2011年-世界发展银行全球_More_Better_or_Different_Spending__Trends_in_Public_Expenditure_on_Water_and_Sanitation_in_Sub-Saharan_Africa_120页_1mb

报告摘要

Summary of "More, Better, or Different Spending?" – Trends in Public Expenditure on Water and Sanitation in Sub-Saharan Africa

Core Content

This document presents an overview of public expenditure trends on water supply and sanitation (WSS) in 15 Sub-Saharan African countries. It highlights the mismatch between public spending patterns and the rationale for such spending, emphasizing the need for more effective and equitable allocation of resources. The analysis is based on Public Expenditure Reviews (PERs) conducted by the World Bank and explores the drivers of misallocation and poor implementation of public resources in the WSS sector.

Main Views

Public Expenditure and Access: Improvements in WSS access in Sub-Saharan Africa have not met national and international targets, including the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Public expenditure on WSS is low, averaging 0.39% of GDP ($1.71 per person) in rural-and-urban countries and 0.26% ($1.21 per person) in rural-only countries.
Donor Dependency: Most countries are highly dependent on donor funding, with an average of 61.9% of total WSS expenditures coming from external sources. However, donor financing is not always targeted at countries with the greatest need.
Expenditure Composition: Public spending is heavily skewed toward capital budgets and water supply, with recurrent expenditure (maintenance and operations) being significantly underfunded. Salaries account for a large portion of recurrent spending, often at the expense of essential maintenance.
Urban vs. Rural Disparities: Urban access to drinking water has declined over the past decade, while rural access has increased slightly. However, urban areas face challenges due to underperforming water utilities, and rural areas suffer from high breakdown rates of infrastructure.
Sanitation Underfunding: Sanitation receives a small share of public expenditure despite its critical importance. Only 20% of households had access to improved sanitation in 2008, and the sector is dominated by household-level on-site facilities.
Budget Execution Challenges: Budget execution rates for WSS are generally low, with recurrent budgets executed more frequently than development budgets. Execution rates vary significantly between countries and between rural-only and rural-and-urban countries.
Institutional and Governance Issues: Weak institutional capacity, incomplete decentralization, and overlapping mandates among sector institutions hinder effective implementation. Decentralization has not been accompanied by adequate authority, budget, staff, or operational support.
Political Economy Factors: Political dynamics, including clientelism, patronage, and resistance to cost-recovery, influence public spending patterns. Sanitation is often neglected due to low political rewards and cultural norms.

Key Information

Public Expenditure Trends

Expenditure as a Share of GDP: Average of 0.39% in rural-and-urban countries and 0.26% in rural-only countries.
Per Capita Expenditure: Ranges from $0.01 to $8.93 across the countries studied.
Sector Funding Sources: 61.9% of WSS expenditures come from donor funding, while 2% of total government spending goes to WSS.
Budget Execution Rates: Overall, 66% of WSS budgets are executed, with rural-only countries showing higher rates (66%) than rural-and-urban countries (47%).

Sector-Specific Issues

Capital vs. Recurrent Spending: 87.3% of sector expenditure is capital, with only 12.7% for recurrent needs. Recurrent spending is mostly allocated to salaries.
Underfunding of Maintenance: Maintenance of existing WSS facilities is severely underfunded, limiting the ability of public sector institutions to maintain and expand services.
Urban Water Supply Challenges: Urban water utilities often operate inefficiently, with revenues insufficient to cover O&M costs. This leads to reliance on government transfers and exacerbates inequality.
Rural Water Supply: Rural access has kept pace with population growth, but infrastructure breakdown rates are high (25% or more in most countries), especially in post-conflict regions.

Sanitation Sector

Low Funding: Sanitation receives a minimal share of public expenditure despite being essential for public health.
Access Rates: Only 20% of households had access to improved sanitation in 2008.
Potential for Growth: As countries develop, there is a need for increased public investment in sanitation infrastructure, such as communal sewerage systems.

Budget Execution Bottlenecks

Volatility and Ambition: Budget volatility and overambitious planning hinder efficient execution. Donor-funded projects often face delays and inefficiencies due to misalignment with government fiscal calendars.
Capacity Constraints: Weak project management and contracting capacity at the national and subnational levels contribute to poor execution.
Incomplete Reforms: Sector reforms are not fully implemented, leading to overlapping mandates and lack of resources.
Decentralization Gaps: Despite formal decentralization, local authorities lack the necessary authority, budget, and support to manage WSS services effectively.

Conclusion

Need for Better Spending: Public expenditure on WSS is insufficient and misaligned with the rationale for such spending, which includes reducing disparities and addressing market failures.
Targeting and Execution: Improving targeting and execution is crucial. This includes directing funds to sanitation, non-capital areas, and maintenance of existing infrastructure.
Policy and Practice Gaps: There is a significant gap between policy and practice, indicating the need for stronger implementation, capacity building, and alignment with local realities.
Role of PERs: Public Expenditure Reviews (PERs) are a useful tool for holding governments accountable and identifying areas for improvement.

Recommendations

Enhance Budget Execution: Focus on institutional bottlenecks and improve coordination across the budget execution chain.
Improve Targeting: Allocate more resources to sanitation, rural areas, and maintenance.
Strengthen Reforms: Implement sector reforms comprehensively, with adequate capacity and resources.
Promote Equitable Access: Address the regressive nature of utility subsidies and ensure that the poor benefit from public spending on WSS.

Data Limitations

Inconsistent Data: Data on public expenditure and access are often incomplete, contradictory, or not standardized, making cross-country comparisons difficult.
Sector Definition: "Water and sanitation" is not a distinct sector, complicating international comparisons of government finance.
Donor Influence: A significant portion of donor funding is off-budget, leading to gaps in the overall picture of public expenditure for WSS.

Annexes and Figures

Annex 1: Lists PERs in African countries with chapters on WSS.
Annex 2: Highlights data limitations.
Annex 3: Provides WSS budget execution rates from 2000–2008.
Annex 4: Includes references.
Annex 5: Detailed data sheets for countries in the review.
Figure A: Public expenditure as a percentage of GDP and per capita.
Figure 4.1: Expenditure as a percentage of GDP and per capita.
Figure 4.2: Donor expenditure per capita by country GDP.
Figure 5.1: WSS budget execution rates 2000–08.
Figure 6.1: Per capita spending and access rates to drinking water.
Figure 6.2: Example of spending and access relationship in Mali.

Key Acronyms

PER: Public Expenditure Review
WSS: Water Supply and Sanitation
AICD: Africa Infrastructure Country Diagnostic
COFOG: Common Functions of Government
PEFA: Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability
PETS: Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys
MDGs: Millennium Development Goals
MTEF: Medium-Term Expenditure Framework
O&M: Operation and Maintenance
IB-NET: International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities
IBT: Increased Block Tariff
HDR: Human Development Report
HIPC: Highly Indebted Poor Countries
WSP: Water and Sanitation Program
RWSN: Rural Water Supply Network
WHO: World Health Organization
UNICEF: United Nations Children's Fund
UNDP: United Nations Development Programme
IMF-GFS: International Monetary Fund Government Finance Statistics
JMP: Joint Monitoring Program
LICs: Low-Income Countries
MICs: Middle-Income Countries
DAC: Development Assistance Committee
OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
NGO: Non-Governmental Organization
CSOs: Country Status Overviews
AfDB: African Development Bank
AMCOW: African Ministers Council on Water