NGO "ANOTHER WAY" (STICHTING BAKENS VERZET), NETHERLANDS, SUSTAINABLE INTEGRATED SELF-FINANCING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGIES

Read the following citations from Reaching the MDG target for sanitation in Africa – a call for realism, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark, Danida, Copenhagen, February, 2010 ISBN: 978-87-7087-299-7 (print version), ISBN: 978-87-7087-300-0 (internet version)

“Failure to implement the MDG target for water and sanitation would have an economic cost of around US$38 billion per year, with sanitation accounting for 92% of this value (10). In cost-benefit analysis, total benefits of the interventions include time savings due to easier access, gain in productive time and treatment costs saved due to less illness, and the value of prevented deaths. The results showed that water and sanitation improvements are cost-beneficial in all developing world sub-regions (5; 11). In developing regions, the return on a US$1 investment was in the range of US$5 to US$46, depending on the intervention. The global return on investments in low-cost sanitation provision may be around US$9 for each US$1 spent. Achieving MDG target 10 would, therefore, outweigh the investment cost by a ratio of 8:1. The main contributor to economic benefits was time savings associated with better access to water and sanitation services, contributing at least 80% to overall economic benefits.” (Konradsen F. et al, section Building political commitment for sanitation in a fragmented institutional landscape, p. 20)

“Proper sanitation results in the removal of harmful pathogens from the environment and as a result has broad health benefits. For this reason, governments have a strong positive motivation to support the sanitation sector. Poor health carries with it the significant cost associated with health care provision and reduces income generating potential (i.e. reduced productivity.) Sanitation related morbidity is also associated with a reduction in school attendance and childhood development, which creates a generational cycle of disadvantage (3). Accounting for these factors, various cost benefit analysis on the expansion of sanitation services has estimated that the benefits of effective sanitation to the national economy often far outweigh the costs. Globally, the WHO estimates that a dollar invested in sanitation yields an annual benefit of around $9 (4).” (Evans B. et al, section Hooked on sanitation subsidies, p. 24)

An analysis of the need to carry out a cost-benefits analysis for integrated development projects was discussed in detail in part 01. Introduction to this section 3 costs benefits analyses

Making a calculation of the costs and benefits for the social, financial, productive and service structures of integrated development projects is fun.

The following text is open to all opinions, discussions, and improvements. It represents only some of the elements which are in principle subject to conversion into formal money terms in traditional costs-benefits analyses. That is why the indications are limited to the drinking water supply, sanitation, improved stoves and food supply sectors. The list is therefore far from being complete. No benefit at all has been attributed to the use of the social and financial structures created.

You are nearing the end of your course. Have fun.

Simultaneous benefits:

Local ecosystem-based initiatives can generate a variety of benefits, often simultaneously.

-Economic benefits generally take the form of either increased cash income (from sales of ecosystem products or services, or from employment associated with the initiative) or subsistence income (food, forage or materials consumed directly to support daily needs).

-Social benefits include personal empowerment and increased social mobility associated with greater income potential and the acquisition of new skills. They also include group benefits such as an increase in social capital among initiative members and greater inclusiveness.

-Environmental benefits include increased ecosystem productivity and stability, restoration of ecosystem functions diminished by earlier unsustainable practices and carbon storage, among others.

-The combined benefits of local ecosystem-based initiatives can increase community members’ resilience and capacity to adapt to the varied economic, social and environmental challenges they face—including growing impacts from climate change.

-The timing of benefits is key— in general, successful initiatives try to assure some short-term benefits to reinforce early interest in the initiative, but concentrate on generating an increasing stream of long-term benefits that can sustain and grow the initiative over time.

Source : Hazlewood P., Mock G., Enabling Local Success: A Primer on Mainstreaming Local Eco-based Solutions do Poverty Environment Challenges. ( N.B. This is an 11.8 MB file.) UNDP-UNEP Poverty Environment Initiative (PEI), Nairobi, October 2011, p. 7.

Some environmental benefits :

Box 7 Environmental Benefits of Local Ecosystem-Based Initiatives

Increased ecosystem stability and resilience

-Reduced vulnerability to precipitous declines in the production of ecosystem services, and greater ability to accommodate biological challenges such as pest attacks or climate impacts such as reduced rainfall.

Maintenance of natural habitat and biodiversity

-Enables the survival of robust populations of plant and animal species essential to ecosystem functioning or to the benefits stream; broadens the number and genetic diversity of species present, increasing the range of possible ecosystem benefits.

Forests: improved forest condition and increased carbon storage

-Increased forest cover; reduced deforestation; and reduced incidence of forest fires.

Watersheds: improved watershed conditions

-Increased water flows; increased water quality; decreased flooding and erosion.

Agroecosystems: increased soil fertility, better soil condition, and increased carbon storage

-Increased soil organic matter and moisture; decreased soil erosion, salinization and waterlogging.

