
(2) Boil
(3) Filter
(4) Others
(5) None

D.8 What type of storage do you have, what is

(1) Overhead tank
(3) Drum
(4) Bucket/vessel
(5) Others
(6) None

D.9 Reasons for not having in-house connection: __________

(1) Connection fee too high
(2) Monthly charges too high
(3) Connection is not available
(5) Rented house
(6) Waiting list
(7) Others, specify: __________


D.10 Reasons for not having a public street hydrant __________
as main source:
(1) Charges too high
(2) Not available
(3) Too far away
(5) Others, specify ………………………………

Bidding Game
(Tariff per month)

D.11 When the new project starts, and if piped water quantity is supplied 24 hours per day at
adequate pressure so that you can get sufficient water with a good quality, and the tariff rates
are re-fixed at LC .. per month, would you want a connection and pay for the bill?
(1) Yes (2) No

If yes, go to the Bidding Game.
(1) > 400 LC/month
(2) 350 LC/month
(3) 3400 LC/month
(4) 250 LC/month
(5) 200 LC/month
(6) 150 LC/month
(7) 100 LC/month
(8) 75 LC/month
(9) 50 LC/month
(10) 25 LC/month; Explain

D.12 Do you prefer a: _______

D.13 If you want an in-house connection, how much you are willing to spend to have it (for the
connection fee and material and labor)? _______

D.14 If you do not want to have a house connection, would you like to use a public street hydrant?
(1) Yes (2) No

If Yes, what is the maximum distance the hydrant should be located from your house?
________ (meters)

If Yes, how much LC per bucket of 20 liters are you prepared to pay? [Go to a bidding game]
1. 5 LC/bucket 5. 1 LC/bucket
2. 4 LC/bucket 6. 0.75 LC/bucket
3. 3 LC/bucket 7. 0.50 LC/bucket
4. 2 LC/bucket 8. 0.25LC/bucket

APPENDIX A: DATA
COLLECTION 249

Part 5
Sanitation Services
ALL HOUSEHOLDS

How do you dispose off your wastewater?

E.1 Human waste water (Excreta/Urina) _______
(1) Sewerage system (2) Septic tank
(3) Open drainage canals (4) Into the street/road
(5) Into the open field/river (6) In the garden/compound
(7) Other, specify.......

E.2 Grey waste water (washing/bathing/kitchen) _______
(1) Sewerage system (2) Septic tank
(3) Open drainage canals (4) Into the street/road
(5) Into the open field/river (6) In the garden/compound
(7) Others, specify.......

E.3 Are you satisfied with the current disposal _______
of your wastewater?
(1) Yes
(2) Moderately
(3) Not at all

E.4 Would you prefer to have an improved wastewater
disposal system? _______
(1) Yes (2) No

ONLY CONTINUE IF ANSWER TO E.4 IS YES

E.5 Which improved wastewater disposal system
do you prefer? _______
(1) Septic tank/soak pit in compound
(2) Open drains
(3) Others, specify ....

E.6 The project plans to provide a credit scheme to provide funds for low cost sanitation by
means of a revolving fund. Are you interested to obtain a loan from this fund to
improve your sanitation facilities and if yes, how much are you willing to pay back per
month?.
(1) > 200 LC per month (5) 50 LC per month
(2) 150 LC per month (6) 25 LC per month
(3) 100 LC per month (7) 0 LC per month
(4) 75 LC per month


Part 6
EXPENSES AND INCOME
ALL HOUSEHOLDS

Monthly Expenses on:

F.1 Food _______

F.2 Clothing _______

F.2 Housing(rent, repair etc. _______

F.3 Transport _______

F.4 Utilities _______

F.5 Education _______

F.6 Health _______

F.7 Others _______

F.8 How many persons contribute to
household income? _______

F.9 How much income savings per year, if any, can
you make? _______

F.9 Total household income per month _______
(Direct estimate, do not calculate from above)

Interviewer’s Name: _______________________
Signature: _______________________
Date: _______________________

APPENDIX B

CASE STUDY FOR
URBAN WATER SUPPLY PROJECT


CONTENTS
B.1. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 254
B.1.1 General .................................................................................................................... 254
B.1.2 Description of the Project………………………………………………...254
B.1.3 With and Without Project Cases.......................................................................... 255
B.1.4 Prices and Currency ............................................................................................... 255
B.1.5 Project Lifetime ...................................................................................................... 255
B.2. Analysis of Volume and Cost of Present Demand.......................................................... 255
B.2.1 Present Water Consumption ................................................................................ 255
B.2.2 Present Supply Cost of Water .............................................................................. 256
B.3. Water Demand Forecast ...................................................................................................... 257
B.3.1 Population and Coverage...................................................................................... 258
B.3.2 Demand Without the Project ............................................................................... 258
B.3.2.1 Existing Consumers ................................................................................ 258
B.3.2.2 Consumers of Water from other Sources........................................ 259
B.3.3 Demand with the Project ...................................................................................... 260
B.3.3.1 Per Capita Consumption........................................................................ 260
B.3.3.2 Existing consumers ............................................................................. 260
B.3.3.3 New Consumers ...................................................................................... 260
B.3.3.4 Total Demand and Required Capacity............................................. 261
B.3.3.5 Project Water Supply .......................................................................... 261
B.3.3.6 Project Water Consumption .............................................................. 263
B.4. Financial Benefit-Cost Analysis .......................................................................................... 263
B.4.1 Project Revenues .................................................................................................... 263
B.4.2 Project Costs ........................................................................................................... 264
B.4.2.1 Investments........................................................................................... 264
B.4.2.2 Operation and Maintenance............................................................... 265
B.4.2.3 Raw Water Tax .................................................................................... 265
B.4.3 FNPV and FIRR .................................................................................................... 266
B.5. Economic Benefit-Cost Analysis ........................................................................................ 267
B.5.1 Economic Benefits ................................................................................................. 267
B.5.1.1 Existing Consumers ............................................................................ 267
B.5.1.2 New consumers ................................................................................... 268
B.5.1.3 Total Value of Project Water............................................................. 268
B.5.2 Calculation of Economic Project Costs.............................................................. 270
B.5.2.1 Investment ............................................................................................ 270
B.5.2.2 Operation and Maintenance............................................................... 271
B.5.2.3 Opportunity Cost of Water................................................................ 271
B.5.3 ENPV and EIRR.................................................................................................... 272
B.5.4 Sensitivity Analysis................................................................................................. 273
B.6 Sustainability........................................................................................................................... 276
B.6.1 Average Incremental Financial Cost and Financial Subsidy ........................... 276
B.6.2 Average Incremental Economic Cost and Economic Subsidy....................... 277

APPENDIX : CASE STUDY FOR URBAN WSP
B 253

B.7. Distribution Analysis and Poverty Impact........................................................................ 277
B.8 Recommendations................................................................................................................. 280

Tables
Table B1: Financial and economic cost of water from different sources ................................... 257
Table B2: Population and coverage................................................................................................... 258
Table B3: Demand for water, without the project.......................................................................... 259
Table B4: Demand for water, with project ...................................................................................... 262
Table B5: Project water consumption............................................................................................... 263
Table B6: Project financial revenues................................................................................................. 264
Table B7: Project investment and disbursement profile................................................................ 265
Table B8: Project costs........................................................................................................................ 266
Table B9: FNPV and FIRR................................................................................................................ 267
Table B10: Gross economic benefits ................................................................................................ 269
Table B11: Conversion of investment cost (1996 VND m.) ........................................................ 270
Table B12: Project cost in economic prices..................................................................................... 272
Table B13: EIRR and ENPV............................................................................................................. 273
Table B14: Sensitivity analysis to the EIRR .................................................................................... 274
Table B15: AIFC and financial subsidy............................................................................................ 276
Table B16: AIEC and economic subsidy ......................................................................................... 277
Table B17: Distribution of project effects
(VND m., present values @ 12 percent discount rate)........................................................ 278
Table B18: Poverty impact ratio
(VND m., present values @ 12 percent discount rate)........................................................ 280

Annexes
B.1 Cost and Volume of Water
collected from alternative sources, nonconnected households………………………281
B.2 Complete Flows of Project Water, Costs, Revenues and Benefits…………….................282
B.3 Distribution Analysis and Poverty Impact Reduction…………………………...............283
B.4 Economic Benefit-Cost Analysis………………………………………………..............285


B.1 INTRODUCTION

B.1.1 General

1. This Appendix provides the reader with an example of several steps which are
conducted in the process of economic benefit-cost analysis. The concepts which are used have
been discussed in (previous) chapters of the Handbook. The example is simplified. It is based on
case studies conducted in Viet Nam. The focus is on one consumer-group: households using
house connections. In this example, the following will be discussed:

(i) analysis of present water consumption;
(ii) forecast of water demand, with- and without-project;
(iii) financial benefit-cost analysis;
(iv) economic benefit-cost analysis;
(v) sensitivity analysis of the ENPV;
(vi) sustainability;
(vii) distribution analysis and poverty impact reduction.

2. Preceding the case study, a least-cost analysis, including and based on water
demand forecasting, has identified the preferable option. The least-cost analysis itself is not
presented. The text and tables will refer to the case studies as “the Project”. These tables will
show the benefits and costs for selected years. Tables presenting each year of the project life are
given in Annexes to Appendix B.

B.1.2 Description of the Project

3. The population of the town, living within the service area in 1996, is estimated
at 100,000. The population is increasing at 3 percent per year due to natural growth and
immigration from rural areas.

4. The project’s objective is to increase piped water supply to households within
the service area from its present coverage of 45 percent to 70 percent by year 2000, and 80
percent by 2005. Household surveys have indicated that this is a realistic goal (85 percent of the
population stated a clear preference for piped water services).

5. The data above form the basis of the demand forecast as shown in the annexes.
The forecast is used to further formulate and design the project. For phase 1 investments, the
supply capacity is designed to meet the year 2005 project demand forecast of 2.6 Mm³ per year.
To meet increased demand beyond 2006, a phase 2 project is required. Phase 2 is not included
in the analysis. The utility will supply water of good quality at adequate pressure 24 hours per
day. It is expected that the first new households will benefit from the project in year 1997. The
lifetime of phase 1 investments is 30 years.

B 255

B.1.3 With- and Without-Project Cases

6. At present, 45,000 persons are supplied with piped water services through
7,500 connections. The quality of water obtained from the existing supply system is adequate,
but the quantity of water is mostly insufficient (i.e., water is supplied less than 24 hours a day).
The proposed project includes a reinforcement and extension of the existing supply system.
However, no major rehabilitation of the system is foreseen in the project. It has therefore been
considered that rehabilitation, if required, will take place outside of the project. The water supply
company can maintain its existing level of service in the without-project situation. Consequently,
the without-project piped water supply is assumed to remain constant in the without-project
situation.

B.1.4 Prices and Currency

7. Throughout the analysis, the domestic price numeraire will be used. All prices
are expressed in constant values of the base year, 1996. The currency is Viet Nam Dong, VND.
The exchange rate used is $1 = VND11,000.

B.1.5 Project Lifetime

8. The project lifetime is 30 years (1996-2026), including an implementation
period of four years. Year 2026 is the last year when benefits and costs due to the project are
expected to occur. The project is designed to meet demand through 2005. In the tables in this
Appendix, the main project variables remain constant in the period 2006-2026.

B.2 ANALYSIS OF VOLUME and COST OF PRESENT DEMAND

9. As part of the study, a household survey of 200 nonconnected households and
100 connected households has been conducted.

B.2.1 Present Water Consumption

10. Nonconnected households. Detailed data on the present consumption of
nonconnected households are presented in Annex B.1. The consumption per nonconnected
household per month was estimated on the basis of daily quantities of water collected from a
specific source. In a second step, this estimate was corrected for the number of days and months
that the source is not used. The estimated demand is 13.5 m³ per household per month. The
average household size is 5.7 persons. The present per capita consumption is approximately 78
liters per day.

11. Connected households. The average piped water consumption for a
connected household is currently 85 lcd, which is not sufficient to satisfy demand. The collected
data show that an additional 15 lcd is collected from secondary sources, mainly from open wells.


B.2.2 Present Supply Cost of Water

12. Nonconnected households. Nonconnected households obtain water from
alternative sources. According to the survey, water is obtained mainly from neighbors, wells with
electric pumps, open wells and vendors, as shown in column H of Annex B.1. The costs
involved relate to collecting time, cash expenditures for water and investments.

13. The average collecting time per household is 36 minutes per day and the
average consumption per household is 445 liters per day (5.7 x 7.8). It thus takes a household
about one hour and 20 minutes to collect 1 m³ of water (36/0.445 = 81 minutes). The value of
time is estimated on the basis of the observed wage rate for unskilled labor in construction work
of VND3,000 per hour in the project area.

14. The cash expenditures for water obtained from neighbors and vendors
constitute a major part of the supply cost. In the project area, some households sell (from piped
and non-piped sources) water to their neighbors at prices close to the prices of vendors
(VND10,000 - 13,000 per m³).

15. The investment costs in alternative sources range from VND250,000 for
tankers to VND1.3 million for wells with electric pumps. These have been converted to a per m³
equivalent by using a capital recovery factor, with a 12 percent interest and an assumed lifetime
of 15 years.

16. This approach has also been applied to the cost of storage facilities (on average
VND450,000 per household). The average cost of storage facilities comes therewith on
approximately VND500 per m³.

17. Table B.1 depicts the supply cost of water from the four most important
alternative sources as they are used by nonconnected households. Also shown is the proportion
of water obtained from that source as a percentage of total of water consumed. The data are
rounded off, and are based on the detailed data in Annex B.1.

B 257

Table B.1 Financial and Economic Cost of Water from Various Sources
% financial demand price cost break down (%) economic
(VND/m³) supply
of water source storage total traded Non-traded cost a/
consumed Labor Equipment (VND/m³)
CF b/ 1.11 0.65 1.00
Neighbor 10% 18,100 500 18,600 20% 40% 40% 16,409
Electric well 10% 3,300 500 3,800 30% 60% 10% 3,129
Open well 70% 3,200 500 3,700 10% 80% 10% 2,705
Vendor 10% 18,500 500 19,000 20% 50% 30% 16,097
Total/Ave 100% 6,230 500 6,730 20% 49% 31% 5,457
a/ using domestic price numeraire
b/ Conversion factor for traded items is the SERF of 1.11, for (unskilled) labor 0.65 and for
other non-traded 1.00

18. The financial demand price of water obtained from neighbors and vendors is
approximately VND19,000 per m³; and of water obtained from open wells or from electric
wells, VND3,700 - 3,800 per m³. The (weighted) average financial demand price is VND6,730
per m³.

19. This financial price has been apportioned into a traded component, a (unskilled)
labor component and a nontraded equipment component. To estimate the economic supply cost
of water, the traded component has been shadow-priced with the SERF of 1.11, the unskilled
labor component with the SWRF of 0.65 and the nontraded component with a conversion factor
of 1.00. The average economic supply cost of water obtained from alternative sources is
VND5,457 per m³.

20. Connected households. Connected households use approximately 15 lcd of
water from alternative sources, mainly from open wells. The survey indicated that the costs
involved are comparable to the cost for nonconnected households. The financial demand price
of water from alternative sources has therefore been taken at VND3,700 per m³, and the
economic supply cost at VND2,705 per m³.

B.3 WATER DEMAND FORECAST

21. The population and demand forecast for the project in years 1996-2005 are
given in Tables B.2 to B.5. The project supply capacity of 3.6 Mm³ is designed to meet the year


2005 demand, the time horizon of the project. The lifetime of the project is 30 years. Constant
benefits and costs will occur from 2006 until year 2026. It is necessary to look at the demand for
water with the project and without the project because economic benefits of the project occur as
a result of a change in cost of water and the induced change in demand. The focus is
consequently on incremental and nonincremental water, used by existing and new consumers.

B.3.1 Population and Coverage

22. A summary of the data is presented in Table B.2 (lines 1-5). As shown in
this Table, the population in the service area (100,000 in 1996) is expected to grow at an annual
rate of 3 percent, slightly above the national average, due to natural growth and immigration
from rural areas. The population increases to 130,000 by the year 2005. The project aims at a
gradual increase in coverage, from the present 45 percent of the population to 70 percent in
2000 and 80 percent in 2005. The population served with the project increases by almost 60,000
consumers, from 45,000 consumers in 1996 to 104,000 persons by the year 2005.

Table B.2 Population and Coverage
Unit 1996 1997 2000 2005 2006
2026
1 Population and coverage
2 Population growth % 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
3 Population in service area person 100,000 103,000 112,551 130,478 130,478
4 Coverage (present/target) % 45% 51% 70% 80% 80%
5 Population served with project person 45,000 52,530 78,786 104,382 104,382

B.3.2 Demand Without-Project

B.3.2.1 Existing Consumers

23. Relevant data are presented in Table B.3, lines 6-17. The water supply system is
maintained and operated at a level that is required to continue providing the existing level of
services to 45,000 consumers through 7,500 existing connections. Without the project, no
further service extension (in terms of volume, connections, quality) will occur.

24. The total per capita demand of water of 100 lcd in 1996 grows by 0.5 percent
annually to 105 lcd in 2005. Since the existing water supply system operates at its maximum
capacity, this demand will meet only 85 lcd of piped water (i.e., the present level of piped water
supplied). The remaining 15 to 20 lcd would have to be obtained from other sources. The total
piped water consumption is 1.4 Mm³ per year. Water obtained from other sources would
increase from 246,000 m³ in 1996 to 322,000 m³ by 2005.

B 259

B.3.2.2 Consumers of Water from other Sources

25. Relevant data are presented in Table B.3, lines 19-23. In the without-project
water demand projection, the focus is on the without-project demand for water obtained from
other (than piped water) sources for the portion of the population which will be connected with
and as a result of the project. It is the consumption of water from other sources that will be
displaced as a result of the project. The number of new consumers is obtained by deducting the
existing population served (line 10) from the target population to be served (line 5). Ultimately,
59,000 additional consumers will benefit from the project. Their existing 1996 water demand
from other sources of 78 lcd is assumed to grow at 0.5 percent annually to reach 82 lcd by 2005
and to total 1.8 Mm³ by 2005.


Table B.3 Demand for water, without-project
unit 1996 1997 2000 2005 2006
2026
6 WITHOUT-PROJECT
7 Existing consumers
8 Number of connections no 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500
9 Person per connection person 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
10 Persons served person 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000
11 Increase in per capita demand % 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
12 Total per capita demand lcd 100 101 102 105 105
13 Per capita piped water consumption lcd 85 85 85 85 85

14 Per capita water consumption other lcd 15 16 17 20 20
source
15 Total piped water consumption '000 m³ 1,396 1,396 1,396 1,396 1,396
16 Total water consumption other source '000 m³ 246 255 279 322 322
17 Total water demand '000 m³ 1,643 1,651 1,676 1,718 1,718
18
19 Consumers of water from other sources
20 Number of persons person 0 7,530 33,786 59,382 59,382
21 Increase in per capita demand % 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
22 Per capita demand other sources lcd 78 78 80 82 82
23 Total water demand other sources '000 m³ 0 215 981 1,768 1,768

B.3.3 Demand with the Project

Data on demand are presented in Table B.4.

B.3.3.1 Per Capita Consumption

26. The per capita demand forecast, which is assumed equal for existing and new
consumers, is built around the assumptions of a price elasticity of -0.35 (i.e., based on survey
data) and an income elasticity of 0.50 (literature) [lines 25-34]. The forecast considers that:

(i) financial analysis at the enterprise level shows that the tariff should be increased
to meet the financial targets set in the loan covenant of the project. An annual

B 261

increase of 2 percent (in real terms) is proposed. As a result, the existing tariff
of VND2,800 per m³ will increase to VND3,346 per m³ by the year 2005. This
price increase is, ceteris paribus, expected to cause a 0.7 percent annual demand
reduction (0.02 x -0.35); and

(ii) macro-economic forecasts for the country estimate a 2.5 percent real per capita
income increase. This income increase is, ceteris paribus, expected to cause a 1.25
percent annual demand increase (0.025 x 0.50).

27. The net effect is a 0.55 percent annual increase in per capita demand. The per
capita piped water demand increases moderately from 100 lcd in 1996 to 105 lcd by the year
2005. After 2005, no further increase in the per capita demand has been assumed.

B.3.3.2 Existing consumers

28. Since the financial demand price of water from other sources including open
wells is above the price of piped water, and since supplies of piped water are no longer
constrained, the project is expected to replace all water previously obtained from other sources
[lines 36-41]. The per capita piped water demand increases from 85 lcd in 1996 to 101 lcd in
1997, as a result of replacement and as a result of price and income effects. The total piped
water demand will reach 1.7 Mm³ per year by 2005.

B.3.3.3 New Consumers

29. The number of persons to be served is a result of the set targets. The number
of new connections is determined by the average household size of 5.70 persons [lines 43-48].
The project water is expected to fully displace water obtained from alternative sources. The new
consumers will develop a similar consumption pattern as that of old consumers. The total piped
water demand will reach 2.3 Mm³ per year by 2005.

