How can I withdraw my pi coins to real money in India.
10 page Summary of TrackFin's results in Brazil
1. 1
UN-Water / WHO TrackFin UN-Water/ WHO TrackFin Initiative
WASH Accounts in Brazil: Overview and Next Steps
1 Introduction
This note presents the main conclusions on the implementation of TrackFin methodology and the development of WASH Accounts in Brazil, where WASH stands for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene. TrackFin aims to track all expenditures made by stakeholders in the WASH sector, including governments and public institutions, public and private organizations, NGOs, foundations, national and international donors, investors, and households. This methodology enables countries to answer four key questions:
1) What is the total expenditure in the WASH sector?
2) How are funds distributed to the different WASH services and expenditure types?
3) Who pays for WASH services and how much do they pay?
4) Which entities are the main funding channels for the WASH sector?
Although Brazil has broad databases and statistical information on the sector, such financial information is not regularly consolidated and evaluated in an integrated manner. It is therefore not possible to give specific responses on the amount of funds spent and how they are allocated, what the sources of these funds are, and who provides them. The TrackFin initiative is an important and strategic opportunity for Brazil to test an efficient methodology for collecting, consolidating, and evaluating the available information on financing, with a view to the monitoring and systematic assessment of the financial aspects of public policy for basic sanitation in the country, including WASH services. In Brazil, Law 11.445/2007, which establishes national guidelines for sanitation, defines basic sanitation (“saneamento básico”) as the following services: a) water supply; b) sewage disposal; c) urban cleaning and solid waste management; d) drainage and management of urban rainwater. In this note, we use the term “sanitation” in the sense understood at international level as in WASH.
The national stakeholder group consisted of the main federal government actors in the water and sanitation sector, national service providers and entities, and the national statistics agency, coordinated by the Ministry of Cities/ National Secretariat of Environmental Sanitation (SNSA).
2 Overview of the WASH sector and its financing
2.1 How are WASH services provided?
The Brazilian federation is composed of a national (federal) government as well as subnational governments of 26 states, 5,570 municipalities, and a Federal District. The three levels of government are politically and administratively independent of each other. The municipal governments are responsible for the organization, management, and (direct or indirect) provision of local public services, including basic sanitation services. The state governments and federal government, in cooperation with the municipalities, undertake. The federal government has the authority to implement housing and basic sanitation programmes to improve sanitation and housing conditions. It is also responsible for establishing general guidelines and regulations for the management of services by all levels of government, for example, the Law on Basic Sanitation, the National Basic Sanitation Plan (PLANSAB), and the Program for Accelerated Growth/PAC-Sanitation––coordinated by SNAS/Ministry of Cities, which coordinates national basic sanitation policy. The Ministry of Cities also coordinates the National Information System on Sanitation (SNIS), which has been rolled out at the Federal level.
2. 2
In practice, drinking water and sewage disposal services are provided by 1,560 local water service providers, 4,360 municipalities directly responsible for sewage disposal services, 26 regional service providers (state water and sewage disposal companies), and 6 micro-regional providers (entities that serve a small group of municipalities). These providers offer WASH services through different supply arrangements including: direct, indirect (delegated), jointly managed, centralized, decentralized, by consortia, and through concession contracts. There is no central national regulator for water and sewage disposal services. Water resources are centrally regulated.
2.2 What is the level of access to WASH services?
PLANSAB has made progress in categorizing access to water and sanitation as adequate access and inadequate access. The latter category is sub-categorized between precarious access and no access. According to PLANSAB, 59.9% of the population has adequate access to water, 33.9% has precarious access, and 6.8% has no access. As for sewage disposal, 39.7% of the population has adequate access, 50.7% has precarious access, and 9.6% has no access. The focus of the current basic sanitation policies is to reverse the lack of access by developing infrastructure and improving service quality.
Overall, by 2012, Brazil had achieved the MDG targets for water supply and sanitation. More than 85% of the total population received water supply (network-based supply), while over 78% had access to sanitation (via a sewer system or septic tank), compared to the MDG targets of 84% and 74.5%, respectively. However, data analysis shows that, in fact, it was only in urban areas that the MDG targets were met for all income levels. For most income levels in rural areas, these targets are far from being reached, particularly for sewage disposal. In rural areas, both water supply and sewage disposal reach 33% of the population, while the MDG targets for these services are 54.66% and 54.42%, respectively. There are also great regional disparities. The northern region has not yet met the MDG targets for water supply, while the north, northeast and mid-west have not reached the targets for sewage disposal. The highest levels of access to water supply and sewage disposal are concentrated in the southern and southeastern regions.