Fisheries: healthier fish stocks

Larger fish stocks with better age class distribution; increased recruitment of juveniles through protection of breeding and nursery areas.

Grasslands: healthier rangeland conditions and increased carbon storage

-Increased forage and improved rangeland conditions; greater carbon storage in range soils.

Some benefits expressed in formal money (Euros) from integrated development projects which could fall under traditional costs and benefits analyses.

01. Water points at 100m from homes.

Average benefit 1 hour’s water fetching per day (being 10% of a 10 hours working day) x revenue Euro 3 per day, being Euro 0,30 per day x 10.000 women = Euro 3000 per day x 365, or Euro 1.095.000 per year.

A figure given for India is 1.1 hours per day. (India Cookstoves and Fuels Market Assessment, Dalberg Global Development Advisors for Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, Washington, February 2013, p.43.)

02. Washing places.

Benefit 4 hours a week (being 40% of a 10 hour working day) x daily revenue Euro 3 = Euro 1,20 x 52 weeks x 10.000 women = Euro 624.000

03. Reduction of medical treatment costs for water-borne diseases :

50% of the population (25.000 part of 50.000) at least once a year x average cost for medicines and doctor’s fees average Euro 20 = 25000 x Euro 20 = Euro 500.000

04. Productivity increase due to reduction in illness caused by water-borne diseases :

50% of the adult population (50% de 30.000) x ten days per year x revenue Euro 3 a day = 15000 x 10 x 3 = Euro 450.000.

05. Reduction in the costs of treating people suffering from hunger, or due to inadequate hygiene, or caused by smoke in and around homes :

25% of the population at least once a year x average costs for medicines and doctor’s fees Euro 20 = 25000 x Euro 20 = Euro 250.000.

06. Reduction of 50% in the cases of malaria

(being 40% of the population at least once a year) through drainage of surface waters, use of mosquito nets, hygiene education courses etc. Reduction of 50% of costs for of 40% of the population at least once a year, being 50% of the costs of 20.000 persons average anti-malaria treatment (Euro 10 per case) or Euro 200.000, of which 50% = Euro 100.000

“Malaria is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among children under five in Benin. Malaria is reported to account for 40 percent of outpatient consultations and 25 percent of all hospital admissions. With 39 percent of the population living below the poverty line, malaria places an enormous economic strain on Benin’s development. According to the World Bank, households in Benin spend approximately one-quarter of their annual income on the prevention and treatment of malaria.” ( USAid, Country Profile : Benin, President’s Malaria Initiative, Washington, 2012.)

07. Increase of productivity due to reduction in the number of cases of malaria :

10% of the adult population (being 10% of 30.000 or 3.000 adults) x 10 days x revenue Euro 3 per day = 3000 x 10 x 3 = Euro 90.000.

08. Reduction in the cost of urgent transportation of sick family members

to hospital in a large town (a car is rented for € 38 a time, paid by a collection amongst all family members) ; 10% of the population of 50.000 at least 1 time a year, being Euro 38 x 5.000 = Euro 190.000.

09. Elimination of the need to fetch firewood:

“Research in rural Tanzania found that women in some areas walk 5-10 km a day collecting and carrying firewood with loads of between 20 and 38 kg. And in rural India, the amount of time spent collecting firewood is over three hours a day on average.” (Practical Action : Poor People’s Energy Outlook 2012 : Energy for Earning a Living, Practical Action, Rugby, 2012 ISBN 978-1-85339-731-8, p. 51).

60% of families (being 60% of 10.000 families or 6.000 families) x 4 hours per week (or 40% of a 10-hour working day) x revenue Euro 3 or Euro 1,20 per week. Euro 1,20 a week x 6.000 women = Euro 7200 per week, or Euro 374.400 a year.

A figure given for India is 0,6 hours per day. (India Cookstoves and Fuels Market Assessment, Dalberg Global Development Advisors for Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, Washington, February 2013, p.43.)

10. Reduction in the costs of purchase of wood for cooking (or alternatives) :

40% of families (or 40% of 10.000 or 4.000 families). In town (or larger centre) a 5=person family typically uses about +/- € 0,75 worth of wood or equivalent per day. Reduction of 65% through the use of improved stoves Euro 0,50 per family per day. 4000 families x Euro 0,50 x 365 = Euro 730.000.

A figure given for India is 4.4 rupees per kg. (India Cookstoves and Fuels Market Assessment, Dalberg Global Development Advisors for Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, Washington, February 2013, p.43.)

11. «Automatic » reforestation 6.5kg (part of traditional use of 10kg per family per day

for savings in wood x 10.000 families x 365 = 23725 tons per year @ average value of standing timber for pulp Euro 7.5 per ton = Euro 178.000 per year. Refer to Menu for : 09. CDM funding indications for the selected applications and methodologies (in Block 8, Section 5) for details of finance applications for different categories of CDM afforestation and reforestation projects.