B.3.3.4 Total Demand and Required Capacity

30. The total piped water demand with the project will reach 4.0 Mm³ annually by
the year 2005 [lines 50-55]. Unaccounted for water with the project is expected to decrease from
its present 35 percent to 25 percent by the year 2000 due to the purchase of leakage detection
equipment and monitoring systems. As a result, a part of the additional demand can be met by
the existing supply capacity. The total piped water production will reach 5.3 Mm³ by the year
2005 (4.0/(1-0.25). The total required supply capacity is calculated on basis of a peak factor of
1.15 and increases from the present 2.5 Mm³ per year to 6.1 Mm³ (5.3 x 1.15) per year by the
year 2005.


B.3.3.5 Project Water Supply

31. This section indicates the additional volumes of water sold and produced as a
result of the project [lines 56-60]. The volume of project water sold is determined on a with- and
without-project basis. For example, without the project, 1.4 Mm³ is sold in the year 2005 (line
15) while with the project, 4.0 Mm³ (line 51). Hence, the Project has increased the volume of
water sold by 2.6 Mm³.

32. The volume of project water produced is determined by the increase in water
production as compared to the base year 1996 (line 53). In 2005, it reaches 3.2 Mm³ per year
(i.e., 5.3 Mm³ - 2.1 Mm³). The project should add an additional supply capacity of 3.6 Mm³ per
year for the 2005 horizon (i.e., 6.1 Mm³ - 2.5 Mm³, lines 55 and 59).

B 263

Table B.4 Demand for Water, with the Project
unit 1996 1997 2000 2005 2006
2026
24 WITH-PROJECT
25 Per capita consumption
26 Tariff increase % 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%
27 Tariff VND/m³ 2,800 2,856 3,031 3,346 3,346
28 Price elasticity -0.35 -0.35 -0.35 -0.35
29 Price effect on demand % -0.70% -0.70% -0.70% 0.00%
30 Income elasticity 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
31 Per capita income increase % 2.50% 2.50% 2.50%
32 Income effect on demand % 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 0.00%
33 Total effect % 0.55% 0.55% 0.55% 0.00%
34 Per capita piped water demand lcd 100 101 102 105 105
35
37 Number of connections no 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500
38 Person per connection person 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
39 Persons served person 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000
40 Per capita piped water demand lcd 85 101 102 105 105
41 Total piped water demand '000 m³ 1,396 1,652 1,679 1,726 1,726
42
43 New consumers
44 Persons to be served person 0 7,530 33,786 59,382 59,382
45 Person per connection person na 5.70 5.70 5.70 5.70
46 Number of connections no na 1,321 5,927 10,418 10,418
47 Per capita piped water demand lcd na 101 102 105 105
48 Total piped water demand '000 m³ na 276 1,261 2,277 2,277
49
50 Total
51 Total piped water demand '000 m³ 1,396 1,928 2,939 4,003 4,003
52 Unaccounted for water % 35.0% 32.5% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%
53 Total piped water production '000 m³ 2,148 2,856 3,919 5,337 5,337
54 Peak factor 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15
55 Required capacity '000 m³ 2,470 3,285 4,507 6,138 6,138
56 PROJECT WATER SUPPLY
57 Project water sold '000 m³ 0 532 1,543 2,607 2,607
58 Project water produced '000 m³ 0 708 1,771 3,189 3,189
59 Existing supply capacity '000 m³ 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
60 Required proj. supply capacity '000 m³ 0 785 2,007 3,638 3,638


B.3.3.6 Project Water Consumption

33. The data are presented in Table B.5, lines 61-70. This section separates the total
project water demand into incremental and nonincremental demand. The distinction is important
when valuing water in economic terms.

34. The demand forecast has assumed that all water from other than piped sources
will be replaced; this is the non-incremental water and is shown in lines 16 and 23. The
remainder of the project water delivered is incremental water. which is the difference between
the with- and without-project consumption (i.e., line 41-line 17, line 48-line 23). The Table
shows that the most of the project water sold (i.e., 2005: 0.3+2.3=2.6 Mm³) displaces water
from other sources (2005: 0.3+1.8=2.1 Mm³). The remainder adds to the total water
consumption (2005: 0.5 Mm³).

Table B.5 Project Water Consumption
unit 1996 1997 2000 2005 2006
2006
61 PROJECT WATER
CONSUMPTION
63 Nonincremental water '000 m³ 255 279 322 322
64 Incremental water '000 m³ 1 3 8 8
65 Project water sold '000 m³ 255 283 329 329
66
67 New consumers
68 Nonincremental water '000 m³ 215 981 1,768 1,768
69 Incremental water '000 m³ 61 279 509 509
70 Project water sold '000 m³ 276 1,261 2,277 2,277

B.4 FINANCIAL BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS

B.4.1 Project Revenues

35. The data are presented in Table B.6, lines 71-79. The financial revenues of the
project are made up of revenues on project water sold and connection fees. The connection fee
is VND0.5 m per connection. All other data needed to calculate the financial revenues (i.e. the
project water sold, tariffs and connections) stem from previous sections (lines 57; 27 and 46).
From year 2006 and onwards, no new connections due to the project have been projected and

B 265

hence, no additional connection fees are received. The financial revenues will remain constant at
VND8.7 billion per annum in years 2006 to 2026.

Table B.6 Project Financial Revenues
unit 1996 1997 2000 2005 2006
2026
71 Project water sold
72 Project water sold '000 m³ 0 532 1,543 2,607 2,607
73 Tariff VND/m³ 2,800 2,856 3,031 3,346 3,346
74 Project revenues from sales VND m. 0 1,519 4,678 8,722 8,722
75 Connection fees
76 New connections per year no. 0 1,321 1,745 978 0
77 Connection fee VND m. 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
78 Project revenues from connections VND m. 0 661 872 489 0
79 Total Project Revenues VND m. 0 2,179 5,550 9,211 8,722

B.4.2 Project Costs

The data on project costs are presented in Table B.8.

B.4.2.1 Investments

36. For selecting the project, a least-cost analysis on the basis of preliminary
economic cost estimates was carried out among the different project alternatives [lines 80-92].
The economic analysis given in this Appendix is for the project selected through the least-cost
analysis. The cost of the chosen least-cost alternative includes the development of a new source,
water treatment plant, ground and elevated storage, pump station, distribution system, sanitation
and drainage, consulting services, investigations and institutional support. Including physical
contingencies calculated at 8 percent of the project cost subtotal, the total project cost is
estimated to be VND64.5 billion. The investment costs are scheduled for disbursement during
1996-1999. Details are given in Table B.7.


Table B.7 Project Investment and Disbursement Profile
Total Disbursement in project years (%)
VND m. 1996 1997 1998 1999
Source development 18,000 40% 40% 20% 0%
Water treatment 2,475 40% 30% 30% 0%
Ground storage 360 20% 50% 30% 0%
Elevated storage 1,620 20% 50% 30% 0%
Pump station 675 40% 50% 10% 0%
Distribution system 18,000 20% 60% 10% 10%
Sanitation and drainage 3,150 30% 30% 20% 20%
Consulting services 9,900 50% 40% 10% 0%
Investigations 180 50% 40% 10% 0%
Institutional support 5,400 20% 30% 30% 20%
Subtotal 59,760
Physical contingencies @ 8% 4,781
Total investment 64,541

B.4.2.2 Operation and Maintenance

37. The operation and maintenance costs, expressed as a percentage of the total
project investment, comprise of: labor (0.5percent); electricity (1.0percent); chemicals
(0.7percent); and other O&M (0.9percent) [lines 93-98]. An adjustment for a real increase of the
price of labor has been made. The wages have been assumed to increase by the percentage real
growth in per capita income of 2.5 percent per annum. The cost of operating and maintenance
are expected to reach some VND2.1 billion per annum in project year 2005.

B.4.2.3 Raw Water Tax

38. The proposed project diverts water from a water reservoir which is located just
outside the town [lines 89-93]. The reservoir is also used for a medium sized irrigation scheme
of 3,000 hectares. The local irrigation authority, which is responsible for the management and
operation of the reservoir, has imposed a raw water tax. The water supply utility pays VND200
per m³ of water diverted from the reservoir. The additional raw water taxes due to the project
are applied to all water produced by the project (line 100 = line 58). The utility will pay an
additional VND638 million per year to the authority once the Project reaches its full capacity.

B 267

Table B.8 Project Costs
Unit 1996 1997 1998 1999 2006
2026
80 Investments
81 Source development VND m. 7,200 7,200 3,600 0 0
82 Water treatment VND m. 990 743 743 0 0
83 Ground storage VND m. 72 180 108 0 0
84 Elevated storage VND m. 324 810 486 0 0
85 Pump station VND m. 270 338 68 0 0
86 Distribution system VND m. 3,600 10,800 1,800 1,800 0
87 Sanitation and drainage VND m. 945 945 630 630 0
88 Consulting services VND m. 4,950 3,960 990 0 0
89 Investigations VND m. 90 72 18 0 0
90 Institutional support VND m. 1,080 1,620 1,620 1,080 0
91 Physical contingencies @ 8% VND m. 1,562 2,133 805 281 0
92 Total investment VND m. 21,083 28,800 10,867 3,791 0
93 Operation and maintenance
94 Labor VND m. 0 256 319 348 403
95 Electricity VND m. 0 499 608 645 645
96 Chemicals VND m. 0 349 425 452 452
97 Other O&M VND m. 0 449 547 581 581
98 Total O&M VND m. 0 1,553 1,899 2,026 2,081
99 Raw water tax
101 Raw water tax/m³ VND/m³ 200 200 200 200 200
102 Project raw water tax VND m. 0 142 208 275 638
103 Total project costs VND m. 21,083 30,495 12,974 6,091 2,719

B.4.3 FNPV and FIRR

39. The data for calculating FNPV and FIRR are presented in Table B.9 lines
104-108. The project costs are deducted from the project revenues on an annual basis to
estimate the net cash flow of the project (line 108). The FIRR of 6.26 percent is just below the
(assumed) WACC of 7 percent. The FNPV at 7 percent is negative VND4.8 billion. (The cash
flow for all project years 1996-2026 is appended as Annex B.2.)


Table B.9 FNPV and FIRR
Unit PV 1996 1997 2000 2005 2006
@ 7% 2026
104 Revenues project water sold VND m. 77,387 0 1,519 4,678 8,722 8,722
105 Revenues connection fees VND m. 3,633 0 661 872 489 0
106 Total project revenues VND m. 81,020 0 2,179 5,550 9,211 8,722
107 Total project costs VND m. 85,773 21,083 30,495 2,389 2,719 2,719
108 Net cash flow VND m. -4,753 -21,083 -28,315 3,161 6,492 6,004
109
110 FIRR 6.26%
111 FNPV @ 7% VNDm. -4,753

B.5 ECONOMIC BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS

B.5.1 Economic Benefits

40. The demand and supply prices of water obtained from alternative sources differ
significantly for existing and for new consumers as shown in Table B.10. Therefore, incremental
and nonincremental project water has been valued separately for new and existing consumers.

B.5.1.1 Existing Consumers

41. The value of nonincremental water is based on the economic supply cost of
water (i.e., resource savings) displaced by the project [lines 112-115]. In the case of existing
consumers, this is the cost of water obtained from open wells, estimated at VND2,705 per m³
(1996). The cost involves a high labor component (80 percent), which is mainly for collecting
water. On the basis of a 2.5 percent annually per capita real income growth, the economic supply
cost has been increased by 2 percent (80% x 2.5%) each year, from VND2,705 per m³ in 1996 to
VND3,233 in 2005. The value of nonincremental water increases to VND10 billion by the year
2005 and remains constant in years 2006-2026.

42. The value of incremental water is based on the average willingness to pay as a
proxy for the demand price of water for the project [lines 117-121]. The demand price of water
without the project is the financial demand price of water from open wells, VND3,700 per m³ in
1996 (refer Table 1). The average demand price of water with the project is equal to the tariff,
VND2,800 per m³ in 1996. Both prices are increasing at 2 percent annually. The total value of
incremental water reaches VND30 million by the year 2005 and remains constant in the years
2006-2026.

B 269

B.5.1.2 New consumers

43. In the case of new consumers, the weighted average of the economic supply
cost of water from alternative sources of VND5,457 per m³ in 1996 (Table 1) is used to value
nonincremental water [lines 122-125]. This supply cost is based on the cost of water obtained
from wells, vendors and neighbors. It comprises approximately 50 percent labor. On the basis of
a 2.5 percent annual per capita income growth, this cost has been increased by 1.25 percent
annually (50% x 2.5%). By the year 2005, the total value of nonincremental water amounts to
VND10.9 billion.

44. The average demand price with and without the project determines the value of
incremental project water [lines 127-131]. The financial demand price of water without the
project is VND6,730 per m³ (Table 1) and with the project, it is equal to the tariff of VND2,800
per m³ in 1996. Again, the tariff increases by 2 percent annually, and the demand price of water
without the project by 1.25 percent. The value of incremental water reaches VND2.8 billion by
the year 2005.

B.5.1.3 Total Value of Project Water

45. The total value of incremental and nonincremental water to old and new
consumers make up the total gross economic benefit of the project as summarized in Table B.10
[lines 132-135]. The largest portion of project water will displace water previously obtained from
other sources. The value of nonincremental water reaches VND11.8 billion by 2005; the value
of incremental water, VND2.8 billion; and the total value of project water, VND 14.6 billion.


Table B.10 Gross Economic Benefits
unit 1996 1997 2000 2005 2006
2026
113 Nonincremental water '000 m³ 0 255 279 322 322
114 Economic supply price n.i. water VND/m³ 2,705 2,759 2,928 3,233 3,233
115 Value of nonincremental water VND m. 0 702 818 1,040 1,040
116
117 Incremental water '000 m³ 0 1 3 8 8
118 Demand price w/o project VND/m³ 3,700 3,774 4,005 4,422 4,422
119 Demand price with project (tariff) VND/m³ 2,800 2,856 3,031 3,346 3,346
120 Average demand price '000 m³ 3,250 3,315 3,518 3,884 3,884
121 Value of incremental water VND m. 0 3 12 30 30
122 New consumers
123 Nonincremental water '000 m³ 0 215 981 1,768 1,768
124 Economic supply price n.i. water VND/m³ 5,457 5,522 5,724 6,075 6,075
125 Value of nonincremental water VND m. 0 1,190 5,616 10,743 10,743
126
127 Incremental water '000 m³ 0 61 279 509 509
128 Demand price w/o project VND/m³ 6,730 6,811 7,059 7,493 7,493
129 Demand price with project (tariff) VND/m³ 2,800 2,856 3,031 3,346 3,346
130 Average demand price VND/m³ 4,765 4,833 5,045 5,419 5,419
131 Value of incremental water VND m. 0 294 1,409 2,758 2,758
132 Total value project water
133 Value nonincremental water VND m. 0 1,892 6,435 11,783 11,783
134 Value incremental water VND m. 0 297 1,421 2,788 2,788
135 Total value project water (gross VND m. 0 2,189 7,855 14,571 14,571
benefit)

B 271

B.5.2 Calculation of Economic Project Costs

B.5.2.1 Investment

46. The investment cost of the project has been apportioned into: (i) traded; (ii)
unskilled labor (non-traded); and (iii) other non-traded components as summarized in Table B.11
[lines 136-148].

Table B.11 Conversion of (Financial) Investment Cost (1996 VND m.)
Financial breakdown Economic
cost % Trad Unsk. Lab Other a/
Conversion factor 1.11 0.65 1.00
Source development 18,000 70% 15% 15% 18,455
Water treatment 2,475 60% 20% 20% 2,467
Ground storage 360 40% 20% 40% 351
Elevated storage 1,620 40% 20% 40% 1,579
Pump station 675 70% 20% 10% 680
Distribution system 18,000 40% 20% 40% 17,540
Sanitation and drainage 3,150 50% 20% 30% 3,105
Consulting services 9,900 70% 0% 30% 10,670
Investigations 180 25% 0% 75% 185
Institutional support 5,400 50% 0% 50% 5,700
Subtotal 59,760 60,731
Physical contingencies @ 4,781 4,858
8%
Grand total 64,541 65,589
Note: a/ using domestic price level numeraire
Conversion factor tradable component is SERF of 1.11
Conversion factor unskilled labor is SWRF of 0.65

47. The SERF of 1.11 is used to shadow price the tradable component while the
SWRF of 0.65, to shadow price the unskilled labor component. Since the domestic price
numeraire is being used, non-tradables do not need further adjustment. The disbursement profile
shown in Table B.7 has been used to calculate the investment in economic prices per year in
Table B.12.


B.5.2.2 Operation and Maintenance

48. The operation and maintenance costs in financial terms (lines 93-98) have been
converted to economic values as follows [lines 149-154]:

(i) Labor. Approximately 10 percent of the operating labor cost is unskilled labor
(conversion factor 0.65) and the other 50 percent, skilled labor (conversion
factor 1.00). The financial labor cost has been converted to economic by 0.965
(10% x 0.65 + 90% x 1.00);

(ii) Electricity. The national conversion factor for electricity based on the
domestic price numeraire is 1.1;

(iii) Chemicals. Chemicals, such as chlorine and lime, used by the utility to treat
water are traded internationally. It is assumed that 90 percent of the cost to the
utility would represent the traded component, which is converted to economic
by the SERF. The other 10 percent would represent the non-traded component,
such as local transport and storage, which requires no adjustment. The financial
cost of chemicals has been converted to economic by 1.1 (90% x 1.11 + 10% x
1);.

(iv) Other. Other operation costs, such as overhead, office utensils, small materials,
has been assumed as half traded (CF 1.11) and half non-traded (CF 1.0). The
financial cost has been converted to economic by 1.056 (50% x 1.11 +50% x
1.00).

B.5.2.3 Opportunity Cost of Water

49. The raw water tax of VND200 per m³ paid to the irrigation authority
underestimates the economic value of additional raw water used as an input for drinking water
supply [lines 155-159]. It has been concluded that the expansion of the drinking water supply for
the town prohibits the planned expansion of the irrigation scheme by 200 hectares. An
assessment of the opportunity cost of water indicates that the economic value of raw water used
for irrigation is approximately VND400 per m³. The total economic benefit foregone in
irrigation would be VND1.3 billion in 2005, when the water supply project demands an
additional volume of 3.2 Mm³ raw water.

B 273

Table B.12 Project Cost in Economic Prices
unit 1996 1997 1998 1999 2006
2026
136 Investments
137 Source development VND mn 7,382 7,382 3,691 0 0
138 Water treatment VND mn 987 740 740 0 0
139 Ground storage VND mn 70 175 105 0 0
140 Elevated storage VND mn 316 789 474 0 0
141 Pump station VND mn 272 340 68 0 0
142 Distribution system VND mn 3,508 10,524 1,754 1,754 0
143 Sanitation and drainage VND mn 931 931 621 621 0
144 Consulting services VND mn 5,335 4,268 1,067 0 0
145 Investigations VND mn 93 74 19 0 0
146 Institutional support VND mn 1,140 1,710 1,710 1,140 0
147 Physical contingencies @ 8% VND mn 1,603 2,155 820 281 0
148 Total investment VND mn 21,636 29,089 11,068 3,796 0
149 Operation & maintenance
150 Labor VND mn 0 247 308 335 389
151 Electricity VND mn 0 549 668 710 710
152 Chemicals VND mn 0 384 468 497 497
153 Other O&M VND mn 0 474 577 613 613
154 Total O&M VND mn 0 1,653 2,021 2,155 2,209
155 Opportunity cost of water
157 Opportunity cost of water VND/m³ 400 400 400 400 400
158 Opportunity cost of water VND mn 0 283 416 550 1,276
159 Project economic cost VND mn 21,636 31,026 13,505 6,502 3,485

B.5.3 ENPV and EIRR

50. Table B.13 presents a summary of the economic benefits and costs for the
Project, used to estimate the ENPV and EIRR. [lines 160-164]. The non-technical losses (10
percent of water produced) are added to the volume of project water sold to form the total
project water consumed. The total volume of project water consumed is 2.9 Mm³ in 2005.


51. The first two lines (lines 166 and 167) recapture the value of incremental and
nonincremental water [lines 166-169]. The value of non-technical losses per m³ is the weighted
average of the value of incremental and non-incremental water per m³. In 2005, the total value
of non-technical losses amounts to VND1.8 billion (319,000 m³ x [(VND11.78 mn + VND2.79
mn)/2.697 Mm3]).

52. The net cash flow of the project is the difference between the economic
benefits and costs [lines 170-175]. Discounted at 12 percent, the ENPV is positive VND5.5
billion. The EIRR is 13.1 percent, which exceeds the EOCC of 12 percent by 1.1 percent. The
project is economically viable albeit marginally. A table which shows the cash flow for the entire
1996-2026 period is appended as Annex B.2.

Table B.13 EIRR and ENPV
Unit PV 1996 1997 2000 2005 2006
@ 12% 2026
160 Project water sold '000 m³ 13,295 0 532 1,543 2,607 2,607
161 Project water produced '000 m³ 16,120 0 708 1,771 3,189 3,189
162 Non-technical losses % 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
163 Non-technical losses '000 m³ 1,612 0 71 177 319 319
164 Project water consumed '000 m³ 14,907 0 603 1,720 2,926 2,926
165 Gross benefits
166 Value nonincremental water VND mn 58,037 0 1,892 6,435 11,783 11,783
167 Value incremental water VND mn 13,268 0 297 1,421 2,788 2,788
168 Value of non-technical VND mn 8,643 0 292 902 1,783 1,783
losses
169 Project economic benefits VND mn 79,948 0 2,481 8,757 16,354 16,354
170 Project economic benefits VND mn 79,948 0 2,481 8,757 16,354 16,354
171 Project economic cost VND mn 74,455 21,636 31,026 2,872 3,485 3,485
172 Project net cash flow VND mn 5,493 -21,636 -28,545 5,885 12,869 12,869
173
174 EIRR 13.1%
175 ENPV @ 12% VNDmn 5,493

B.5.4 Sensitivity Analysis

53. The EIRR of 13.1 percent is marginally sufficient to justify the project.
Sensitivity analysis is important to test the robustness of the project under unforeseen
circumstances. Table 14 assesses the impact of a change in selected parameters on the EIRR.
For each parameter, the value in the base-case and two sensitivity tests are given.

B 275

54. Switching values are also calculated. A switching values is the percentage
change in the parameter required to reduce the EIRR to the cut-off rate of 12 percent (i.e.,
EOCC).

Table B.14 Results of Sensitivity Analysis
Parameter Unit Base Scenario Switching
Value Values Values
1 2 (SVs)
SERF 1.11 1.25 1.00 23%
EIRR 13.1% 12.5% 13.6%
SWRF 0.65 0.50 0.80 20%
EIRR 13.1% 11.8% 14.2%
Operating life years 30 25 20
EIRR 13.1% 12.6% 11.7%
Economic benefits minus 0% 10% 20% 7%
EIRR 13.1% 11.5% 9.8%
Investment cost plus 0% 10% 20% 36%
EIRR 13.1% 12.8% 12.5%
Water demand (1996) lcd 100 90 85 6%
EIRR 13.1% 11.2% 10.2%
Coverage 2000 (2005 + 10%) % pop 70% 65% 60% 5%
EIRR 13.1% 11.5% 9.8%
Real income growth per caput % per year 2.5% 1.5% 0.5% 36%
EIRR 13.1% 11.9% 10.7%
Income elasticity 0.50 0.40 0.30 62%
EIRR 13.1% 12.7% 12.4%
Price elasticity -0.35 -0.50 -0.60 111%
EIRR 13.1% 12.7% 12.4%
Population growth % per year 3.0% 2.0% 0.0% 21%
EIRR 13.1% 11.3% 7.6%
Delay in benefits years 0 1 2
EIRR 13.1% 12.7% 12.1%

55. As summarized in Table B.14, the switching values demonstrate that the
project’s EIRR would fall from 13.1 percent to 12 percent if:


(i) the SERF was 23 percent higher (i.e., 1.37 compared to 1.11). A higher SERF
increases the economic price of traded materials used in the project;

(ii) the SWRF was 20 percent lower (i.e., .52 compared to .65). A lower SWRF
reduces the economic supply cost of water replaced by the project (a benefit to
the project), and reduces the economic opportunity cost of unskilled labor
inputs (a cost to the project). The first effect is stronger than the second;

(iii) economic benefits fell by 7 percent;

(iv) the economic value of project assets increased by 36 percent;

(v) the existing per capita demand for piped water of 100 lcd was overestimated by
6 percent and resources to connect additional consumers were not available;

(vi) the achieved coverage in the year 2000 was 5 percent below target, so that the
population coverage in 2000 would be 67 percent (95% x 70%) and in 2005, 77
percent (67% + 10%);

(vii) the real income growth per capita was reduced by 36 percent, from 2.5 percent
to 1.6 percent (64% x 2.5%). A lower per capital income growth leads to a
lower than expected demand, causes the economic supply cost of water
displaced by the project to be lower in later years of the analysis, and reduces
the value of operating labor. The first two effects affect the EIRR negatively,
the third positively. The net effect is negative;

(viii) the income elasticity of demand fell by 62 percent, from .50 to 0.19 (38% x
0.50). A lower income elasticity implies that the expected increase in incomes
will translate into lower additional demand than projected, and hence an
oversized project;

(ix) the price elasticity of demand increased by 111 percent, from -0.35 to -0.74
(111% x -0.35). The higher (absolute) value of the price elasticity, in
combination with an annual 2 percent tariff increase, would lead to a lower
demand than initially foreseen;

(x) population growth was 21 percent lower than projected at 2.4 percent per
annum (79% x 3%). This would cause the total demand to be less than
anticipated;

(xi) and all other parameters do not change. If the lifetime of the project assets is
reduced to 25 or to 20 years, the EIRR would decrease to 12.6 percent and 11.7

B 277

percent, respectively. If the project benefits were deferred by one or two years,
the EIRR would decrease to 12.7 percent and 12.1 percent respectively.

B.6 SUSTAINABILITY

56. Sustainability has different dimensions, including financial, economic,
environmental and institutional. A simplified test of financial sustainability of the project is
assessed by comparing the average tariff with the AIFC, which is a test of the ability of the
project to cover all costs, including financing charges, and make an adequate return on
investment. The difference is the financial subsidy. The ADB expects that if financial subsidies
are required, a justification is provided and an assessment of the ability of the government to
subsidize the project is made. Sustainability analysis also involves financial analysis at the entity
level. However, for purposes of this example, it is not included.

57. Most of these steps are not discussed in this section. It is limited to the
calculation of the AIC and subsidies of the urban case study discussed throughout this Annex.
The calculation is shown in Table 15 and Table 16. (The flows of water, costs and benefits are
shown for all project years in Annex B.2.)

B.6.1 Average Incremental Financial Cost and Financial Subsidy

58. [lines 176-182] The average incremental financial cost of water is calculated by
dividing the present value of the project cost at financial values by the present value of project
water sold. The average tariff is calculated by dividing the present value of financial revenues by
the present value of project water sold. Discounting is done at the WACC of 7 percent, which is
used as a proxy of the FOCC. The flows of project water, costs and revenue have been
calculated in the previous tables and are repeated here (line 176 = line 103, line 177 = line 79
and line 178 = line 57).

59. The AIFC in the example is VND3,617 per m³ (VND85.7 billion/23.7 Mm³ x
1,000). The average tariff is VND3,416 per m³ (VND81.0 billion/23.7 Mm³ x 1,000). The
financial subsidy amounts to VND200 per m³ (3,617 - 3,416). With the proposed tariffs, 94
percent (3,416/3,617) of all costs will be recovered through user charges.


Table B.15 AIFC and Financial Subsidy
unit PV 1996 1997 2000 2005 2006
@ 7% 2026
176 Total project costs VND m. 85,773 21,083 30,495 2,389 2,719 2,719
178 Project water sold '000 m³ 23,717 0 532 1,543 2,607 2,607
179 AIFC @ 7% VND/m³ 3,617
180 Average tariff @ 7% VND/m³ 3,416
(incl. connection fees)
181 Financial subsidy VND/m³ 200
182 Financial cost recovery % VND/m³ 94%

B.6.2 Average Incremental Economic Cost and Economic Subsidy

60. The average incremental economic cost of water is calculated by dividing the
present value of the project cost at economic values by the present value of project water
consumed [lines 183-188]. The average tariff is calculated by dividing the present value of
financial revenues by the present value of project water consumed. The quantity of water
consumed includes non-technical losses. Discounting is done at the EOCC of 12 percent. The
flows of project water, costs and revenues have been calculated in the previous tables and are
repeated here (line 183 = line 159; line 184 = line 117 and line 185 = line 164).

61. The AIEC in the example is VND4,995 per m³ and the average tariff is
VND3,073 per m³. The economic subsidy amounts to VND1,922 per m³. The most important
reason for the AIEC to exceed the AIFC is the discount rate of 12 percent used.

Table B.16 AIEC and Economic Subsidy
unit PV 1996 1997 2000 2005 2006
@ 12% 2026
183 Project economic cost VND m. 74,455 21,636 31,026 2,872 3,485 3,485
185 Project water consumed '000 m³ 14,907 0 603 1,720 2,926 2,926
186 AIEC @ 12% VND/m³ 4,995
187 Average tariff @ 12% VND/m³ 3,073
(incl. connection fees)
188 Economic subsidy VND/m³ 1,922

B 279

B.7 DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS and POVERTY IMPACT

62. In Annex B.3, a summary of the financial and economic statement of the
Project is shown. For purposes of distribution analysis, the discount rate used in both statements
is 12 percent. Table B.17 summarizes the present values and shows the distribution of project
effects among the different participants.

63. As a result of the project, some participants loose and others gain. At a
discount rate of 12 percent, the utility will suffer a loss of VND23.6 billion. The economy will
suffer a loss because the overvaluation of the currency causes the financial values of traded
goods to be below the economic costs by VND4.3 billion. The farming community will loose by
VND3.2 billion because it is unable to extend irrigated agricultural land due to the diversion of
water to the water supply project.

64. Laborers gain by VND2.5 billion because the project pays wages in excess of
the economic opportunity cost of labor. The consumers will gain by VND34.1 billion because
they can avail of increased quantities of water at a lower cost than without the project.

65. The distribution analysis indicates that the largest share of the gains to
consumers and labor (total VND36.6 billion) are in fact paid for by the government/economy
and by farmers (total VND31.1 billion). The net gain to the economy is much less than the net
gain to the consumers, which is VND5.5 billion.

Poverty Impact Indicator.

66. Nationwide, 50 percent of the population is living in poverty. Poverty is more
evident in rural than in urban areas; approximately 60 percent of the rural and 30 percent of the
urban population are classified as poor. The socio-economic survey showed that the project
town and its surrounding area show similar poverty characteristics.

Table B.17 Distribution of project effects (VND m., PVs @ 12 percent discount rate)
Difference Distribution of Project Effects
Financial Economic Economic
Present Present minus Gov't/
Values Values Financial Utility Economy Farmers Labor Consumers
Benefits:
Total project benefits 45,802 79,948 34,146 34,146
Costs:
Project investment
Traded element 29,523 32,803 3,280 -3,280
Unskilled labor 6,884 4,475 -2,409 2,409
Non-traded equipment 15,520 15,520 0 0
Operation and maintenance
Labor 2,616 2,524 -92 92
Electricity 4,498 4,948 450 -450
Chemicals 3,149 3,463 315 -315
Other O&M 4,048 4,273 225 -225
Opportunity cost of water 3,224 6,448 3,224 -3,224
Total project costs 69,462 74,455
Net benefits -23,660 5,493 29,153 -23,660
Gains and losses -23,660 -4,270 -3,224 2,501 34,146
Source: Present values @ 12 percent in Annex 3.

B 279

67. For each class of beneficiary, the Project’s benefits have been distributed to the
poor as follows:

(i) government/economy: the loss of VND27.9 billion will reduce the available
government funds. A budgetary assessment estimates that 40 percent of the
government expenditures are targeted to the poor;
(ii) farmers: the loss in total of VND3.2 billion due to the downsized planned
extension of the medium sized irrigation scheme by 200 hectares may be
counterproductive in terms of alleviating rural poverty. Sixty percent of the
beneficiaries from the existing and proposed irrigation are poor farmers.
(iii) labor: the gain of VND2.5 billion is a result of the project wages for unskilled
labor, which are above the opportunity cost of unskilled labor. Sixty percent of
unskilled labor are considered as poor;
(iv) consumers: the gain to the consumers is VND34.1 billion. Approximately 40
percent of the new consumers are estimated to be poor.

The poverty impact ratio for the project is calculated in Table B.18.

Table B.18 Poverty impact ratio (VND m., PVs @ 12 percent discount rate)
Gov't/
Economy Farmers Labor Consumers Total
Gains and losses (NEB-NFB) -4,270 -3,224 2,501 34,146 29,153
Financial return utility -23,660 -23,660
Benefits -27,930 -3,224 2,501 34,146 5,493
Proportion of poor 0.40 0.60 0.60 0.40
Benefits to poor -11,172 -1,934 1,501 13,658 2,053
Poverty impact ratio: 2,053 / 5,493 = 0.37

68. The poverty impact ratio, which is calculated as the benefits to the poor
divided by the total benefits, is 0.37 (VND2,053 m / VND5,493 m.). Compared to an urban
population living in poverty of 30 percent, it is concluded that the project has a moderate
poverty reducing impact for the town.

B.8 RECOMMENDATIONS

69. The project is a beneficial project, although marginally, as the EIRR is 13.1
percent. This EIRR is particularly prone to variations in assumptions underlying the total
demand forecast. These assumptions include forecasts on population coverage, per capita piped
water demand, income changes, income elasticity and price elasticity. The lowest switching
values occur for changes in per capita water demand and population coverage. Six percent
overestimated per capita demand (94 instead of 100 lcd) and a 5 percent lower than planned
coverage by year 2000 (from 70 to 67 percent) reduces the EIRR to 12 percent.


70. Considering that: (i) the substantial and constrained piped water demand of 85
lcd by existing consumers, supplemented with 15 lcd of water from alternative sources against a
cost which is above the cost of water form the project; and (ii) a consumption of non-piped
water of 78 lcd by nonconnected households at a cost which is more than twice the cost of
water with the project, a piped water demand estimate of 100 lcd is considered a reasonable and
conservative estimate.

71. The population coverage target of 70 percent by 2000 (and 80 percent by
2005) is below the 85 percent of the population which stated a clear preference for piped water
supply. The stated coverage targets are supply constrained and actions at the entity level could
be taken to increase efficiency.

72. The project is marginally financially sustainable. The estimated costs are
covered by user charges (94 percent). Operating losses, if any, might be covered by the local
community. The entity could pay 6.26 percent interest on its loans, while it is estimated that 7
percent is required.

Annex B.4 Economic Benefit-Cost Analysis Annex B.4 page 1/8
unit 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2026
1 Population and coverage
2 Population growth % 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
3 Population in service area person 100,000 103,000 106,090 109,273 112,551 115,928 119,406 122,988 126,678 130,478 130,478
4 Coverage (present/target) % 45% 51% 57% 63% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 80%
5 Population served with project person 45,000 52,530 60,471 68,842 78,786 83,468 88,360 93,471 98,809 104,382 104,382

unit 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2026
6 WITHOUT-PROJECT
8 Number of connections no 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500
9 Person per connection person 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
10 Persons served person 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000
11 Increase in per capita demand % 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
12 Total per capita demand lcd 100 101 101 102 102 103 103 104 104 105 105
13 Per capita piped water consumption lcd 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85
14 Per capita water consumption other source lcd 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20
15 Total piped water consumption '000 m³ 1,396 1,396 1,396 1,396 1,396 1,396 1,396 1,396 1,396 1,396 1,396
16 Total water consumption other source '000 m³ 246 255 263 271 279 288 296 305 313 322 322
17 Total water demand '000 m³ 1,643 1,651 1,659 1,667 1,676 1,684 1,692 1,701 1,709 1,718 1,718
18
19 Consumers of water from other sources
20 Number of persons person 0 7,530 15,471 23,842 33,786 38,468 43,360 48,471 53,809 59,382 59,382
21 Increase in per capita demand % 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
22 Per capita demand other sources lcd 78 78 79 79 80 80 80 81 81 82 82
23 Total water demand other sources '000 m³ 0 215 445 689 981 1,123 1,272 1,429 1,594 1,768 1,768

unit 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2026
24 WITH-PROJECT
25 Per capita consumption
26 Tariff increase % 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%
27 Tariff VND/m³ 2,800 2,856 2,913 2,971 3,031 3,091 3,153 3,216 3,281 3,346 3,346
28 Price elasticity -0.35 -0.35 -0.35 -0.35 -0.35 -0.35 -0.35 -0.35 -0.35 -0.35
29 Price effect on demand % -0.70% -0.70% -0.70% -0.70% -0.70% -0.70% -0.70% -0.70% -0.70% 0.00%
30 Income elasticity 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
31 Per capita income increase % 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50%
32 Income effect on demand % 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 0.00%
33 Total effect % 0.55% 0.55% 0.55% 0.55% 0.55% 0.55% 0.55% 0.55% 0.55% 0.00%
34 Per capita piped water demand lcd 100 101 101 102 102 103 103 104 104 105 105
35
37 Number of connections no 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500
38 Person per connection person 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
39 Persons served peson 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000
40 Per capita piped water demand lcd 85 101 101 102 102 103 103 104 104 105 105
41 Total piped water demand '000 m³ 1,396 1,652 1,661 1,670 1,679 1,688 1,697 1,707 1,716 1,726 1,726
42
43 New consumers
44 Persons to be served person 0 7,530 15,471 23,842 33,786 38,468 43,360 48,471 53,809 59,382 59,382
45 Person per connection person na 5.70 5.70 5.70 5.70 5.70 5.70 5.70 5.70 5.70 5.70
46 Number of connections no na 1,321 2,714 4,183 5,927 6,749 7,607 8,504 9,440 10,418 10,418
47 Per capita piped water demand lcd na 101 101 102 102 103 103 104 104 105 105
48 Total piped water demand '000 m³ na 276 571 885 1,261 1,443 1,636 1,838 2,052 2,277 2,277
49
50 Total
51 Total piped water demand '000 m³ 1,396 1,928 2,232 2,554 2,939 3,131 3,333 3,545 3,768 4,003 4,003
52 Unaccounted for water % 35.0% 32.5% 30.0% 27.5% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%
53 Total piped water production '000 m³ 2,148 2,856 3,188 3,523 3,919 4,175 4,444 4,727 5,024 5,337 5,337
54 Peak factor 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15
55 Required capacity '000 m³ 2,470 3,285 3,666 4,052 4,507 4,801 5,111 5,436 5,778 6,138 6,138
56 PROJECT WATER SUPPLY
57 Project water sold '000 m³ 0 532 835 1,158 1,543 1,735 1,937 2,149 2,372 2,607 2,607
58 Project water produced '000 m³ 0 708 1,040 1,375 1,771 2,027 2,296 2,579 2,877 3,189 3,189
59 Existing supply capacity '000 m³ 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
60 Required project supply capacity '000 m³ 0 785 1,166 1,552 2,007 2,301 2,611 2,936 3,278 3,638 3,638

unit 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2026
61 PROJECT WATER CONSUMPTION
63 Nonincremental water '000 m³ 255 263 271 279 288 296 305 313 322 322
64 Incremental water '000 m³ 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8
65 Project water sold '000 m³ 255 264 274 283 292 301 311 320 329 329
66
67 New consumers
68 Nonincremental water '000 m³ 215 445 689 981 1,123 1,272 1,429 1,594 1,768 1,768
69 Incremental water '000 m³ 61 126 196 279 320 364 409 458 509 509
70 Project water sold '000 m³ 276 571 885 1,261 1,443 1,636 1,838 2,052 2,277 2,277

unit 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2026
71 Project water sold
72 Project water sold '000 m³ 0 532 835 1,158 1,543 1,735 1,937 2,149 2,372 2,607 2,607
73 Tariff VND/m³ 2,800 2,856 2,913 2,971 3,031 3,091 3,153 3,216 3,281 3,346 3,346
74 Project revenues VND mn 0 1,519 2,434 3,442 4,678 5,364 6,108 6,912 7,782 8,722 8,722
75 Connection fees
76 Incremental connections in year no. 0 1,321 1,393 1,469 1,745 821 858 897 936 978 0
77 Connection fee VND mn 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
78 Project revenues VND mn 0 661 697 734 872 411 429 448 468 489 0
79 Total project revenues VND mn 0 2,179 3,130 4,176 5,550 5,775 6,537 7,360 8,251 9,211 8,722

unit 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2026
80 Investments
81 Source development VND mn 7,200 7,200 3,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
82 Water treatment VND mn 990 743 743 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
83 Ground storage VND mn 72 180 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
84 Elevated storage VND mn 324 810 486 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
85 Pump station VND mn 270 338 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
86 Distribution system VND mn 3,600 10,800 1,800 1,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
87 Sanitation and drainage VND mn 945 945 630 630 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
88 Consulting services VND mn 4,950 3,960 990 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
89 Investigations VND mn 90 72 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
90 Institutional support VND mn 1,080 1,620 1,620 1,080 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
91 Physical contingencies @ 8% VND mn 1,562 2,133 805 281 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
92 Total investment VND mn 21,083 28,800 10,867 3,791 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
94 Labour VND mn 0 256 319 348 356 365 374 384 393 403 403
95 Electricity VND mn 0 499 608 645 645 645 645 645 645 645 645
96 Chemicals VND mn 0 349 425 452 452 452 452 452 452 452 452
97 Other O&M VND mn 0 449 547 581 581 581 581 581 581 581 581
98 Total O&M VND mn 0 1,553 1,899 2,026 2,034 2,043 2,052 2,062 2,071 2,081 2,081
99 Raw water tax
101 Raw water tax/m³ VND/m³ 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
102 Project raw water tax VND mn 0 142 208 275 354 405 459 516 575 638 638
103 Total project costs VND mn 21,083 30,495 12,974 6,091 2,389 2,449 2,512 2,577 2,647 2,719 2,719