12. Fertiliser savings.

A recent conservative source is Richert A. et al Practical Guidance on the Use of Urine in Crop Production Stockholm Environmental Institute (SEI), EcoSanRes Series 2010-1, Stockholm, 2010, ISBN 978-91-86125-21-9. Table 2 on page 2 suggests an average of 550 kg of urine and 51 kg of faeces per person per year, with a total production of 4550 gr, of nitrogen and 548 gr of phosphorus. Table 8 on page 3 refers instead to South Africa for which the indications are 3980 gr. of nitrogen and 580 gr. of phosphorus. A more interesting statistic is provided in table 8 on page 8, where a comparison between human wastes in Burkina Faso and their industrial equivalents is made. The table suggests that the nutrients in the excreta (urine and faeces) of a family (or group) of 9 people is the equivalent of one 50 kg. bag of urea plus one 50 kg. bag on NPK 15:15:15 fertiliser.

On this basis, the population of 50.000 people in each integrated development project area (5500 groups of 9 persons) produce the equivalent of 5.500 bags of urea and 5.500 bags of NPK.

This is the equivalent of 275 tonnes of urea and 275 tonnes of NPK 15 :15 :15 fertiliser per project per year.

Local commercial prices can be calculated when each individual project documentation is drafted. Current world prices are about € 387 per tonne for 46% urea, and € 402 for NPK 15/15/15 fertiliser. The fertiliser savings is therefore to the order of 275 * (387 + 402) = € 217.000 per project per year.

Local production of fertilisers due to recycling of urine and faeces is enough to cover the production of all of the food needed by the inhabitants, at the same time guaranteeing a varied diet. This does not imply any extra work load on women during rainy seasons when they have to help their husbands in the fields to cultivate food as well as carry out their normal household chores. Outside the family fields women have heir own fields which they use the generate their own revenue.

13. Reduction of 80% in the costs of importation of food into the project area.

At the moment poor populations often lack food security. In many areas 80% of staple foods (millet, maize) needed have to be imported into project areas. “Africans spend between 60-70% of their total earnings on foodstuffs.” (Growing out of poverty : A UK Parliamentary Inquiry into supporting and dveloping African agriculture, All Party Parliamentary Group on Agriculture and Food for Development, London, December 2011.) This may be the biggest single cause of financial leakage in some areas, and therefore of the extreme poverty of the people there. Average cost of food is about Euro 2,20 per family per day, of which 80% is Euro 1,75. Euro 1,75 x 10.000 families x 365 = Euro 6.387.500 a year

[In Africa, the price of a family-sized dish of food is +/- € 1,10. 2 dishes of food are needed to feed 5 people, so the cost is +/- € 2,20 a day. Preparation time is very long, as the millet has to be ground by hand, which can take anything up to 2 hours. The price of food is much higher if it is ground by a miller. Milling costs about € 0,15 per kg. This is because of the high cost of fuel in most project areas. Outside the larger centres, there is often no mill available at all because of the international cost of fuel to run the mills. The total time needed each day to prepare food for a family of 5 can be anything up to 5 hours, with a total cost up to € 3,80.]

14. Savings through local production of bio-fuels.

09-07. Demonstration afforestation and/or reforestation projects using Jatropha on lands having low inherent potential to support living biomass. In case of application, bio-fuels for a value of up to € 550.000 per year.

15. Through the introduction of mills,

Time savings (up to 2 hours per day) to grind millet by hand. “Studies from Mali show that women typically spend three hours every day milling, grinding or de-husking.” (Practical Action : Poor People’s Energy Outlook 2012 : Energy for Earning a Living, Practical Action, Rugby, 2012 ISBN 978-1-85339-731-8, p. 15). Assessed average time saved : 1,5 hours per woman per day being 15% of the revenue of € 3 per 10-hour working day, or € 0,45. € 0,45 per day x 10.000 women x 365 days = € 1.642.500.

A figure given for daily food-processing in India is 1.4 hours per day. (India Cookstoves and Fuels Market Assessment, Dalberg Global Development Advisors for Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, Washington, February 2013, p.43.)

16. [Excluded from the calculation of costs and benefits.] Cooperative Local Development Fund :

€ 0,65 per person over 4 years (net of fixed expenditure € 260.000 a year) and € 0.75 per person during years 5-10 (net of fixed expenditure €350.000 a year); €0,90 per person years 11-15 (net of expenditure € 390.000 a year) ; € 1,10 per person during years 16-20 (net of expenditure € 460.000 par an) . The amount recycled systematically interest-free (and cost-free in formal money terms) for micro-credits amounts to at least € 2.600 per family during each period of 10 years. Euro 2.600 x 10.000 = Euro 26.000.000 over 10 years, or an average of Euro 2.600.000 a year. Average savings in formal money interest and costs 20% : Euro 520.000 a year.