unit PV 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
@ 7% 2026
104 Revenues project water sold VND mn 77,387 0 1,519 2,434 3,442 4,678 5,364 6,108 6,912 7,782 8,722 8,722
105 Revenues connection fees VND mn 3,633 0 661 697 734 872 411 429 448 468 489 0
106 Total project revenues VND mn 81,020 0 2,179 3,130 4,176 5,550 5,775 6,537 7,360 8,251 9,211 8,722
107 Total project costs VND mn 85,773 21,083 30,495 12,974 6,091 2,389 2,449 2,512 2,577 2,647 2,719 2,719
108 Net cash flow VND mn -4,753 -21,083 -28,315 -9,843 -1,915 3,161 3,326 4,025 4,783 5,604 6,492 6,004
109
110 FIRR 6.26%
111 FNPV @ 7% VND mn -4,753
-4,753 -21,083 -28,315 -9,843 -1,915 3,161 3,326 4,025 4,783 5,604 6,492 6,004

unit 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2026
113 Nonincremental water '000 m³ 0 255 263 271 279 288 296 305 313 322 322
114 Economic supply price n.i. water VND/m³ 2,705 2,759 2,814 2,871 2,928 2,987 3,046 3,107 3,169 3,233 3,233
115 Value of nonincremental water VND mn 0 702 740 778 818 860 903 947 993 1,040 1,040
116
117 Incremental water '000 m³ 0 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8
118 Demand price w/o project VND/m³ 3,700 3,774 3,849 3,926 4,005 4,085 4,167 4,250 4,335 4,422 4,422
119 Demand price with project (tariff) VND/m³ 2,800 2,856 2,913 2,971 3,031 3,091 3,153 3,216 3,281 3,346 3,346
120 Average demand price '000 m³ 3,250 3,315 3,381 3,449 3,518 3,588 3,660 3,733 3,808 3,884 3,884
121 Value of incremental water VND mn 0 3 6 9 12 15 19 22 26 30 30
122 New consumers
123 Nonincremental water '000 m³ 0 215 445 689 981 1,123 1,272 1,429 1,594 1,768 1,768
124 Economic supply price n.i. water VND/m³ 5,457 5,522 5,589 5,656 5,724 5,792 5,862 5,932 6,003 6,075 6,075
125 Value of nonincremental water VND mn 0 1,190 2,486 3,897 5,616 6,504 7,456 8,477 9,571 10,743 10,743
126
127 Incremental water '000 m³ 0 61 126 196 279 320 364 409 458 509 509
128 Demand price w/o project VND/m³ 6,730 6,811 6,892 6,975 7,059 7,144 7,229 7,316 7,404 7,493 7,493
129 Demand price with project (tariff) VND/m³ 2,800 2,856 2,913 2,971 3,031 3,091 3,153 3,216 3,281 3,346 3,346
130 Average demand price VND/m³ 4,765 4,833 4,903 4,973 5,045 5,118 5,191 5,266 5,342 5,419 5,419
131 Value of incremental water VND mn 0 294 618 973 1,409 1,639 1,888 2,156 2,446 2,758 2,758
132 Total value project water
133 Value nonincremental water VND mn 0 1,892 3,226 4,675 6,435 7,364 8,359 9,424 10,564 11,783 11,783
134 Value incremental water VND mn 0 297 624 982 1,421 1,654 1,906 2,178 2,472 2,788 2,788
135 Total value project water (gross benefit) VND mn 0 2,189 3,850 5,657 7,855 9,018 10,265 11,602 13,036 14,571 14,571

unit 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2026
136 Investments
137 Source development VND mn 7,382 7,382 3,691 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
138 Water treatment VND mn 987 740 740 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
139 Ground storage VND mn 70 175 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
140 Elevated storage VND mn 316 789 474 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
141 Pump station VND mn 272 340 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
142 Distribution system VND mn 3,508 10,524 1,754 1,754 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
143 Sanitation and drainage VND mn 931 931 621 621 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
144 Consulting services VND mn 5,335 4,268 1,067 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
145 Investigations VND mn 93 74 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
146 Institutional support VND mn 1,140 1,710 1,710 1,140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
147 Physical contingencies @ 8% VND mn 1,603 2,155 820 281 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
148 Total investment VND mn 21,636 29,089 11,068 3,796 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
150 Labour VND mn 0 247 308 335 344 352 361 370 379 389 389
151 Electricity VND mn 0 549 668 710 710 710 710 710 710 710 710
152 Chemicals VND mn 0 384 468 497 497 497 497 497 497 497 497
153 Other O&M VND mn 0 474 577 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 613
154 Total O&M VND mn 0 1,653 2,021 2,155 2,164 2,172 2,181 2,190 2,199 2,209 2,209
155 Opportunity cost of water
157 Opportunity cost of water VND/m³ 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400
158 Opportunity cost of water VND mn 0 283 416 550 709 811 918 1,032 1,151 1,276 1,276
159 Project economic cost VND mn 21,636 31,026 13,505 6,502 2,872 2,983 3,100 3,222 3,350 3,485 3,485

unit PV 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
@ 12% 2026
160 Project water sold '000 m³ 13,295 0 532 835 1,158 1,543 1,735 1,937 2,149 2,372 2,607 2,607
161 Project water produced '000 m³ 16,120 0 708 1,040 1,375 1,771 2,027 2,296 2,579 2,877 3,189 3,189
162 Non-technical losses % 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
163 Non-technical losses '000 m³ 1,612 0 71 104 138 177 203 230 258 288 319 319
164 Project water consumed '000 m³ 14,907 0 603 939 1,296 1,720 1,938 2,167 2,407 2,660 2,926 2,926
165 Gross benefits
166 Value nonincremental water VND mn 58,037 0 1,892 3,226 4,675 6,435 7,364 8,359 9,424 10,564 11,783 11,783
167 Value incremental water VND mn 13,268 0 297 624 982 1,421 1,654 1,906 2,178 2,472 2,788 2,788
168 Value of non-technical losses VND mn 8,643 0 292 479 672 902 1,054 1,217 1,392 1,581 1,783 1,783
169 Project economic benefits VND mn 79,948 0 2,481 4,329 6,329 8,757 10,071 11,482 12,995 14,616 16,354 16,354
170 Project economic benefits VND mn 79,948 0 2,481 4,329 6,329 8,757 10,071 11,482 12,995 14,616 16,354 16,354
171 Project economic cost VND mn 74,455 21,636 31,026 13,505 6,502 2,872 2,983 3,100 3,222 3,350 3,485 3,485
172 Project net cash flow VND mn 5,493 -21,636 -28,545 -9,176 -173 5,885 7,088 8,382 9,773 11,266 12,869 12,869
173
174 EIRR 13.1%
175 ENPV @ 12% VND mn 5,493

Financial sustainability
unit PV 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
@ 7% 2026
176 Total project costs VND mn 85,773 21,083 30,495 12,974 6,091 2,389 2,449 2,512 2,577 2,647 2,719 2,719
178 Project water sold '000 m³ 23,717 0 532 835 1,158 1,543 1,735 1,937 2,149 2,372 2,607 2,607
179 AIFC @ 7% VND/m³ 3,617
180 Average tariff @ 7% (incl. connection fees) VND/m³ 3,416
181 Financial subsidy VND/m³ 200
182 Financial cost recovery % VND/m³ 94%

Economic sustainability
unit PV 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
@ 12% 2026
183 Project economic cost VND mn 74,455 21,636 31,026 13,505 6,502 2,872 2,983 3,100 3,222 3,350 3,485 3,485
185 Project water consumed '000 m³ 14,907 0 603 939 1,296 1,720 1,938 2,167 2,407 2,660 2,926 2,926
186 AIEC @ 12% VND/m³ 4,995
187 Average tariff @ 12% (incl. connection fees) VND/m³ 3,073
188 Economic subsidy VND/m³ 1,922

APPENDIX C

CASE STUDY
FOR RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT


CONTENTS

C.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................296
C.2 The Village LOA LEPU ..........................................................................................................296
C.3 Project Framework....................................................................................................................298
C.3.1 Government Policies .................................................................................................298
C.3.2 Sector Objective .........................................................................................................299
C.3.3 Case Study Objective.................................................................................................299
C.3.4 Project Components ..................................................................................................299
C.3.5 Project Resources .......................................................................................................300
C.4 Demand Forecast ......................................................................................................................300
C.4.1 Current Water Consumption....................................................................................300
C.4.2 Future Water Demand...............................................................................................300
C.4.3 Incremental vs. Nonincremental Water Demand .................................................302
C.5 Least-Cost Analysis ...................................................................................................................302
C.5.1 Technical Options at Project Level.........................................................................302
C.5.2 Technical Options for LOA LEPU ........................................................................304
C.5.3 Capital and O&M Costs............................................................................................305
C.5.4 Economic vs. Financial Prices ................................................................................306
C.5.5 Costs for the Household ...........................................................................................307
C.5.6 Least-Cost Analysis for LOA LEPU ......................................................................309
C.6 Economic Benefit-Cost Analysis ............................................................................................310
C.6.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................310
C.6.2 Methodology to Estimate Economic Benefits.......................................................310
C.6.3 Cost Savings Method for Estimating Nonincremental Water Benefits ............310
C.6.4 Valuation of Incremental Demand for Water .......................................................313
C.6.5 Valuation of Sanitation Benefits ..............................................................................313
C.6.6 Economic Gross Benefits .........................................................................................313
C.6.7 Economic Benefit-Cost Analysis .............................................................................314
C.6.8 Sensitivity Analysis.....................................................................................................314
C.7 Financial Benefit-Cost Analysis ..............................................................................................315
C.7.1 Financial Costs............................................................................................................315
C.7.2 Financial Benefits .......................................................................................................316
C.8. Sustainability Analysis...............................................................................................................316
C.8.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................316
C.8.2 Comparison between AIC and Average Tariff......................................................317
C.8.3 Sustainability Analysis................................................................................................317
C.9 Distribution Analysis ................................................................................................................318
C.9.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................318
C.9.2 Participating Groups..................................................................................................318
C.10 Nonquantifiable Effects...........................................................................................................319
C.10.1 Social and Gender Effects ........................................................................................319
C.10.2 Health Effects .............................................................................................................320

APPENDIX C : CASE STUDY FOR RURAL WSP 295

C.11 Treatment of Uncertainty.........................................................................................................320
C.11.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................320
C.11.2 Key Assumptions to Achieve Project Targets
and Possible Mitigative Actions .................................................................................320

Tables
Table C.1 Basic Data for Loa Lepu…………………………………………………………...297
Table C.2 Demand for Water Supply and Sanitation Facilities……………………………..
301
Table C.3 Average nonincremental demand for water……………………………………. 302
Table C.4 Determination of Size of Investment for Different Alternatives………………... 305
Table C.5 Investment Costs and annual O&M Costs, including 10% sales tax……………. 306
Table C.6 Calculation of Economic Price of the Communal Hand pumps Option……… 307
Table C.7 Average Costs per Household for Different Options ………………………….. 308
Table C.8 Calculation of Present Values and AIEC for Alternative Technical Options……..309
Table C.9 Water supply for Different Technical Options………………………………… 310
Table C.10 Economic Costs of Nonincremental Water (results from HH survey)………… 312
Table C.11 Annual Gross Project Benefits (in Rp*1000 per year)……………………………314
Table C.12 Economic Benefit Cost Analysis…………………………………………………314
Table C.13 Switching Values (SV) and Sensitivity Indicators (SI)……………………………315
Table C.14 Calculation of Present Values in Financial Prices and AIFC………………… 316
Table C.15 Benefits of the Participating Groups……………………………………………..319

ANNEX
C.1 Urban Water Supply and Sanitaton Project Framework...........................................................322
C.2 Financial Prices vs. Economic Prices...........................................................................................324
C.3 Least-CostAnalysis........................................................................................................................................ 328
C.4 Economic Benefit-Cost Analysis................................................................................................................ 342
C.5 Financial Benefit-Cost Analysis................................................................................................................. 343


C.1 INTRODUCTION

1. To obtain an insight into the applicability of the economic evaluation of water
supply projects (WSPs) in a true rural setting, one small village named Loa Lepu in a remote area
in Kalimantan, Indonesia was selected for purposes of this case study. For this village, the
following steps in the economic analysis were carried out:

(i) Determination of Scope and Objectives
(ii) Assessment of Demand
(iii) Least-Cost Analysis
(iv) Economic Benefit-Cost Analysis
(v) Financial Benefit-Cost Analysis
(vi) Sustainability Analysis
(vii) Distributional Analysis
(viii) Analysis of Untangible Effects
(ix) Analysis of Uncertainty

2. In this case study, each of the different steps in economic evaluation is dealt
with in a separate section. The last paragraph summarizes the conclusions and
recommendations.

3. The activities planned for Loa Lepu are part of the Rural Water Supply and
Sanitation Sector Project in Indonesia, which supports the governments’ policy to promote water
supply and sanitation services in less developed villages and rural growth centers and focuses on
the low-income population. The project aims at:

(i) providing safe, adequate and reliable water supply and sanitation services to
selected low-income rural communities through community-based
arrangements; and,

(ii) to support hygiene and sanitation education, water quality surveillance and
community management activities in the project area. The project area covers
12 provinces and consists of 3,000 rural communities.

C.2 The Village LOA LEPU

4. In order to obtain a first impression of the area to be studied, a reconnaissance
visit was carried out in February 1996. Subsequently, a household survey was carried out in the
village in March 1996. The results of both surveys form the basis for the economic analysis.

5. During the reconnaissance survey, basic data on the village was collected. These
concerned population, rainfall, water resources, present water supply and sanitation facilities and
the socio-economic situation. Based on these data, preliminary design options were formulated


and the questionnaire to be used in the household survey was adapted to fit the local situation.
An overview of basic data for Loa Lepu is provided in Table C.1.

6. The selected village, Loa Lepu, is located in the Kabupaten Kutai in the
province East Kalimantan. Suitable water sources in the area are limited. Ground water is
available at a depth of about four meters, but the quality is often bad and dugwells run dry in the
dry season. River water is becoming increasingly polluted. Rainfall is abundant in the rainy
season but less regular in the dry season, which lasts from June to November. Periods without
rain, however, are seldom very long.

Table C.1 Basic Data for Loa Lepu
Indicator Unit Loa Lepu
Population Number 594
Average HH Size in sample Number 5.1
Existing Water Supply
Unprotected Wells % 20
Untreated River Water % 80
Existing Sanitation latrines
Profession
Farmers % 80
Entrepreneur % 4
Fixed employment % 12
Informal sector % 4
Average Quantity of water carried home per HH
rainy season l/day 137
dry season l/day 149
Average distance from source
rainy season meter 58
dry season meter 62
Preferred alternative source
Rainwater collector % 4
Hand pump % 52
Public Tap % 40
No reply % 4
Average Income Rp/month 221,280
Average Rainfall mm/year 1962


7. The total population in the village is 594, with an average household size of 5.1
persons. A large part of the population is occupied in agricultural activities from which they
derive an average income of Rp221,280 per month.

8. The local public health unit (Puskesmas) in the area reported that a total of
3,718 persons or 4 percent of a total service population of 91,197 visited the unit with com-
plaints about water-related diseases in 1994.

9. Approximately 70 percent of the population of Loa Lepu is concentrated near
the Makaram river while the remaining 30 percent is living scattered at distances up to 10 km
from the river. Potential water sources for water supply are: shallow ground water, the Makaram
river and rainwater. The population is making use of unprotected water sources such as open
dug wells and the river. The water in the dug wells is two to four meters below ground level but
the quality is poor. In the dry season, the dug wells run dry. The average distance from the water
source is approximately 60 meters. The average annual rainfall in the area is 1,962 mm.

10. People were asked how many buckets of water they carried on average to their
homes per day. From this, an average water use of 143 liters per HH, or 28 liters per capita per
day (lcd), could be derived. People also use water from wells and the river, which they do not
carry home. This water is used for washing, bathing and sanitation purposes. For defecation
purposes, simple latrines, mostly without septic tanks, are used. Domestic wastewater flows
through small drainage canals into the fields or rivers. There is a clear interest in alternative
water supply and sanitation facilities. There also exists a remarkable interest and willingness to
pay for the upgrading of sanitary facilities.

C.3 PROJECT FRAMEWORK

11. A detailed description of the project framework is provided in Annex C.1 of
this chapter. A short explanation follows.

C.3.1 Government Policies

12. The provision of water supply and sanitation has been a central issue in
government policy over the past 30 years, with priority on low-income communities and
underdeveloped areas with poor water resources and a high incidence of waterborne diseases.
The government has provided safe water supply to 14,000 villages during the fifth Five-Year
Plan and aims to provide access to clean water to another 20,600 villages or 16.5 million people
during the sixth Five-Year Plan (Repelita VI).

13. Based on experience from earlier RWSS programs, government activities in this
field are now guided by the following policies:


(i) increased community participation in planning, implementation, operation and
rehabilitation of RWSS facilities;

(ii) special attention on drinking water quality surveillance and sanitation;

(iii) target communities in water scarce areas, coastal or transmigration areas or
communities facing endemic diarrhoea and other waterborne diseases;

(iv) flexible planning and channelling of funds;

(v) decentralized project implementation and local accountability for delivery;

(vi) an important role for women in program design and implementation;

(vii) recovery of O&M costs and in addition, contribution in kind (labor) to capital
costs.

C.3.2 Sector Objective

14. The Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project as a whole, of which the
activities in Loa Lepu form a part, has set the following objectives:

(i) providing safe, adequate and reliable water supply and sanitation services to
selected low-income rural communities through community-based
arrangements; and,

ii) supporting hygiene and sanitation education, water quality surveillance and
community management activities in the project area.

C.3.3 Case Study Objective

15. Based on the results of both the reconnaissance and the household surveys, it
was decided to formulate these objectives for improved water supply and sanitation facilities in
Loa Lepu:

(i) to provide safe and low-cost water supply alternatives to the population, which
presently has no access to protected water sources;

(ii) to provide latrines to that part of the population which is not satisfied with
existing facilities and which expresses a willingness to pay for those facilities.


C.3.4 Project Components

16. In order to achieve the project objectives mentioned above, the project includes
three components:

(i) the construction of simple low-cost piped and non-piped water supply systems
and/or the rehabilitation of existing water supply systems;

(ii) provision of sanitation sub-projects in the project area through the construction
of sanitary public and private latrines;

(iii) the provision of a) implementation support to the local offices of the Ministry
of Public Works; b) a hygiene and sanitation education and water quality
surveillance program to be implemented by the Ministry of Health; and c)
community management and WSS institutional development programs to be
implemented by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

C.3.5 Project Resources

17. The resources to be allocated to the project will be utilized for land acquisition,
civil works, equipment and materials, incremental Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs and
for consultancy services for feasibility studies, detailed design, supervision and for institutional
support.

C.4 DEMAND FORECAST

C.4.1 Current Water Consumption

18. Current water consumption must be separated into two parts:

(i) water carried to and consumed in the house;

(ii) water used at the sites of the river and wells respectively.

19. The first component, water carried and used in the house, has been estimated at
143 liters per HH per day, or an average use of 28 lcd. In addition, it has been estimated that
households use an additional 50 percent of that volume of water (14 lcd) outside the house for
washing in the river or near the well, bathing in the river, etc. The total current water
consumption is, therefore, estimated at 42 lcd.

20. Current annual water consumption in Loa Lepu is, therefore, estimated as
follows:

In-house consumption: (594 x 28 x 365)/1,000 = 6,071 m3/year.


Outside the house: (594 x 14 x 365)/1,000 = 3,036 m3/year

C.4.2 Future Water Demand

21. During the household survey, people were offered three technical alternatives
for water supply to chose from, being:

Alternative 1: Communal hand pumps (one hand pump for ten families);

Alternative 2: A small piped system in the center of town with public taps (ten
families per PT) and the remaining part of the village with communal
hand pumps;

Alternative 3: Rainwater collectors (one rainwater collector per four families)

In the remaining text of this case study, alternative 1 will be indicated as HP, alternative 2 as
HP/PT and alternative 3 as RWC.

22. The data collected during the reconnaissance survey and the household survey
provide the expressed preference of the communities for the different types of water supply
facilities offered to them. This preference is based on the consumers’ perception of water,
quality, reliability and convenience, which they relate to the different types of supply. The
outcome of the survey is presented in columns 2 and 3 of Table C.2. It is assumed that water
from the above facilities will be used for ‘in house water consumption’.

23. Based on national standards and in line with figures observed in similar
situations, the average consumption per person per day for the use of hand pumps and public
taps is estimated at 50 lcd whereas the average use for rainwater collectors is estimated at 33 lcd
(this figure is based on an average use of 50 lcd in the rainy season but only 16 lcd in the dry
season).

24. If the different types of water supply facilities would be installed in accordance
with the expressed preference of the community, and if the average water consumption per type
of facility (based on national standards) is multiplied with the number of users, the quantity of
water demanded by the community can be calculated at 10,715 m3/year.


Table C.2 Demand for Water Supply and Sanitation Facilities
Type of facility Number of in % Avg. Water Calculated demand
HH Consumption (lcd)1 (m3/year)
interested
Rainwater Collector 5 4 33 286
Communal Hand pumps 61 52 50 5,637
Public Tap 47 40 50 4,336
No Reply 5 4 492 456
Sanitation 107 92 - -
Total Demand 10,715
1 Based on national standards and field observations.
2A weighed average of the other users.

25. It is likely that some households will also continue to use water from other
sources than the above. In particular, households which choose rainwater collectors would have
to rely on secondary sources in the dry season.

C.4.3 Incremental vs. Nonincremental Water Demand

26. A distinction is made between nonincremental water and incremental water
provided by the project. Nonincremental water will be water provided by the project which
displaces water already used from existing sources and would be used in the without-project
situation. Incremental water is water provided by the project, which will add to the existing and
future water consumption without the project. For purposes of analysis, the future without-
project scenario is assumed to remain at existing levels.

27. The volume of incremental water will depend on the technical option which
will be selected. Table C.3 below shows the average incremental and nonincremental water
demand, which is supplied for by the project.

Table C.3 Average Nonincremental Demand for Water
Total Water Demand Total Water Demand With Water Supplied by the Project
Without the Project the Project
Alternative In Outside Total In Outside Total Non Incremental Total
house house house house Incremental
HP 28 14 42 50 5 55 42 8 50
HP/PT 28 14 42 50 5 55 42 8 50
RWC 28 14 42 33 12 45 33 0 33


28. Total water demand without the project is estimated at an average 42 lcd.
Depending on the alternative chosen, in-house water consumption will increase to 33 lcd (RWC)
or 50 lcd (HP and PT).

29. In the case of alternatives 1 and 2, the 50 lcd of water supplied by the project
will fully replace the old sources (42 lcd = non incremental) and add an additional 8 lcd (which
refers to incremental water). In addition, households are assumed to still use some water (5 lcd)
outside the house. In the case of alternative 3 (RWC), the average of 33 lcd supplied by the
project will be fully used to replace old sources and therefore the total volume of water supplied
by the project is non-incremental (even though total demand of these customers increases).

C.5 LEAST-COST ANALYSIS

C.5.1 Technical Options at Project Level

30. The purpose of the Least-Cost Analysis is to identify the least-cost alternative
option for water supply and sanitation, which will adequately achieve the project objective. For
the project, standard low-cost water supply and sanitation options were developed by the
Department of Public Works, including communal hand pumps (HP), rainwater collectors
(RWC), small piped systems with public taps (PT), public and school latrines and private
latrines, as follows:

(i) Water Supply Options

(a) Rainwater Collector:
Volume - 10 m³
Number of users - 20 persons/RWC
Unit Price - Rp1,725,000
Annual O&M costs - approximately 0.5% of investment
Avg. consumption - 33 lcd

(b) Hand pump small bore wells:
Number of users - 50 persons/HP
Annual O&M Costs - approximately 2.5% of investment

(c ) Hand pump small bore wells with upflow filter units:
Number of users - 50 persons/HP
Annual O&M Costs - approximately 4% of investment


(d) Piped system + PT:
Number of users per PT - 50 persons
Investment Cost - Rp40,000,000
Annual O&M Costs - approximately 7% of investment

(ii) Sanitation Options

(a) Private latrine:
Number of users - 10 persons
Unit Price - Rp91,700

(b) Public latrine:
Number of users - 600 persons

31. The project approached the sanitation component by providing one public
latrine to the village, to be located at a central location (school, market, etc). Furthermore,
private latrines would be installed in accordance with demand from the population. The project
support should be seen as promotion of improved hygiene behavior of the community.

C.5.2 Technical Options for LOA LEPU

32. During the reconnaissance survey, the technical options for the village were
determined. During the household survey, the interest of the population in each of the options
was measured. Based on this, the following technical alternatives were formulated for Loa Lepu:

Alternative 1: 100 percent coverage through hand pump wells provided with small upflow
filtration units per well. Ground water is sufficiently available in the area, but
the water quality is, in some cases, effected by high contents of iron. Therefore,
these wells will be equipped with simple filtration units.

Alternative 2: 70 percent covered by a small piped scheme with pumped/treated water from
the Makaram river. The remaining 30 percent of the population will be covered
with hand pump wells since this part of the population is living at a great
distance from the river.

Alternative 3: 100 percent coverage through rainwater collectors by using 10 m³ ferro-cement
reservoirs serving approximately 20 persons per collector.


Sanitation: Based on the Household Survey, it is assumed that the 92 percent of
households who expressed interest will obtain a new latrine. Furthermore, one
school latrine will be installed.

33. Table C.4 summarizes the size of the investment for each of the alternatives.
For example, 20 people make use of one rainwater collector, which means that in order to cover
the total population with RWC’s, a total of 30 RWC’s would have to be installed.

Table C.4 Determination of Size of Investment for Different Alternatives
Item Unit Alternative1 Alternative2 Alternative3
HP PT/HP RWC
COVERAGE
Hand pump Wells % of pop 100 33 0
Rainwater Collectors % of pop 0 0 100
Piped Water Public Taps % of pop 0 67 0
Total Coverage % of pop 100 100 100
NO. OF FACILITIES
New. RWC’s needed1 Number 0 0 30
New HP Wells needed2 Number 12 4 0
PT’s needed Number 0 8 0
Number of private latrines Number 107 107 107
Number of School Latrines Number 1 1 1
1 Average number of users per RWC is 4 families or 20 persons
2 Average number of users per PT/HP is 10 families or 50 persons

C.5.3 Capital and O&M Costs

34. The capital costs of the different alternatives, as well as the number of users per
unit, are based on the standard designs as developed by the MPW. With proper maintenance, it
is expected that these facilities will have a lifetime of 20 years. The O&M costs of the facilities
differ per type of facility. Because the project will provide water supply and sanitation facilities
to 3,000 small villages scattered over different provinces in Indonesia, it has been assumed that
project funds will not be used for future investments, which will be necessary as a result of
population growth. Therefore, only the initial investment and the related O&M costs have been
taken into account.


35. Based on the cost estimates of the project loan, it has been assumed that
overhead costs for project management, community development and water quality monitoring
activities amount to 10 percent of the physical investment costs. The financial cost estimates for
investment costs and O&M costs for the different alternatives are presented in Table C.5.

Table C.5 Investment Costs and annual O&M Costs,
including 10% sales tax
(in Rp’000)
HP HP/PT RWC Sanitation
Investment Cost
Equipment 23,148 36,155 36,750 7,387
Labor 8,352 14,345 15,000 4,925
Sub Total 31,500 50,500 51,750 12,312
Overhead Cost (10%) 3,150 5,050 5,175 1,231
Grand Total 34,650 55,550 56,925 13,543

Annual O&M Cost
Equipment 1,095 2,161 184 160
Labor 209 209 75 148
Total 1,304 2,370 259 308

C.5.4 Economic vs. Financial Prices

36. Least-Cost Analysis is carried out in economic prices and, in this case, using
domestic price numeraire. First, the 10 percent sales tax included in the investment and O&M
costs is deducted from the financial costs. The cost estimates are then apportioned into traded
and nontraded components and (unskilled) labor. Finally, financial prices are multiplied with the
respective conversion factors to arrive at economic prices.

37. The shadow exchange rate factor for foreign exchange has been estimated at
1.06. The figure was obtained from an ADB regional study on Shadow Pricing in 1993. The
conversion factor for unskilled labor has been estimated at 0.65, reflecting the fact that the real
market price of labor is lower than the official wage rates which are used in the financial cost
estimates.

38. An example of the calculation of the economic prices for alternative 1
(communal hand pumps) is given in Table C.5 below, whereas the calculation for the other
options is attached as Annex C.2 to this Appendix.


Table C.6 Calculation of Economic Price
of the Communal Hand pumps Option
(Rp’000)
Financial Costs Financial costs Conversion Economic Value
including taxes excluding sales tax Factor
Investment Cost
Traded (60%) 13,889 12,500 1.06 13,250
Non Traded (40%) 9,259 8,333 1.00 8,333
Labor 8,352 7,517 0.65 4,886
Overhead Cost (10%) 3,150 3,150 1.00 3,150
Grand Total 34,650 31,500 29,619

Annual O&M Cost
Traded (60%) 657 591 1.06 627
Non Traded (40%) 438 394 1.00 394
Labor 209 188 0.65 122
Total 1,304 1,174 1,143

39. In the area, no shortage of water is expected in the foreseeable future; therefore,
the opportunity costs of water are considered to be zero. The environmental impact of the
project is considered negligible; therefore, the environmental costs have not been valued. The
costs of draining the additional volume of water supplied are assumed to be covered by the costs
for additional sanitation facilities.

C.5.5 Costs for the Household

40. Besides the investment and direct O&M costs, the future users of the facilities
will also make costs. These costs differ per selected alternative and will have to be taken into
account in the Least-Cost Analysis. The costs per household are presented in Table C.7.


Table C.7 Average Costs per Household for Different Options
Option Quantity Average Avg. Time Collection Other Costs Average Total Costs
of Water distance to needed for Costs per HH Costs per HH
Used source Collection per HH per HH rp/year
l/day per meters hrs/month rp/month
HH rp/month rp/ month
No. Column 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
RWC 168 15 3 436 50 486 5,832
HP 255 30 6 871 50 921 11,052
PT 255 30 6 871 50 921 11,052

Explanation:

Column 1: The average household size is 5.1, which is multiplied by the average
consumption per capita per day for each of the alternatives (e.g. for RWC: 5.1 x
33 = 168.3 liters per day);

Column 2: With regard to distance, it has been assumed that the average distance for RWC
is less than for PT and HP because only four houses make use of one RWC
and ten households use one PT or HP.

Column 3: At present, the average time needed for water collection is 12 hours per HH per
month. It has been estimated that households with RWC’s will save 75 percent
collection time as compared to the situation before the project; and households
with HP/PT will save 50 percent collection time.

Column 4: The costs of time used for collecting water has been estimated at 65 percent of
the minimum wage rate of Rp343.75 per hour. This is subsequently multiplied
with the shadow wage rate of 0.65, resulting in a cost of Rp145 per hour, which
is multiplied by the number of hours needed per month.

Column 5: The column of other costs include the costs for storage which has been
assumed at 50 percent of the current storage costs of Rp50 per month. These
costs are considered to be nontraded costs and therefore, no conversion factor
has been applied. No costs for chemicals will be needed after the introduction
of the new facilities. Boiling of water for drinking and cooking will still be
needed; but as no data were available, these costs have not been included in the
calculations.

Columns 6 & 7: The costs per HH per month and per year are calculated by adding columns 4
and 5 and multiplying by 12.


C.5.6 LEAST-COST ANALYSIS for LOA LEPU

41. For each of the alternatives, the investment costs and the annual O&M costs
have been calculated, as well as the annual costs made by the households (see Annex C.3 to this
Appendix). The figures are now used to calculate the present values of the costs for each of the
alternatives. Subsequently, the present values of the costs are related to the volume of water
supplied for each of the options in order to calculate the AIEC. The calculations are presented
in Table C.8. The economic costs have been discounted at the EOCC of 12 percent. The
calculations lead to the following results:

Table C.8 Calculation of Present Values and AIEC for Alternative Technical Options
Number Investments Unit Alt.1 Alt. 2 Alt.3
HP HP/PT RWC
1 Investment Cost Water Supply Yr 1 Rp’000 29,619 47,153 48,216
2 Investment Costs for Sanitation Yr 1 Rp’000 10,920 10,920 10,920
3 PV Investment Costs Water Supply Rp’000 36,196 51,851 52,800
and Sanitation
4 PV of O&M and HH Costs for WS&S Rp’000 17,571 23,948 7,446
Year 1-20
5 Total Present Value Rp’000 53,767 75,799 60,246
6 PV of Water Supplied Year 1-20 ‘000 m3 71,290 71,290 47,054
7 AIEC of Water Supply Rp/m3 754 1,063 1,280

Lines 1 & 2: present the estimated costs of investment of water supply and sanitation works
in year 1.

Line 3: gives the Present Value of the total investment costs in year 0 using a discount
rate of 12 percent.

Line 4: gives the Present Value of the annual O&M costs plus the annual costs made
by households over the project life using a discount rate of 12 percent.

Line 5: gives the Total Present Value for each of the alternatives.

Line 6: gives the discounted value of the annual volumes of water supplied by each of
the project alternatives over the project life.

Line 7: divides the present value of total costs by the present value of the volume of
water supplied to calculate an AIEC for each of the options.


42. Based on the Least-Cost Analysis, it is concluded that the quantity of water
demanded is most efficiently supplied by means of communal hand pumps with an AIEC of
water of Rp774 per m3. Therefore, this alternative is selected as the preferred option.

43. It could be argued that the three alternatives provide different benefits to the
consumers. However, besides the costs of investment and O&M, also the costs to the household
in terms of time needed for water collection has been taken into account; and these costs have
been related to the quantity of water provided. Therefore, it is considered that the choice
between the alternatives in this case can be made based on the Least-Cost Analysis.

C.6 ECONOMIC BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS

C.6.1 Introduction

44. The economic benefit-cost analysis will show whether economic benefits exceed
economic costs and whether the project is economically viable.

C.6.2 Methodology to Estimate Economic Benefits

45. The economic benefits of the project consist of two components:

(i) Cost savings on nonincremental supply

(ii) The Willingness-to-Pay based on average demand price for incremental water
supplies

46. Table C.9 shows how incremental demand is calculated. The existing supply
without the project can be divided into two components being in-house consumption and
consumption outside the house. In-house consumption is estimated at 28 lcd which would
amount to 6,071 m3 per year; whereas water used outside the house (14 lcd) is estimated at 3,035
m3/year. As the future without-project supply is maintained at the existing supply level, the
incremental demand is equal to the difference in the water supplied by the project and existing
supplies evaluated annually.

C.6.3 Cost Savings Method for Estimating Nonincremental Water Benefits

Table C.9 Water supply for Different Technical Options
Technical Option Supplied by the Project Total Supply with- Existing Supply Incremental
(lcd) project (m3/year) without-project Demand
(m3/year) (m3/year)
100% HP 50 10,840 9,106 1,734


47. When the new supply facilities will be introduced, it is predicted that
households will shift from the old sources of water to the new sources of water. The old sources
of water will be displaced with the new water source and the costs related to the ‘old’ sources
will therefore be saved.

48. Nonincremental water consists of water carried to the house for in-house
consumption and water used outside the house. The estimated cost components related to these
different uses are explained below:

(i) Water for in-house consumption:

(a) Time needed to collect water. Time has been valued at Rp145/hour
 which is 65% of the official minimum wage rate of Rp2750 per day
divided by 8 hours per day and subsequently multiplied by the shadow
wage rate factor (SWRF) of 0.65. Based on past economic growth
figures, it has been assumed that the minimum wage rate will show a
real increase of 3 percent per annum;

(b) Chemicals to clean the water will no longer be needed. Villagers
used calcium hypochlorite to disinfect water used from unprotected
sources. One family uses about 100 grams per month, which cost
Rp250. These costs will be saved when new water supply facilities are
introduced. Chemicals and filters in this case are considered nontraded
goods. Boiling will still be needed, but these costs have not been
included in the calculations.

(c) Costs of storage. All households store water in drums with an average
value of Rp13,200. The related construction works are considered
nontraded. Assuming a 10-year lifetime for these drums, the average
costs amount to Rp100 per month.

The costs related to the in-house water consumption differ between the dry season and
the rainy season. The results of the HH survey are presented in Table C.10. From the
table it can be seen that the weighted average costs per household for the existing in
house water supply is Rp1,738 per HH per month. With an average consumption of
143 liters per HH per day, this amounts to a weighted average of Rp472 per m3(see
Table C.2.2, Annex C below). The total costs per year for the in-house water supply in
Loa Lepu will then be 6,071 m3 x Rp472 = Rp2,865,512 (rounded off to Rp2,866,000)
per year. These costs will be saved by switching to an alternative source of water.


Table C.10 Economic Costs of Nonincremental Water (results from HH survey)
Source No Average Average Average Collect. Other Average Month/ Total Cost
of Quantity distance Collect. Costs in Costs in Costs per Year per HH
HH liters per to Time Rp per Rp per HH/ per season
HH source hours per month month Month in Rp
(meters) month per HH
Rainy
Season
Dugwell 3 138 89 16.59 2,410 350 2,760 6 16,560
River/ 19 147 58 11.52 1,673 350 2,023 6 12,138
Waterpond
Neighbors 3 69 23 2.14 311 350 661 6 3,968
Average 137 58 11 1,598 350 1,948 6 11,689
Rainy Season
Dry Season
Dugwell 1 92 92 11.44 1,661 350 2,011 6 12,065
River/ 21 163 66 14.54 2,111 350 2,461 6 14,766
Waterpond
Neighbors 3 69 23 2.14 311 350 661 6 3,968
Average dry 149 62 13 1,877 350 2,227 6 13,362
season
Average/ 143 60 12 1,738 350 2,088 12 25,056
Total
Source: Table C.2.2 in Annex C

(ii) Water used outside the house:

Water outside the house is used for washing, bathing and sanitation purposes. Users will
have to walk to the source and maybe carry clothes to the river/well. The water used
outside the house is not treated or cleaned in any way. The value of nonincremental
water used outside the house is estimated at half the value of the water used in the
house. The total costs per year for the water used outside the house is 3,035 m3 x
Rp236 = Rp716,260 per year.


C.6.4 Valuation of Incremental Demand for Water

49. Incremental water is valued at the average demand price, which is approximated
by the average between the current and future costs of water supply in financial prices. The
future supply costs of water with the project to the consumers are as follows:

(i) In accordance with government policies, users will have to pay for the costs of
O&M. Construction works will be carried out by local contractors and
therefore, users will not contribute to the costs of investment. The financial
costs of O&M of water supply are estimated at Rp1,304,000 per year.

(ii) Furthermore, households themselves still make costs which are calculated in
financial prices. These costs are calculated in the same manner as was
demonstrated in Table C.10 above; but in this case, the costs of time of
collecting the water is calculated at its financial value of 0.65 x 2750/8 =
Rp223/hour. This adds up to Rp1,294,000 per year.

50. The future supply costs to the household per m3 of water supplied with the
project are (Rp1,304,000 + Rp1,294,000)/ 10840 = Rp239/m3.

51. The supply costs of water without the project in economic prices have been
calculated in Table C.10, applying the SWRF of 0.65 to the value of time needed for water
collection. The resulting weighed average supply costs of water without the project are then
calculated as Rp679 per m3.

52. The average demand price is approximated by the average between future and
current costs of water supply to the consumer which is (Rp697 + Rp239.7)/2 = Rp468/m3.
The value of incremental water is thus estimated at 1734 m3 x Rp468/m3 = Rp811,512.

C.6.5 Valuation of Sanitation Benefits

53. For sanitation, no data are available with regard to current resource cost
savings in the without-project situation. Using the contingency valuation methodology, an
average WTP was expressed by the users of Rp1,641 per month. This WTP is taken as an
approximation of the benefits which can be attributed from the sanitation component provided
by the project. The total annual value of benefits derived from the sanitation component is thus
calculated is follows:

No. of HH x monthly WTP x 12 = 107 x 1641 x 12 = Rp2,107,044 per year.


C.6.6 Economic Gross Benefits

54. Gross benefits are defined as the cost savings on nonincremental water and the
average demand price for incremental water as calculated in the previous sections. As
investments for sanitation are also included in the project, the WTP for sanitation facilities is
also added to this, which results in the following:

Table C.11 Annual Gross Project Benefits (in Rp’1000 per year)
Component Gross Annual Benefits
Nonincremental Water used in the house 2,866
Nonincremental Water used outside the house 716
Incremental Water 812
Sanitation 2,107
Total Gross Benefits per annum 6,501

C.6.7 Economic Benefit-Cost Analysis

55. Based on the estimates of costs and benefits, the EIRR can now be calculated
as is shown in Table C.12. Detailed calculations are presented in Annex C.4.

Table C.12 Economic Benefit Cost Analysis
Present Value of Present Value of Present Value of Net Present Value EIRR
Investment Cost O&M Costs Year 1-20 Benefits Year 1-20 Rp’000
Rp’000 Rp’000 Rp’000
36,196 17,571 53,767 -568 12 %

56. Based on the EIRR rates as shown above, the project would be viable with an
EIRR of 12 percent and a NPV of Rp-568,000.

C.6.8 Sensitivity Analysis

57. The sensitivity analysis appraises the impact of changes in key parameters on
the EIRR as calculated in the previous section. The following changes have been investigated:

(i) An increase in the investment cost;

(ii) A reduction in the economic benefits;

(iii) A reduction in the lifetime of the investments.