17. Carbon Emission Reduction Certificates under the Kyoto Protocol:

09-01. CO2 savings through the reduced use of non-renewable biomass for cooking purposes through the introduction of improved stoves. Up to € 356.356 per year over a period of 21 years,

18. Carbon Emission Reduction Certificates under the Kyoto Protocol:

09-02. Demonstration project for the recovery of forest lands and natural parks and reserves using traditional species. Up to € 210.000 over a period of 50 years,

19. Carbon Emission Reduction Certificates under the Kyoto Protocol:

09-03. Afforestation activities in settlements as defined for the distributed planting of fruit and nut trees and similar. Up to € 172.000 over a period of 20 year, then 105.000 over a period of 30 years, plus fruit and nuts.

20. Carbon Emission Reduction Certificates under the Kyoto Protocol:

09-04. Small-scale agro-forestry activities – such as distributed bamboo plantations on grasslands and croplands. Up to € 210.000 over a period of 7 years, plus bamboo shoots, plus bamboo and bye-products ; plus added vaue over an indefinite period.

21. Carbon Emission Reduction Certificates under the Kyoto Protocol:

09-05. Small-scale agro-forestry activities – distributed demonstration plantations for practical purposes for local use, including but not limited to Moringa plantations on marginal lands. Up to € 215.600 over a period of 3 years, plus Moringa products over an indefinite period.

22. Carbon Emission Reduction Certificates under the Kyoto Protocol:

09-06. Demonstration afforestation and/or reforestation (AR) projects on wetlands using traditional species. Where applicable, up to € 215.600 over a period of 30 years.

23. Carbon Emission Reduction Certificates under the Kyoto Protocol:

09-07. Demonstration afforestation and/or reforestation projects using Jatropha on lands having low inherent potential to support living biomass. Where applicable, up to € 288.750 over a period of 5 years.

24. Carbon Emission Reduction Certificates under the Kyoto Protocol ;

09-08. Use of renewable biomass instead of non-renewable biomass with improved cook stoves. Where applicable, up to € 182.000 over a period of 21 years.

25. Carbon Emission Reduction Certificates under the Kyoto Protocol:

09-09. Recycling of human waste to avoid the use of industrial fertilisers. Recall. Application improbable.

26. Carbon Emission Reduction Certificates under the Kyoto Protocol:

09-10. Methane recovery from animal waste for cooking and lighting purposes especially in pastoralist areas. Recall. Theoretical potential up to € 840.000 per year over 21 years. Probable application € 0, du to lack of energy use in the project areas.

27. Carbon Emission Reduction Certificates under the Kyoto Protocol:

09-11. Replacement of kerosene lamps, incandescent light bulbs, and of the use of throw-away batteries by renewable energy sources (wind, solar and/or renewable bio-mass including but not limited to plant oil, gasification of biomass). Recall. Up to € 10.774 per year over a period of 21 years ; otherwise according to the situation in each project area.

28. Carbon Emission Reduction Certificates under the Kyoto Protocol:

09-12. Replacement of non-renewable electrical, diesel- and battery-driven sources for mechanical equipment such as pumps and mills and, where applicable, pubic lighting systems. Recall. Up to € 24.000 per year over a period of 21 years ; otherwise according to the situation in each project area.

29. Carbon Emission Reduction Certificates under the Kyoto Protocol:

09-13. Local recycling and recovery of materials from solid wastes, including but not limited to plastics. Recall. Application improbable. Otherwise according to the situation in each project area.

1. Research,

Adapts points 01-16 to your project area and sum the savings you wish to claim for your area up. Feel free to add any new items you may think of to your list.

2. Opinion.

Make a one-page manifesto with your conclusions.

3. Opinion.

You are in charge of an international NGO who has a copy of your manifesto. He/she bursts out laughing. Write a one-page summary of his/her criticisms of your manifesto.

4. Opinion.

Write him/her a one-page letter in defence of the vision presented in your manifesto..

◄ ►

◄ Eighth block : Section 3 : Costs and benefits analysis.

◄ Eighth block : Economic aspects.

◄ Main index for the Diploma in Integrated Development (Dip. Int. Dev.)

◄ List of key words.

◄ List of references.

◄ Course chart.

◄ Technical aspects.

◄ Courses available.

◄ Homepage Bakens Verzet

"Money is not the key that opens the gates of the market but the bolt that bars them."

Gesell, Silvio, The Natural Economic Order, revised English edition, Peter Owen, London 1958, page 228.

“Poverty is created scarcity”

Wahu Kaara, point 8 of the Global Call to Action Against Poverty, 58^th annual NGO Conference, United Nations, New York 7^th September 2005.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-commercial-Share Alike 3.0 Licence.