58. For variations in each of the above parameters, the sensitivity indicators and the
switching values have been determined. The sensitivity indicator is the ratio of percentage
change in the ENPV divided by the percentage change in the parameter. A switching value
indicates the percentage change in a certain parameter required to reduce the EIRR equal to the
opportunity cost of capital, or the ENPV equal to zero. The calculations show the following
results:

Table C.13 Switching Values (SV) and Sensitivity Indicators (SI)
Parameter % NPV before NPV after SV SI
change change change
( Rp’000) (Rp’000)
Increase in Investment Cost + 10% -568 -5,947 1.05% 95
Reduction in Benefits - 10% - 568 -5,890 1.06% 94
Reduction in assets lifetime - 10% - 568 -2,868 2.46 % 41
E.g. the Switching Value in the first row is calculated as follows:
SV = 100 x (NPVb/NPVb−NPV1) x (Xb−X/Xb) = 100 x [-568/(-568 + 5,947)] x (.10) = 1.06%
and the Sensitivity Indicator as follows:
SI = [(NPVb − NPV1)/NPVb] / [(Xb − X1)/Xb ]= [(-568 + 5,947)/-568] / 0.10 = 95

59. From Table C.13, it can be seen that an increase in the investment costs of 1.05
percent will result in an ENPV of zero. The same result will be reached if benefits differ 1.06
percent from the estimated values, or if the lifetime of assets will vary with 2.46 percent. The
percentages are very low, which is not surprising, because the value of the calculated EIRR is 12
percent, which is equivalent to the cut-off rate.

60. The Sensitivity Indicator shows that the project results are most sensitive to
both changes in the estimated benefits and costs. The factor is larger than one, indicating that
the relative change in ENPV is larger than the relative change in the parameter, which means
that these parameters are important for the project result.

C.7 FINANCIAL BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS

C.7.1 Financial Costs

61. The cost estimates for the project, as presented in Table C.14, are expressed in
financial prices, including taxes.


Table C.14 Calculation of Present Values in Financial Prices and AIFC
No. INVESTMENTS Unit PV in
Rp’000
1 Investment Cost Water Supply and Sanitation Yr 1 Rp’000 48,330
2 PV Investment Costs Water Supply and Sanitation Rp’000 43,152
3 PV of O&M Costs for WS&S Year 1-20 Rp’000 10,601
4 Total Present Value Rp’000 53,753
5 PV of Water Supplied Year 1-20 ‘000 m3 71,290
6 AIFC of Water Supply Rp/m3 754

The AIFC for the project is estimated at Rp754/m3 (which happens to be equal to AIEC).

C.7.2 Financial Benefits

62. In the project under consideration, there are no fixed financial revenues. The
recovery of O&M costs is the responsibility of the households and, where applicable, local
village organizations. For this reason, no attempt was made to carry out a financial benefit-cost
analysis.

C.8. SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS

C.8.1 Introduction

63. Economic analysis encompasses testing for project sustainability. For a project
to be sustainable, it must be both financially and economically viable and have sufficient annual
cash flow to meet O&M and financing costs at a minimum. Unless the project is financially
viable, economic benefits will not materialize. If the project’s EIRR is above the cut-off rate, the
project is economically viable to society. However, if its FIRR is below the cut-off rate, the
project does not provide sufficient incentives for the project sponsors to invest and will only be
sustainable if subsidized by the government.

64. In urban piped water supply projects, calculations for financial and economic
sustainability make use of the average incremental cost formula, which equals the present value
of the stream of future capital and O&M costs (at either financial or economic costs), divided by
the present value of future quantities of water. The value of the AIC is subsequently compared
with the average tariff.

65. The AIC calculations mentioned above can also be used in the case of rural
water supply and sanitation projects, but because the future quantity of water is unknown (or


uncertain) and because there is no formal tariff structure to compare with, the figures will only
be indicative.

C.8.2 Comparison between AIC and Average Tariff

66. The AIFC as well as the AIEC have been both calculated at Rp754 per m3. The
average tariff or revenues could be calculated as the estimated O&M costs per m3 which is
covered by the users themselves. The annual O&M costs for WS&S have been estimated at
Rp1,612,000 per year. The average ‘tariff’ in this case would be Rp1,612,000/10,840 m3 =
Rp149 per m3. The financial subsidy amounts to Rp754 - Rp149 = Rp605 per m3 or (10,840 m3
x Rp605) = Rp6.6 million per year.

C.8.3 Sustainability Analysis

67. The policy of the Government of Indonesia for water supply and sanitation in
rural areas is that the O&M costs for the project will be covered by the community and that the
investment costs will be financed by the Government. Where possible, the community may also
contribute to the investment cost of the project by providing labor.

68. The large amounts needed for financial subsidies are due to the fact that the
consumers do not contribute to the investment related costs of the project. As the investment
costs will be financed up front by the Government, the sustainability of the project will depend
on whether or not the users will cover the expenditures for Operation and Maintenance.

69. The O&M costs for the type of facilities installed in the villages under
consideration (hand pumps), will partly consist of (own) labor, and partly of buying replacements
for parts of the equipment. The responsibility for this is put upon the village authorities or the
user groups.

70. For water supply, a system to collect monthly fees apparently does not exist. For
sanitation, there is the possibility to create a revolving fund from which the population can
obtain a credit and pay back on a monthly basis.

71. For the above reasons, it can be assumed that O&M will take place on an ad
hoc basis, where labor will be provided in kind by the communities and where money will be
collected from the users to pay for replacement of items of equipment at the time when this is
needed.

72. As the average expressed willingness to pay for water and sanitation exceeds by
far the required O&M costs, it can be concluded that the schemes in principle are sustainable. It
is strongly recommended that the village authorities or user groups establish some kind of
collection system on a regular basis to ensure that sufficient funds are available when
breakdowns occur. It is also recommended that simple organizational arrangements be made at
village level to take care of regular O&M facilities.


C.9 DISTRIBUTIONAL ANALYSIS

C.9.1 Introduction

73. The poverty reducing impact of a project is traced by evaluating the expected
distribution of net economic benefits to different groups. As the financial prices determine
which participating group controls the net economic benefits, the first step would be to estimate
the present value of net financial benefits per participating group. Next, the difference between
net benefits by group at economic and financial prices is added to net financial benefits by
group, to give the distribution of net economic benefits per group. Finally, the net economic
benefits are allocated in proportion to each group. A Poverty Impact Ratio (PIR) expressing the
proportion of net economic benefits accruing to the poor can be calculated by comparing which
part of net economic benefits accrues to the poor as compared to the economic benefits of the
project as a whole.

74. In this case, no attempt has been made to calculate the net financial benefits and
therefore, the above procedure will not be fully applied. However, a qualitative assessment will
be attempted below.

C.9.2 Participating Groups

75. For the purpose of poverty impact analysis, project beneficiaries are divided
into three groups: the poor, the non-poor and the government. Net economic benefits by group
are distributed between these three groups in accordance with the extent that they benefit from
the project. In the case that net economic benefits are allocated to the government, it is assumed
that 50 percent of these amounts will benefit the poor. For Loa Lepu, it is has been assumed
that 80 percent of the population consists of poor households with an income of less than
Rp300,000 ($128) per month. With regard to the group ‘labor’, it has been assumed that 80
percent of this group is poor.

76. The benefits for each of the groups are briefly explained in the following table:


Table C.15 Benefits of the Participating Groups
Group Financial vs. Economic Benefits
Consumers Consumers will benefit from the fact that they derive gross benefits estimated
(80percent poor) at Rp53.8 million. For this they will ‘pay’ only Rp17.6 million, which is the
present value of the annual O&M costs and other costs made by the
households. Consumers will therefore have a net benefit of about Rp36.2
million, which is mainly caused by the fact that the government will cover the
costs of investments.
Government The government will cover the costs of investments made in the project. Ten
percent of these costs will be refunded to the government as sales tax.
Furthermore, the economic costs of investments differ from the financial
costs. The economic costs of traded goods are higher than the financial costs
and these extra costs are paid by the economy as a whole. The economic costs
of labor are lower as compared to the financial costs. These costs can be
considered as a kind of subsidy to the labor force.
Labor Labor benefits from the project, in the assumption that they are willing to work
(80percent poor) at lower wages than they actually receive. The difference between the official
wage rates and the actual market rates are considered as a benefit to labor.

As 80 percent of both consumers and the labor force are considered poor, and because most of
the benefits of the project can be allocated to these groups, it can be concluded that the project
will benefit the poor groups in society.

C.10 NONQUANTIFIABLE EFFECTS

77. Below, some nonquantifiable effects of the project are presented. These effects,
which are beneficial to the communities concerned, can be considered as benefits derived from the
project. The calculated EIRR is therefore most likely underestimated. The positive health impact must
especially be considered as a major positive effect of the project.

C.10.1 Social and Gender Effects

78. The provision of water supply facilities which are closer to the families’ homes
and are of better quality will save resources of (in general) poor families which have previously
been devoted to collecting and treating water. These family resources can now be spent on other
activities such as education, income generating activities and leisure time.

79. Improved water supply will most likely be particularly beneficial for women
because of their role in managing the households. The improved water supply situation will
allow them more time for other activities.


80. Women, in general, also have the primary responsibility for the health and
hygiene education of their children. Improved water supply and sanitation facilities may facilitate
their role in this respect.

C.10.2 Health Effects

81. The provision of water supply and sanitation facilities may be considered as a
major health intervention which is expected to decrease health care expenditures and the total
number of healthy days lost. This may especially apply to those people who are presently making
use of river water.

82. From the data of the district health office in the project area, it appears that in
1994, 4 percent of the population visited the office with a water-related disease. Considering that
only those persons who have a more serious form of disease are likely to visit the health office,
the actual occurrence of water-related diseases is probably much higher. It is expected that the
occurrence of water-related diseases will decrease as a result of the project. These cost-savings,
however, could not be quantified and have therefore not been included in the calculated cost
savings.

C.11 TREATMENT of UNCERTAINTY

C.11.1 Introduction

83. The purpose of Risk Analysis is to estimate the probability that the project
EIRR will fall below the opportunity cost of capital or that the NPV will fall below zero. In this
particular case study, no quantitative Risk Analysis has been attempted because the case study
only dealt with one small village out of a total of 3,000 villages to be covered by the project.
Instead, the focus has been on a qualitative analysis of the main risks involved and on proposing
mitigative measures which can be taken to reduce the risks involved in project implementation.

C.11.2 Key Assumptions to Achieve Project Targets and Possible Mitigative
Actions

84. Some general risks and/or assumptions made for the project have been
described in Chapter 2 and include political and economic stability as well as the non-occurrence
of natural disasters. These risks are difficult to assess but, certainly in the long run, they cannot
be neglected. (For example, in 1996 the above risks were not considered as large whereas in
1998, both economic and political situations have undergone considerable changes and
enormous forest fires have destroyed large parts of the project area).

85. Aside from the more general risks described above, the effects of changes in
certain specific variables have been calculated in paragraph 6.6 of this Handbook. These changes
involve:
(i) an increase in investment costs; (ii) a decrease in project benefits; and, (iii) a reduced lifetime


of the installations. The chances that these variables may actually occur and possible mitigative
actions are discussed below:

(i) Increases in Investment Costs. The risk that investment costs will actually
increase is not considered very likely because the project is dealing with a large
number of relatively small investments which are produced on a large scale. It
is, however, recommended that the costs of the project are closely monitored
during the lifetime of the project.

(ii) Decreases in Project Benefits. From section 6.6, it can be seen that the EIRR
is most sensitive to variations in project benefits. The risk that project benefits
are substantially below the results in the three villages can, however, be
substantially reduced by a careful selection of the villages to be included in the
project. In general, it can be said that in villages where water resources are of
poor quality or far from the demand point, WTP and cost savings will be
higher as compared to villages with adequate water resources. If the distance
from the households to the water sources in the village in this case study is
increased to an average of 150 meters, the EIRR would double.

(iii) Reduced Lifetime of Installations. The effect of a reduced lifetime of project
installations is considered a major threat to the success of the Project. In many
villages in Indonesia, the remnants of on site water supply and sanitation
facilities, which were installed in previous water supply and sanitation projects,
can be found. Reduced lifetime of facilities is mainly due to a lack of O&M
which, in turn, is caused by a lack of commitment and involvement of the
communities. This issue may be addressed by: a) ensuring that the facilities
meet a real need in the villages where they are installed; and b) that the
communities are closely involved and made responsible in the planning and
operation. The project design, to some extent, includes provisions to enable
sufficient community involvement; but it is recommended that this issue is
closely monitored during project implementation.

86. From the above it can be concluded that the most important mitigative
measures to reduce the risk for the project lie in a careful selection of the villages to be included
in the project and a close involvement of the communities in the planning, implementation and
O&M of water supply and sanitation facilities.


Annex C.1 Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Project Framework Page 1/2

Design Summary Project Targets Project Monitoring Mecha- Risks/Assumptions
1. Sector/Area Goals
1.1 Improved Health - Prevalence of water-related diseases - Yearly epidemiological reports - no political instability
Situation among target population reduced of the district Health Office - no natural disaster in
1.2 Improved Living Conditions by 15% by 1999; - Progress reports project area
and - 75% of people below poverty line - End of project report - macro-economic
reduced poverty have access to safe W&S facilities - Special reports development continues
1.3 Improved Productivity by 1999;
- time spent on collection of water in
target area reduced by 50%;
- number of sick days in the project
area has been reduced by 20%
2. Project Objective/Purpose
2.1 Provide safe and reliable - Access to safe water supply and sa- - Water Enterprise Reports - current water tables will
water supply and sanitation nitation facilities for 75% of the - Progress reports not decrease drama-
facilities to the population in target population by December - Epidemiological/ Health tically because of dro-
the project area. 1999. Surveys ught.
2.2 Carry out a hygiene and - Reports of the Ministries of
sanitation campaign and - Improved capacity to carry out hygie- Home Affairs and Health - loan effectiveness by
water quality monitoring ne and sanitation campaigns and water - Project Progress Reports first of January 1996.
program. quality monitoring programs


Annex C.1 Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Project Framework Page 2/2
3. Project
Components/Outputs
3.1 Carry out construction / - Water supply facilities for 75% of - Progress Reports - no delays in contracting
rehabilitation of water target population installed & - Water Enterprise Reports (building) contractors
supply facilities. operational. - Reports of MOPW, MOHA, and delivery of
3.2 Carry out construction & - Sanitation facilities for 75% of target MOH materials;
rehabilitation of sanitation population installed & operational. - WS&S facilities
facilities. - water surveillance program carried out properly installed;
3.3 Implement project, carry on regular basis. - adequate O&M systems
out water quality - hygiene and sanitation programs established.
surveillance program and carried out on regular basis
hygiene and sanitation
campaign.
4.1 Develop Physical 5.1 Water Supply: Land, Civil Works, - Progress Reports and Review -loan approval
Infrastructure for Water Equipment and Materials, Studies missions -government funds
Supply and Sanitation and DED, Construction, - Special Reports approved
Facilities Supervision and O&M: $104,6
- Surveys million;
- acquire Land 5.2 Sanitation: Civil Works, equipment
- Procurement and materials, incremental O&M:
- Construction $12,0 million
- Supervision 5.3 Institutional Support:
- Comm. Mgt. implementation assistance, hyg. ed.
4.2 Set up and carry out program, water surv. program, inst.
Water Surveillance, Sanita- devt. progr, comm. mgt. program,
tion and Hygiene campaigns project administration: $15,6 million

/4
Annex C.2
Financial Prices vs. Economic Prices

Table C.2.1 Conversion of Financial Prices into Economic Prices
Financial Prices Rp’000 Conversion Factor Economic
Communal Hand Pumps
Investment Cost (excl. tax)
Traded goods 12,500 1.06 13,250
Non-traded goods 8,333 1.00 8,333
Labor 7,517 0.65 4,886
Project Overhead 3,150 1.00 3,150
Total Investment Cost 31,500 29,619
Annual O&M Costs (excl.tax)
Traded goods 591 1.06 627
Non-traded goods 394 1.00 394
Labor 188 0.65 122
1,174 1143
Hand pumps and Public Taps
Traded goods 19,524 1.06 20,695
Labor 12,911 0.65 8,392
Traded goods 1,129 1.06 1,197
Labor 251 0.65 163
2,133 2,113

Table C.2.1 Conversion of Financial prices into Economic Prices Page2/4

Rainwater Collectors
Traded goods 19,845 1.06 21,036
Labor 13,500 0.65 8,775
Labor 68 0.65 44
233 215
Sanitation
Traded goods 2,659 1.06 2,819
Labor 4,433 0.65 2,881
Labor 133 0.65 87
277 235

Table C.2.2 Economic Costs of Households Page 3/4
Source No. Average Average Average Coll. Costs Other Average Costs Month/Year Total Costs Average
of Quantity distance Collect. /month Costs per HH per HH per Costs
HH per to source Time per HH per month season or Rp/m3
day (liters) (meters) hours/m yr.
EXISTING
FACILITIES
RAINY SEASON
Cost of Collecting Water 145
(Rp/hr)
Dugwell 3 138 89 16.59 2,410 350 2,760 6 16,560 658
Hand pump 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 6 0 0
Electric Pump 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 6 0 0
Rainwater Collector 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 6 0 0
River/Waterpond 19 147 58 11.52 1,673 350 2,023 6 12,138 452
Watervendor 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 6 0 0
Neighbor 3 69 23 2.14 311 350 661 6 3,968 315
Public tap 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 6 0 0
Average Rainy Season 137 58 11 1,598 350 1,948 6 11,689 461

Table C.2.2 Economic Costs of Households Page 4/4

DRY SEASON
Dugwell 1 92 92 11.44 1,661 350 2,011 6 12,065 719
Hand pump 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 6 0 0
Electric Pump 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 6 0 0
Rainwater Collector 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 6 0 0
River/Waterpond 21 163 66 14.54 2,111 350 2,461 6 14,766 496
Water vendor 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 6 0 0
Neighbor 3 69 23 2.14 311 350 661 6 3,968 315
Public tap 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 6 0 0
Average dry season 149 62 13 1,877 350 2,227 6 13,362 484
Average 143 60 12 1,738 350 2,088 12 25,051 472
NEW FACILITIES
(Costs for HH)
RWC 117 168 15 3.00 436 50 486 12 5,828 95
HP 117 255 30 6.00 871 50 921 12 11,057 119
PT 117 255 30 6.00 871 50 921 12 11,057 119

/4

Annex C.3 LEAST-COST ANALYSIS
Table C.3.1 Basic Data
Item Unit Quantity Existing Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
WATER SUPPLY
COVERAGE
Total Population no. 594 594 594 594
Household size no. 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1
covered by
Unprotected Wells % of pop 20 0 0 0
Untreated River Water % of pop 80 0 0 0
Hand pump Wells % of pop 0 100 33 0
Rainwater Collectors % of pop 0 0 0 100
Piped Water Public Taps % of pop 0 0 67 0
Total Coverage % of pop 100 100 100 100
ALTERNATIVE
FACILITIES
Source development no.
No. of benef. per RWC no. 20
No. of benef. per HP/PT no. 50
Number of incr. RWC no. 0 0 30
Number of incr. HP Wells no. 12 4 0
Number of PT no. 0 8 0
Number of private latrines no. 107 107 107
No. of School Latrines no. 1 1 1
INVESTMENTS WS&S
Sanitation Financial Prices Rp’000 13,680 13,680 13,680
Sanitation Ec.Prices Rp’000 10,920 10,920 10,920
Water Supply Fin Pr Rp’000 34,650 55,550 56,925
Water Supply Ec.Pr. Rp’000 29,619 47,153 48,216
WS&S Financial Prices Rp’000 48,330 69,230 70,605
WS&S Economic Prices Rp’000 40,539 58,073 59,136
NUMBER OF
BENEFICIARIES
WS through RWC no. 0 0 594
WS through HP Well no. 594 196 0
WS through piped scheme no. 0 398 0
Total beneficiaries WS no. 594 594 594

Table C.3.1 Basic Data Page 2/4
ANNUAL COSTS WS
Water Supply Fin Prices Rp’000 1,304 2,370 259
Sanitation Fin Prices Rp’000 308 308 308
Water Supply Econ Prices Rp’000 1,143 2,113 215
Sanitation Econ Prices Rp’000 235 235 235
HH Financial Prices Rp’000 1,952 1,952 1,952
HH Economic Prices Rp’000 1,294 1,294 682
Total Financial Prices Rp’000 3,564 4,630 2,519
Total Economic Prices Rp’000 2,672 3,641 1,132
PROJECT BENEFITS
NI In-House Water m3/year 6,071 6,071 6,071
NI Out-house water m3/year 3,035 3,035 1,084
Incremental Water m3/year 1,734 1,734 0
Supply Costs NIW (inside) Rp/m3 472 472 472
Supply Costs NIW (outside) Rp/m3 236 236 236
Future Supply Cost WS Rp/mo./ 2,319 3,078 1,575
Water Demand m3/mo./ 8 8 5
Future WS&S Cost Rp/m3 299 397 308
Current Supply Cost WS Rp/m3 679 679 679
Annual Benefits NIW-in Rp’000 2,866 2,866 2,866
Annual Benefits NIW-out Rp’000 716 716 256
Annual Benefits IW Rp’000 848 933 0
Annual Benefits Sanitation Rp’000 2,107 2,107 2,107
Total Annual Benefits Rp’000 6,537 6,622 5,229

/4
Table C.3.2 Comparison of Costs Among Alternatives
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Year Capital Oper. Total Capital Oper. Total Capital Oper. Total
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost
(Rp’000) (Rp’000) (Rp’000) (Rp’000) (Rp’000) (Rp’000) (Rp’000) (Rp’000) (Rp’000)
1996 40,539 0 40,539 58,073 0 58,073 59,136 0 59,136
1997 2,672 2,672 3,641 3,641 1,132 1,132
1998 2,672 2,672 3,641 3,641 1,132 1,132
1999 2,672 2,672 3,641 3,641 1,132 1,132
2000 2,672 2,672 3,641 3,641 1,132 1,132
2001 2,672 2,672 3,641 3,641 1,132 1,132
2002 2,672 2,672 3,641 3,641 1,132 1,132
2003 2,672 2,672 3,641 3,641 1,132 1,132
2004 2,672 2,672 3,641 3,641 1,132 1,132
2005 2,672 2,672 3,641 3,641 1,132 1,132
2006 2,672 2,672 3,641 3,641 1,132 1,132
2007 2,672 2,672 3,641 3,641 1,132 1,132
2008 2,672 2,672 3,641 3,641 1,132 1,132
2009 2,672 2,672 3,641 3,641 1,132 1,132
2010 2,672 2,672 3,641 3,641 1,132 1,132
2011 2,672 2,672 3,641 3,641 1,132 1,132
2012 2,672 2,672 3,641 3,641 1,132 1,132
2013 2,672 2,672 3,641 3,641 1,132 1,132
2014 2,672 2,672 3,641 3,641 1,132 1,132
2015 2,672 2,672 3,641 3,641 1,132 1,132
Discounted
Value 36,196 17,571 53,767 51,851 23,948 75,799 52,800 7,446 60,246

Table C.3.2 Comparison of Costs Among Alternatives Page 4/4
Supply Supply Supply Supply
in m3 in m3 in m3
1996 0 0 0
1997 10,840 10,840 7,155
1998 10,840 10,840 7,155
1999 10,840 10,840 7,155
2000 10,840 10,840 7,155
2001 10,840 10,840 7,155
2002 10,840 10,840 7,155
2003 10,840 10,840 7,155
2004 10,840 10,840 7,155
2005 10,840 10,840 7,155
2006 10,840 10,840 7,155
2007 10,840 10,840 7,155
2008 10,840 10,840 7,155
2009 10,840 10,840 7,155
2010 10,840 10,840 7,155
2011 10,840 10,840 7,155
2012 10,840 10,840 7,155
2013 10,840 10,840 7,155
2014 10,840 10,840 7,155
2015 10,840 10,840 7,155
Discounted
Value 71,290 71,290 47,054
AIEC(incl. Sanitation) 754 1,063 1,280

Annex C.4 Economic Benefit-Cost Analysis
Page 1/1 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Year Capital Oper. Total Gross Net Capital Oper. Total Gross Net Capital Oper. Total Gross Net
Cost Cost Cost Benefits Benefits Cost Cost Cost Benefits Benefits Cost Cost Cost Benefits Benefits
Rp’000 Rp’000 Rp’000 Rp’000 Rp’000 Rp’000 Rp’000 Rp’000 Rp’000 Rp’000 Rp’000 Rp’000 Rp’000 Rp’000 Rp’000
1996 40,539 0 40,539 0 -40,539 69,230 0 69,230 0 -69,230 70,605 0 70,605 0 -70,605
1997 2,672 2,672 6,733 4,062 4,630 4,630 6,821 2,191 2,519 2,519 5,386 2,867
1998 2,672 2,672 6,935 4,264 4,630 4,630 7,025 2,395 2,519 2,519 5,547 3,028
1999 2,672 2,672 7,143 4,472 4,630 4,630 7,236 2,606 2,519 2,519 5,714 3,195
2000 2,672 2,672 7,358 4,686 4,630 4,630 7,453 2,823 2,519 2,519 5,885 3,366
2001 2,672 2,672 7,578 4,907 4,630 4,630 7,677 3,047 2,519 2,519 6,062 3,543
2002 2,672 2,672 7,806 5,134 4,630 4,630 7,907 3,277 2,519 2,519 6,243 3,724
2003 2,672 2,672 8,040 5,368 4,630 4,630 8,144 3,514 2,519 2,519 6,431 3,912
2004 2,672 2,672 8,281 5,609 4,630 4,630 8,389 3,759 2,519 2,519 6,624 4,105
2005 2,672 2,672 8,530 5,858 4,630 4,630 8,640 4,010 2,519 2,519 6,822 4,303
2006 2,672 2,672 8,785 6,114 4,630 4,630 8,900 4,270 2,519 2,519 7,027 4,508
2007 2,672 2,672 9,049 6,377 4,630 4,630 9,167 4,537 2,519 2,519 7,238 4,719
2008 2,672 2,672 9,321 6,649 4,630 4,630 9,442 4,812 2,519 2,519 7,455 4,936
2009 2,672 2,672 9,600 6,928 4,630 4,630 9,725 5,095 2,519 2,519 7,679 5,160
2010 2,672 2,672 9,888 7,216 4,630 4,630 10,017 5,387 2,519 2,519 7,909 5,390
2011 2,672 2,672 10,185 7,513 4,630 4,630 10,317 5,687 2,519 2,519 8,146 5,627
2012 2,672 2,672 10,490 7,819 4,630 4,630 10,627 5,997 2,519 2,519 8,391 5,872
2013 2,672 2,672 10,805 8,133 4,630 4,630 10,945 6,315 2,519 2,519 8,642 6,123
2014 2,672 2,672 11,129 8,457 4,630 4,630 11,274 6,644 2,519 2,519 8,902 6,383
2015 2,672 2,672 11,463 8,791 4,630 4,630 1,1,612 6,982 2,519 2,519 9,169 6,650
NPV 36,196 17,571 53,767 53,199 -568 61,812 53,890 -38,372 63,040 16,566 79,607 42,552 -37056
EIRR 0.12 30,450 92,262 0.02 0.02

Annex 5 Financial Benefit-Cost Analysis
Alternative 1
Year Capital Operating Total Gross Net
Cost Cost Cost Benefits Benefits
(Rp’000) (Rp’000) (Rp’000) (Rp’000) (Rp’000)
1996 48,330 0 48,330 0 -48,330
1997 1,612 1,612 1,612 0
1998 1,612 1,612 1,612 0
1999 1,612 1,612 1,612 0
2000 1,612 1,612 1,612 0
2001 1,612 1,612 1,612 0
2002 1,612 1,612 1,612 0
2003 1,612 1,612 1,612 0
2004 1,612 1,612 1,612 0
2005 1,612 1,612 1,612 0
2006 1,612 1,612 1,612 0
2007 1,612 1,612 1,612 0
2008 1,612 1,612 1,612 0
2009 1,612 1,612 1,612 0
2010 1,612 1,612 1,612 0
2011 1,612 1,612 1,612 0
2012 1,612 1,612 1,612 0
2013 1,612 1,612 1,612 0
2014 1,612 1,612 1,612 0
2015 1,612 1,612 1,612 0
FNPV 43,152 10,601 53,753 10,601 -43,152

GLOSSARY

Ability-to-pay (ATP). The affordability or the ability of the users to pay for the water services,
as expressed by the ratio of the monthly household water consumption expenditure to the
monthly household income.

Average incremental cost (AIC). The present value of investment and operation costs, divided
by the present value of the quantity of output. Costs and output are calculated from the
difference between the with- and without-project situations, and are discounted. It is
expressed in the following formula:
n n

∑ (C t / (1 + d) t ) / ∑ (O t / (1 + d) t )
t =o t=o
where Ct is project investment and operation cost in year t;
Ot is project output in year t;
n is the project life in years;
and d is the discount rate.

Average incremental economic cost (AIEC). The present value of investment and operation
costs at economic prices, divided by the present value of the quantity of output consumed.
Costs and output are calculated from the difference between the with- and without-project
situations, and are discounted at the economic opportunity cost of capital.

Average incremental financial cost (AIFC). The present value of investment and operation
costs at financial prices divided by the present value of the quantity of output sold. Costs and
output are calculated from the difference between the with- and without-project situations,
and are discounted at the financial opportunity cost of capital.

Benefit stream. A series of benefit values extending over a period of time.

Border price. The unit price of a traded good at a country’s border; that is, f.o.b. price for
exports and c.i.f. price for imports. The border price is measured at the point of entry to a
country or, for landlocked countries, at the railhead or trucking point.

Capital recovery factor. The factor expressed as: [i(1 + i )n ] / [(1 + I )n - 1] where i = the rate
of interest and n = the number of years, is used to calculate the annual payment that will
repay a loan of one currency unit in n years with compound interest on the unpaid balance.
The factor permits calculating equal annual value (amortized value) of a loan (or initial cost)
of a project.

Ceteris paribus assumption. Literally means “other things being equal”; usually used in
economics to indicate that all other relevant variables, except the ones specified, are
assumed not to change.

GLOSSARY 363

Constant prices. Price values from which any change (observed or expected) in the general
price level is omitted. When applied to all project costs and benefits over the life of the
project, the resulting project statement is in constant prices with value of money at the year
when the project statement is made.

Consumer surplus. Savings to consumers arising from the difference between what they are
willing to pay for an output and what they actually have to pay.

Contingency allowance in an estimate. An amount included in a project account to allow for
adverse conditions that will add to base costs. Physical contingencies allow for physical
events, such as adverse weather during construction, and are included in both the financial
and economic benefit-cost analysis. Price contingencies allow for general inflation during the
implementation period and are omitted from the financial and economic benefit-cost
analyses since the analyses are done in constant prices.

Contingent Valuation Method (CVM). A direct method of nonmarket valuation in which
consumers are asked directly their willingness to pay for a specific quantity or quality of
goods or services such as water supply.

Conversion factor. Ratio between the economic price and the financial price for a project
output or input, which can be used to convert the financial values of project benefits and
costs to economic values. Conversion factors can also be applied for groups of typical items,
such as water supply, transport, etc., and for the economy as a whole, as in the standard
conversion factor.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). An analysis that seeks to find the best alternative activity,
process, or intervention that minimizes resource use to achieve a desired result.
Alternatively, where resources are constrained, analysis that seeks to identify the best
alternative that maximizes results for a given application of resources. CEA is applied when
project effects can be identified and quantified but not adequately valued, such as health
benefit due to safe water and sanitation.

Cost recovery. The extent to which user charges for goods and services recover the full costs of
providing such services, including a return on capital employed. Can be defined in terms of
financial cost recovery using financial costs or economic cost recovery using economic
costs.

Cost stream. A series of cost values extending over a period of time.

Cross-subsidization. Any subsidy that is received by a given group, usually poor people, is
paid by higher-income group through higher prices.

Current prices. Price values that include the effects of general price inflation; that is, a past
price value as actually observed and a future value or price as expected to occur. Current


prices are only used in financial analysis. In financial and economic benefit-cost analyses,
constant prices are used.

Cut-off rate. The rate of return below which a project is considered unacceptable, often taken to
be the opportunity cost of capital. The cut-off rate would be the minimum acceptable
internal rate of return for a project. The cut-off rate is the FOCC in financial analysis and
the EOCC in economic analysis.

Demand curve. A graphic representation of the inverse relationship between the price of
water and the quantity of the water that consumers wish to purchase per period of time,
ceteris paribus.

Demand for water. The various quantities of water which buyers are willing to purchase per
period of time depending on the price of water charged, their income, time spent on
collecting water, seasonal variation, etc.

Demand Management. Demand management refers to the controlling of water demand;
hence, production. This may be effected in a number of ways: (i) leakage detection; (ii)
reduction of illegal or unmetered consumption; and (iii) pricing policies. The demand
management is sometimes effected through intermittent water supplies and restriction of the
use of garden hoses, etc.

Demand price. The price at which purchasers are willing to buy a given amount of project
output, or the price at which a project is willing to buy a given amount of a project input.
For any good or service, the demand price is the market price received by the supplier plus
consumption taxes and less consumption subsidies.

Depletion premium. A premium imposed on the economic cost of depletable resources,
representing the loss to the national economy in the future because of using up the resource
today. The premium is frequently estimated as the additional cost of an alternative supply of
the resource, or a substitute, when the least cost source of supply has been depleted.

Depreciation. The anticipated reduction over time in the value of an asset that is brought
about by physical use or obsolescence.

Discounting. The process of finding the present value of a future amount by multiplying the
future amount by a discount factor.

Discount factor. How much 1 at a future date is worth today, as in the expression 1 / (1 + i )n
where i = the discount rate (interest rate) and n= the number of years. Generally, this
expression is obtained in the form of a discount factor from a set of compounding and
discounting tables, or can be calculated using a computer.

GLOSSARY 365

Discount rate. A percentage representing the rate at which the value of benefits and costs
decrease in the future compared to the present. The rate can be based on the alternative
return in other uses given up by committing resources to a particular project, or on the
preference for benefits today rather than later. The discount rate is used to determine the
present value of future benefit and cost streams.

Distribution analysis. An analysis of the distribution of gains and losses as a result of the
project between different project participants, users, government, etc. It also forms the basis
for calculating the Poverty Impact Ratio.

Economic analysis. An analysis done in economic values. In general, economic analysis omits
transfer payments and values all items at their value in use or their opportunity cost to the
society. External costs and benefits are included in the economic analysis.

Economic benefit. A monetary measure of preference satisfaction or welfare improvement
from a change in quantity or quality of a good or service. A person’s welfare change is the
maximum amount that a person would be willing to pay to obtain that improvement.

Economic benefit-cost analysis. The analysis for estimating the internal rate of return and
NPV of the project costs and benefits measured in economic prices over a specified period
of time.

Economic efficiency. An investment or intervention is economically efficient when it
maximizes the value of output from the resources available or minimizes the value of inputs
to meet an output.

Economic life. The period during which a fixed asset is capable of yielding services. It is that
life of an asset beyond which it is uneconomic to use the asset and below which it is
uneconomic to give up the asset. As distinguished from physical life, it is a period which is
often longer, during which a fixed asset can continue to function notwithstanding its
acquired obsolescence, inefficient operation, and high cost of maintenance or obsolete
product.

Economic price. Price of goods and services which reflect their values or opportunity costs to
the economy as a whole. This is also called the shadow price.

Economic resource. An economic resource is a scarce resource in the sense that it is limited in
quantity related to the desire for the resource. Water as a scare resource is an economic
good.

Economic subsidy. The difference between the average tariff and the average incremental
economic cost (AIEC) of water sold when the price per m3 of water charged to the users is
below the economic costs.


Economies of scale. This occurs when the increasing size of production in the long run
permits the per unit cost of production to fall, or each unit of output to be produced more
cheaply.

Efficient water pricing. From an economic viewpoint, the efficiency-pricing rule in the long
run is one that equalizes price to (long run) marginal costs (LRMC). As the LRMC is
difficult to estimate, AIEC is used as an approximation.

Economic internal rate of return (EIRR). The rate of return that would be achieved on all
project resource costs, where all benefits and costs are measured in economic prices. The
EIRR is calculated as the rate of discount for which the present value of the net benefit
stream becomes zero, or at which the present value of the benefit stream is equal to the
present value of the cost stream. For a project to be acceptable, the EIRR should be greater
than the economic opportunity cost of capital.

Economic opportunity cost of capital (EOCC). The real rate of return in economic prices on
the marginal unit of investment in its best alternative use. The value of the EOCC is
difficult to calculate and the Bank uses 12 percent in most projects.

Economic viability. A project is economically viable if the economic internal rate of return
(EIRR) is above the EOCC.

Effective demand for water. The quantity of water demanded of a given quality at a specified
price based on the economic cost of water supply provision to ensure optimal use of the
facility.

Elasticity (point) of demand for water. A measure of the responsiveness of quantity of
water demanded (e.g., m3) to a small change in market price, defined by the formula:

percentage change in quantity demanded
η = -----------------------------------------------------------
percentage change in price

Also called demand elasticity, price elasticity.

Environmental sustainability. The assessment that a project’s outputs can be produced
without permanent and unacceptable change in the natural environment on which it and
other economic activities depend, over the life of the project.

Environmental sanitation. The concept generally refers to facilities and services regarding (i)
human waste disposal; (ii) solid waste management; and (iii) stormwater drainage, sewerage,
and wastewater treatment. Human waste disposal covers both on-site low-cost sanitation
facilities (latrines, septic tanks, soakpits) and use of tankers for sludge removal and off-site
disposal and treatment. Solid waste management and disposal is generally not a component

GLOSSARY 367

in Bank-assisted water supply and sanitation projects; but it is usually included in integrated
urban development projects. Solid waste disposal facilities may comprise dumpsites, access
roads, collection facilities, composing equipment, etc.

Environmental valuation. The estimation of the use and nonuse values of the environmental
effects of a project. These valuations can be based on underlying damage functions for
environmental stressors, identifying the extra physical costs of projects or the physical
benefits of mitigatory actions. They can also be based on market behavior, which may reveal
the value placed by different groups on avoiding environmental costs or enjoying
environmental benefits.

Equalizing discount rate (EDR). The discount rate at which the present values of the costs of
two project alternatives are equal. It is the same as the internal rate of return on the
incremental effects of undertaking an alternative with larger net costs earlier in the net
benefit stream rather than an alternative with also early but lower net costs. The EDR is
compared with the opportunity cost of capital to determine whether the alternative with
larger net costs is worthwhile. Also referred to as the crossover discount rate, it is also the
discount rate above or below which the preferred alternative changes from one to another.

Export and import parity prices. Estimated prices at the farmgate or project boundary, which
are derived by adjusting the c.i.f. or f.o.b. prices by all the relevant charges between the
farmgate and the project boundary and the point where the c.i.f. or f.o.b. is quoted.

External effects. Effects of an economic activity not included in the project statement from the
point of view of the main project participants, and therefore not included in the financial
costs and revenues that accrue to them. Externalities represent part of the difference
between private costs and benefits, and social costs and benefits. As much as possible,
externalities should be quantified and valued and included in the project statement for
economic analysis.

Financial analysis. An analysis done using constant market prices of goods and services to
arrive at the financial internal rate of return (FIRR). Financial analysis is also done for the
entire project entity and includes the preparation of Income Statements, Fund or Cash Flow
Statements and Balance Sheet Statements with current prices over a certain period.

Financial benefits. Refer to the financial revenues that would accrue to the main project
participant.

Financial benefit-cost analysis. The analysis for estimating the FIRR that would be achieved
on all project costs and benefits measured in financial prices over a specified period of time.

Financial internal rate of return (FIRR). The rate of return that would be achieved on all
project costs, where all costs are measured in financial prices and when benefits represent
the financial revenues that would accrue to the main project participant. The FIRR is the


rate of discount for which the present value of the net revenue stream becomes zero, or at
which the present value of the revenue stream is equal to the present value of the cost
stream. It should be compared with the financial opportunity cost of capital to assess the
financial sustainability of a project.

Financial price. Market price of any good or service.

Financial subsidy. The difference between the average tariff and the average incremental
financial cost (AIFC) of water sold when the price per m3 of water charged to the users is
below the financial costs.

Financial sustainability. The assessment that a project will: (i) have sufficient funds to meet all
its resource and financing obligations, whether these funds come from user charges or
budget sources; (ii) provide sufficient incentive to maintain the participation of all project
participants; and (iii) be able to respond to adverse changes in financial conditions.

Financial opportunity cost of capital (FOCC). The opportunity cost of using investment
resources at market prices in a project. This is often taken as the weighted average
borrowing rate of capital used in the project.

Foreign exchange premium. The proportion by which the official exchange rate overstates
the real exchange rate to the economy or, in other words, the true opportunity cost of using
a dollar.

Gross economic benefit. The total economic value of project output, measured as the sum of
the economic value of nonincremental output that displaces other supplies and the
economic value of incremental output that increases supplies.

Household. All the people who live under one roof and who make joint financial decisions.

Household size. The number of people who live under one roof and who make joint financial
decisions.

Income elasticity of demand. A measure of the responsiveness of quantity demanded to a
small change in income, defined by the formula:

ηΥ = percentage change in quantity demanded
---------------------------------------------------------
percentage change in income

Incremental. Increase in quantity with the project.

Incremental benefit. An additional benefit received from a project over and above what
would be received without project situation.

GLOSSARY 369

Incremental demand for water. An increase in existing consumption generated by the
additional supply of water.

Incremental input. Input that is supplied from an increase in production of the input over and
above what would be produced and supplied in the without-project situation.

Incremental output. Additional output produced by a project over and above what would be
available and demanded in the without-project situation.

Inflation rate. The rate of increase per year in the general price level of an economy.

Intangible. In project analysis, refers to a cost or benefit that, although having value, cannot
realistically be assessed in actual or approximate money terms. Intangible benefits include
health, education, employment generation, etc. Intangible costs, on the other hand, are often
the absence of the related benefits such as, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation, etc.

Least-cost analysis. Analysis used to identify the least-cost option for meeting project demand
for water by comparing the costs of technically feasible but mutually exclusive alternatives
for supplying comparable quantity and quality of water. The analysis should be carried out
using discounted values over the life of a project using the opportunity cost of capital,
where possible, as the discount rate.

Least-cost alternative in economic analysis. An alternative that represents the least-cost
addition to the optimal expansion plan for water supply in the project area. Costing is in
economic, not in financial terms, and the discount rate to be used is the EOCC.

Net present value (NPV). The difference between the present value of the benefit stream and
the present value of the cost stream for a project. The net present value calculated at the
discount rate should be greater than zero or positive in order for a project to be acceptable.
When analyzing (mutually exclusive) alternatives, the alternative with the greatest net present
value is preferred.

Nominal prices. See Current prices.

Nonincremental. Non-increase in quantity with the project.

Nonincremental benefit. Benefit arising out of giving up an existing supply of goods and
services as a result of a project.

Nonincremental demand for water. Existing consumption of water wherein the additional
(or new) supply of water displaces the existing water sources.


Nonincremental output. Output, produced by a project, that substitutes for supplies that
would be available in the without-project situation.

Nonincremental input. Input that is supplied to a project that, in the without-project
situation, would be produced and supplied to another project.

Non-revenue water. The water produced but not paid for.

Non-technical loss. The water produced but lost through water theft as in using unmetered
taps or tampered meters, for instance. This increases the cost of supply and reduces sales
revenue, but benefits consumers who do not pay.

Nontraded outputs and inputs. Goods and services, related with a project, that are not
imported or exported by the country because: (i) by their nature they must be produced and
sold within the domestic economy − for example, domestic transport and construction; (ii)
of government policy that prohibits international trade; or (iii) there is no international
market for the product given its quality or cost.

Numeraire. A unit of measure that makes it possible to find out the real change in net national
income (i.e. ENPV). It can be measured at two different price levels. These are: the
domestic price level, where all economic prices are expressed in their equivalent domestic
price level (the domestic price numeraire); and the world price level, where all economic
prices are expressed at their equivalent world price level (the world price numeraire).

Official exchange rate (OER). The rate, established by the monetary authorities of a country,
at which domestic currency may be exchanged for foreign currency. Where there are no
currency controls, the official exchange rate is taken to be the market rate.

Opportunity cost. The value of something foregone. The benefit foregone from not using a
good or resource in its best alternative use. Measured at economic prices, it represents the
appropriate value to use in project economic analysis.

Opportunity cost for labor. The opportunity cost of using labor input in a project rather than
in its next best alternative use.

Opportunity cost for land. The opportunity cost of using land as input in a project rather than
in its next best alternative use.

Opportunity cost for water. The opportunity cost of water as input in a project rather than in
its next best alternative use.

Peak factor. The rate at which the demand for water reaches a maximum level during the day.

GLOSSARY 371

Present value. The value at present of an amount to be received or paid at some time in the
future. Determined by multiplying the future amount by a discount factor.

Profit (or loss). The excess of revenue over cost or of cost over revenue.

Poor. Refers to household whose income falls below the country-specific poverty line.

Poverty impact ratio. The ratio of the net economic benefits accruing to the poor to the total
net economic benefits of a project.

Productive efficiency. Achievement of a specific level of output or objective using the most
cost-effective means. In economic analysis of a given water supply project, the analyst uses
least-cost analysis of feasible project alternatives to test for productive efficiency.

Project alternatives. Technically feasible ways of achieving a project’s objective. Project
alternatives can be defined in terms of different possible locations, technologies, scales and
timings. It can also refer to alternatives between physical investments, policy changes and
capacity building activities. Mutually exclusive project alternatives are such that the selection
of one option leads to the rejection of others.

Project cycle. A sequence of analytical phases through which a project passes. This includes
identification, preparation, appraisal, implementation and evaluation of projects.

Project framework. A logical framework for a proposed project, which serves as a tool for
preparing the project design, project monitoring and evaluation. It describes the goals,
objectives, outputs, inputs and activities, verifiable indicators, means of verification and key
risks and assumptions and project costs.

Real exchange rate. The price of foreign currency in terms of domestic currency where the rate
of exchange is adjusted for the relative value of actual or expected domestic and
international inflation.

Risk analysis. The analysis of project risks associated with the value of key project variables,
and therefore the risk associated with the overall project result. Quantitative risk analysis
considers the range of possible values for key variables, and the probability with which they
may occur. Simultaneous and random variation within these ranges leads to a combined
probability that the project will be unacceptable. When deciding on a particular project or a
portfolio of projects, decision-makers may take into account not only the expected scale of
project net benefits but also the risk that they will not be achieved.

Sensitivity analysis. The analysis of the possible effects of adverse changes on a project. Values
of key variables are changed one at a time, or in combinations, to assess the extent to which
the overall project result (NPV, IRR) would be affected. Where the project is shown to be
sensitive to the value of a variable that is uncertain, that is, where relatively small and likely


changes in a variable affect the overall project result, mitigating actions at the project, sector,
or national level should be considered.

Sensitivity indicator. The ratio of the percentage change in NPV to the percentage change in a
selected variable. A high value for the indicator indicates project sensitivity to the variable.

Shadow exchange rate. The economic price of foreign currency used in the economic
valuation of goods and services. The shadow exchange rate can be calculated as the
weighted average of the demand price and the supply price for foreign exchange.
Alternatively, it can be estimated as the ratio of the value of all goods in an economy at
domestic market prices to the value of all goods in an economy at their border price
equivalent values. Generally, the shadow exchange rate is greater than the official exchange
rate, indicating that domestic purchasers place a higher value on foreign currency resources
than is given by the official exchange rate.

Shadow exchange rate factor (SERF). The ratio of the economic price of foreign currency to
its market price. Alternatively, the ratio of the shadow to the official exchange rate. In
general, greater than 1. The inverse of the SCF.

Shadow price. The price of goods and services from the point of view of a nation. The value
used in economic analysis for a cost or benefit in a project when the market price is a poor
estimate of their national opportunity costs.

Shadow wage rate (SWR). The economic price of labor measured in the appropriate numeraire
(domestic or world price) as the weighted average of its demand and supply price. For labor
that is scarce, the SWR is likely to be equal to or greater than the project wage. For labor
that is not scarce, the SWR is likely to be less than the project wage. Where labor markets
for labor that is not scarce are competitive, the SWR can be approximated by a market wage
rate for casual unskilled labor in the relevant location, and adjusted to the appropriate
numeraire.

Shadow wage rate factor (SWRF). The ratio of the shadow wage rate of a unit of a certain
type of labor, measured in the appropriate numeraire, and the project wage for the same
category of labor. Alternatively, the ratio of the economic and financial cost of labor. The
SWRF can be used to convert the financial cost of labor into its economic cost.

Standard conversion factor (SCF). The ratio of the economic price value of all goods in an
economy at their border price equivalent values to their domestic market price value. It
represents the extent to which border price equivalent values, in general, are lower than
domestic market price values. The SCF will generally be less than one. For economic
analysis using the world price numeraire, it is applied to all project items valued at their
domestic market price values to convert them to a border price equivalent value, while items
valued at their border price equivalent value are left unadjusted. The SCF and SERF are the
inverse of each other.

GLOSSARY 373

Subsidy. In the provision of utility services, the difference between average user charges and the
average incremental cost of supply. A subsidy can be estimated in economic terms using
economic costs of supply, or in financial terms using financial costs of supply. The
economic effects of a subsidy include the consequences of meeting them through generating
funds elsewhere in the economy. Subsidies need explicit justification on efficiency grounds,
or should be justified to ensure access to a selected number of basic goods.

Supply price. The price at which project inputs are available, or the price at which an alternative
to the project is available. In the economic evaluation of projects, the supply price should be
converted to economic values and transfer payments should be excluded.

Switching value. In sensitivity analysis, the percentage change in a variable for the project
decision to change, that is, for the NPV to become zero or the IRR to fall to the cut-off rate.

Technical loss. The water produced which is lost through pipe leakages in the transmission
and distribution networks, or in the storage. This increases the cost of supply and reduces
sales revenue.

Traded inputs and outputs. Inputs and outputs of a project which go across the border of the
country. These are the goods and services whose production or consumption affects a
country’s level of imports or exports. Project effects estimated in terms of traded goods and
services can be measured directly through their border price equivalent value — the world
price for the traded product for the country concerned, adjusted to the project location.
Border prices for exported outputs can be adjusted to the project location by subtracting the
cost of transport, distribution, handling and processing for export measured at economic
prices. Border prices for imported inputs can be adjusted by adding such costs to the project
site. Outputs that substitute for imports can be adjusted by the difference in transport,
distribution and handling costs between the existing point of sale and the project site.
Project inputs that reduce exports can be adjusted by the difference in domestic costs
between the point of production and the project location. The border prices can be adjusted
to the project location in either financial or economic terms. See also import parity price and
export parity price.

Transactions costs. The costs, other than price, incurred in the process of exchanging goods
and services. These include the costs of negotiating and enforcing contracts, and the costs
of collecting charges for goods and services provided. The scale of economic and financial
transactions costs can affect the market structure for a good.

Transfer payment. A payment made without receiving any good or service in return. Transfer
payments transfer command over resources from one party to another without reducing or
increasing the amount of resources available as a whole. Taxes, duties and subsidies are
examples of items that, in most circumstances, may be considered to be transfer payments.


Unaccounted for Water (UFW). The difference between the water produced (and distributed)
and the water sold, or the water produced but not sold. UFW may consist of technical
losses and non-technical losses. The distinction between technical and non-technical losses
is important for the economic analysis of water supply projects. Whereas both technical and
non-technical losses increase the cost of supply and reduce sales revenue, non-technical
losses benefit consumers who do not pay. Usually, UFW is expressed as a percentage of
production, i.e.,
Water Produced - Water Sold
UFW = -------------------------------------------- X 100%
Water Produced

Unit of account. The currency used to express the economic value of project inputs and
outputs. Generally, the currency of the country in which the project is located will be used
as the unit of account. Occasionally, however, an international currency may also be used as
the unit of account. Economic values using the domestic price numeraire can be expressed
in either a domestic or international currency. Similarly, economic values using the world
price numeraire can be expressed in either a domestic or international currency.

User fee. A charge levied upon users for the services rendered or goods supplied by a project.

Water management. Concerned with finding an appropriate balance between the costs of
water supply and the benefits of water use. Water supply management includes the activities
required to locate, develop and exploit new sources of water in a cost-effective way. Water
demand management addresses the ways in which water is used and the various tools
available to promote more desirable levels (decreases or increase in water use) and patterns
of use.

Water Sector. All water uses, including water supply. Potable water supply is treated as a
subsector. Water supply to irrigation, industry, hydropower, etc. is also treated as a
subsector.

Weighted average cost of capital (WACC). Measured on after-tax income tax basis, WACC
is determined by ascertaining the actual lending (or onlending) rates, together with the cost
of equity contributed as a result of the project. To obtain the WACC in real terms, the
inflation factor is to be deducted from the estimated cost of borrowing and equity capital.

Willingness to pay (WTP). The maximum amount consumers are prepared to pay for a good
or service. The total area under the demand curve represents total WTP.

WTP curve. A curve that represents the relationship between the quantity of water and the price
of water that consumers are prepared to pay per period of time, ceteris paribus.

WTP studies. Household surveys in which members of a household are asked a series of
structured questions designed to determine the maximum amount of money the household

GLOSSARY 375

is willing to pay for a good or service. Also termed “contingent valuation” studies because
the respondent is asked about what he or she would do in a hypothetical (or contingent)
situation.

With- and without-project. The future situations with and without a proposed water supply
project. In project analysis, the relevant comparison is the net benefit with the project
compared with the net benefit without the project. This is distinguished from a “before- and
after-” project comparison because even without the project, the net benefit in the project
area may change.

World price. The price at which goods and services are available on the international market.
The world price for the country is the border price, the price in foreign exchange paid for
imports. It is the c.i.f. value (inclusive of cost, insurance and freight) at the port, railhead or
trucking point or the f.o.b. value (price in foreign exchange received for exports at the port,
railhead, or trucking point).


REFERENCES

ADB. 1997 (February). Guidelines for the Economic Analysis of Projects.

ADB. 1995. Interim Guidelines for the Economic Analysis of Water Supply Projects.

ADB. 1998. Guidelines for the Economic Analysis of Water Supply Projects.

ADB – Report and Recommendation to the President. 1997. Loan No 1544 - PRC: Zhejiang-
Shanxi Water Supply Project.

ADB. Melamchi Water Supply Project. Fact Finding Mission, Preliminary Economic and Financial
Analysis.

ADB. Guidelines for Preparation and Presentation of Financial Analysis.

ADB. 1997. The Project Framework: A Handbook for Staff Guidance.

ADB. 1997. Board Information Paper: Bank Criteria For Subsidies.

ADB. 1993 (November). Water Utilities Data Book: Asia and Pacific Region.

Belli, P., J. Anderson, H. Barnum, J. Dixon and J. Tan. 1998. Handbook on Economic Analysis of
Investment Operations. Operational Core Services Network and Learning & Leadership
Center.

Bhatia, Ramesh; Rita Cestti and James Winpenny. Water Conservation and Reallocation: Best Practice
Cases in Improving Economic Efficiency and Environmental Quality. A World Bank-ODI Joint
Study.

Bhatia, R. 1993. Water Conservation and Pollution Control in Industires: How to Use Water Tariffs,
Pollution Taxes and Fiscal Incentives (Draft).

FAO. 1995. Reforming Water Resources Policy: A Guide to Methods, Processes and Practices. FAO
Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 52.

Garn, Harvey A. 1993 (August). Pricing and Demand Management: A Theme Paper on Managing Water
Resources to Meet Megacity Needs. The World Bank.

Garn, Harvey A. 1992. “Financing of Water Supply and Sanitation Services” in Water Supply and
Sanitation: Beyond the Decade. World Bank.

GLOSSARY 377

Hanley, Nick and Clive L. Spash. 1993. Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. Aldershot, Hants,
England : Brookfield, Vt. : E. Elgar.

Hubbell, L.K. 1977. “The Residential Demand for Water and Sewerage Service in Developing
Countries: A Cse Study of Nairobi.” A paper prepared for the Urban and Regional
Economics Division of the World Bank. 26 pages.

IWACO-WASECO. 1989 (October). Bogor Water Supply Project: The Impact of the Price Increase in
June 1988 on the Demand for Water in Bogor.

Katzman, M. T. 1977 (February). “Income and Price Elasticities of Demand for Water in
Developing Countries.” Water Resources Bulletin. Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 47-55.

Lovei, Laszlo. 1992 (October). “An Approach to the Economic Analysis of Water Supply
Projects”. Policy Research Working Paper, Infrastructure and Urban Development, The
World Bank (WPS 1005).

McPhail, Alexander A. (1993). The “Five Percent Rule” For Improved Water Service: Can Households
Afford More? The World Bank, World Development, Vol. 21, No 6, pp. 963-973.

Meroz, A. 1968. “A Quantitative Analysis of Urban Water Demand in Developing Countries.”
Working Paper, The World Bank, Development Economics Department.

Powers, T. and C. A. Valencia. 1980. “SIMOP Urban Water Model: Users
Manual. A Model for Economic Appraisal of Potable Water Projects in Urban
Areas”. Inter-American Development Bank. Papers on Project Analysis No. 5.
Economic and Social Development Department, Country Studies Division,
Project Methodology Unit. Washington D.C. 37 pages plus appendices.

RETA 5608 Case Studies on ADB Water Supply and Sanitation Projects
Bangladesh Second Water And Sanitation Project
Rawalpindi (Pakistan) Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Project
Thai Nguyen City (Viet Nam) Provincial Towns Water Supply and Sanitation Project
Phan Thiet Town (Viet Nam) Provincial Towns Water Supply and Sanitation Project
Indonesia Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Project

RETA 5608 Case Studies on the Opportunity Cost of Water in the Philippines and the People’s
Republic of China.

Serageldin, Ismail. 1994. Water supply, sanitation and environmental sustainability: the financing challenge.
Washington : World Bank.

UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, Willingness to Pay for Water in Rural Punjab,
Pakistan.


The World Bank Water Demand Research Team. 1993. The Demand for Water in Rural Areas:
Determinants and Policy Implications. Research Observer, Vol. 8, No. 1. World Bank.

Water and Sanitation for Health (WASH) Project. 1988 (October). “Guidelines for Conducting
Willingness to Pay Studies for Improved Water Services in Developing Countries”. WASH
Field Report No. 306 prepared for the Office of Health, Bureau for Science and
Technology, U.S. Agency for International Development.

Whitlam, G. and L. Lucero. 1994 (June). An Economic Analysis of Piped Water Projects. ADB -
EDRC/EDEV.

Whittington, Dale; X. Mu and R. Roche. 1990. “Calculating the Value of Time Spent Collecting
Water: Some estimates for Uganda, Kenya”. World Development. Vol. 18, No. 2. Pp. 269-
280.

Whittington, Dale and V. Swarna. 1994 (January). The Economic Benefits of Potable Water Supply
Projects to Households in Developing Countries. Economic Staff Paper No. 53, EDRC, Asian
Development Bank.

World Bank. 1996 (June). Impact Evaluation Report on the Water Supply and Wastewater Services in
Bombay, India. Report No. 15849, page 23. Washington DC.

World Bank - Staff Appraisal Report. 1991. Liaoning Urban Infrastructure Project, China.

World Bank – Staff Appraisal Report. 1996. Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project, Nepal.

Young, Robert A. 1996. Measuring Economic Benefits for Water Investments and Policies. World Bank
Technical Paper No. 338.

Yepes, Guillermo. 1995. Reduction of unaccounted-for-water, the job can be done. The World Bank.

Young, Robert A. 1996. “Water Economics” in Handbook of Water Resources. L. Mays, ed.
McGraw-Hill.

GLOSSARY 379

ABBREVIATIONS

ADB - Asian Development Bank
AES - Average economic subsidy
AFS - Average financial subsidy
AIC - Average incremental cost
AIEB - Average incremental economic benefit
AIEC - Average incremental economic cost
AIFB - Average incremental financial benefit
AIFC - Average incremental financial cost
ATP - Ability to pay
avg - Average
BME - Benefit monitoring and evaluation system
CEA - Cost effectiveness analysis
CF - Conversion factor
c.i.f. - Cost, insurance and freight
con - Connection
CVM - Contingent valuation method
d - Day
DMC - Developing member county
EBCA - Economic benefit-cost analysis
EIA - Environmental impact assessment
EIRR - Economic internal rate of return
ENPV - Economic net present value
EOCC - Economic opportunity cost of capital
FBCA - Financial benefit-cost analysis
FIRR - Financial internal rate of return
FNPV - Financial net present value
f.o.b. - Free on board
FOCC - Financial opportunity cost of capital
ha. - hectare
HH - Household
HC - Household connection
HLD - Health life days
HP - Hand pump
hr - hour
IRR - Internal rate of return
kwh - kilowatt hour
lcd - liters per capita per day


l/con/d - liters per connection per day
l/min - liters per minute
log - logarithm
LRMEC - Long-run marginal economic cost
m - meter
mm - millimeter
mn - million
m3 - cubic meter
Mm3 - million cubic meter
mo. - month
Ln - Natural logarithm
LCA - Least-cost analysis
MPW - Ministry of Public Works
NA - Not available/not applicable
NEB - Net economic benefits
NFB - Net financial benefits
ND - Not determined
NGO - Non-governmental organization
No. - Number
NPV - Net present value
NRW - Non-revenue water
NTL - Non-technical losses
O&M - Operation & maintenance
OCW - Opportunity cost of water
OER - Official exchange rate
Para. - Paragraph
PFW - Project Framework
PIR - Poverty impact ratio
PPTA - Project preparatory technical assistance
PT - Public tap
PV - Present value
RCS - Resource cost savings
Rp - Rupiah (Indian currency)
Re/Rs - Rupee/Rupees (Pakistan currency)
RWC - Rainwater collector
RETA - Regional Technical Assistance
RRP - Report and Recommendation to the President
RWSP - Rural Water Supply Project
RWSS - Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project
SCF - Standard conversion factor
SER - Shadow exchange rate

GLOSSARY 381

SERF - Shadow exchange rate factor
SI - Sensitivity indicator
SV - Switching value
SWR - Shadow wage rate
SWRF - Shadow wage rate factor
TK - Taka (Bangladesh currency)
TL - Technical losses
TOR - Terms of reference
UFW - Unaccounted for water
UWSP - Urban Water Supply Project
VND - Viet Nam Dong
WACC - Weighted average cost of capital
WB-SAR - World Bank – Staff Appraisal Report
WHO - World Health Organization
WSP - Water supply project
WS&SP - Water supply and sanitation project
WTP - Willingness to pay
yr. - year


Notes
In this Handbook, “$” refers to US dollars

007 t econanalysis projects

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to 007 t econanalysis projects (20)

007 t econanalysis projects