The biggest problem faced by the sector, in terms of sustainability and quality of services, involves low institutional capacity, associated with a shortage of skilled labor to efficiently manage the services. Insufficient regulation of the sector is also another identified problem is.
3 Study scope and methodology
The study collected data on WASH sector expenditures for 2010, 2011, and 2012. The methodology proposed in the Guidance Document was rigorously followed, as can be seen in the definitions and detailed classifications adopted. There were no deviations from the proposed methodology.
The study aimed to obtain a comprehensive view of the financial flows for both urban and rural water supply and sewage disposal. All classifications and proposed categories were considered to be adapted to the country context, with marginal adjustments in terminology to reflect conditions in the country. Two new categories were proposed and used: S5—Hygiene Activities related to Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Services and C6—Tax Expenditures. Disaggregated information was gathered for the “urban and rural water supply” and “urban and rural sewage disposal” subsectors.
A country-wide pilot exercise was conducted based on the national databases, which make reliable data available at national level. Although the exercise was not carried out for each geographic macro-region or state, the collected data can be used for detailed analyses at the regional level (for each macro-region and state).
3. 3
The purpose of the exercise was to provide a comprehensive view of funding from all financing sources in the sector. Although Brazil has quite comprehensive and reliable sources of data on WASH services from the national databases, it was not possible to obtain disaggregated information in all the categories proposed in the TrackFin methodology (for example, a breakdown of revenues from tariffs and taxes for each type of service used; and the disaggregation of new capital expenditures and large capital maintenance costs, known in Brazil as replacement investment costs). For other cost categories, it was possible to disaggregate expenditures for each service only by using rations on the total number of users of each water supply and sewage disposal services.
No specific or systematic information on the rural subsector was obtained, due to insufficient data It was only possible to obtain some specific information on this subject for domestic public transfers from the federal government but covering only a small part of the financial flows to the rural subsector. No data was collected on spending from categories FU7 (bilateral and multilateral donors) and FU9 (NGOs and community-based organizations), since these are insignificant flows impossible to capture at the national level. The data for all cost categories was obtained primarily from the SNIS national database (which covers 91% of municipalities for water and 65.5% for sewage disposal). Complementary data not obtained through SNIS was based on Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) data (census and National Household Sample Survey––PNAD), using parameters. However, it was not possible to disaggregate data on large capital maintenance costs (C3) (renewal, replacement, and rehabilitation), on capital costs (C1) or to disaggregate costs by type of use.
The table below summarizes the financing flows that have been included in and excluded from the study and the reliability of the data (actual or estimated).
Table 1. Summary of financial flows included in the study
Sources of financing
Availability of data
Gaps in available data
Methods used to cover the data gaps
Tariffs and taxes for services provided
SNIS lacks some important information on the set of services provided to rural households; this information is aggregated to the data on urban households.
Parameters were extracted and adjusted according to available SNIS data, based on the average household income. These parameters were applied on the basis of 2010 Census and PNAD/IBGE data (2011 and 2012) to estimate the tariffs charged by municipalities not included in the SNIS for the same years, including all households served in urban and rural sectors.
Household expenditure for self-supply
There are no systematic or accessible sources of public information on these expenditures
Approximate estimate based on IBGE data (Census 2010 and PNAD 2011 and 2012) on households that have self-supply solutions and the average expenditure per household with water supply and sewage disposal, obtained from the Family Budget Survey (POF) 2009 (IBGE).
Domestic public transfers (national government)
90% of data on domestic (federal government) transfers is available from government databases (Report on Public Expenditure on Basic Sanitation––SIAFI/ Transparency Portal)
4. 4
Sources of financing
Availability of data
Gaps in available data
Methods used to cover the data gaps
Domestic public transfers (local governments)
Data from financial statements of companies and SNIS cannot be disaggregated by type of services
Estimated based on the financial statements of 15 public sanitation companies + 380 government agencies that report to SNIS.
International public transfers (public or multilateral donors)
a) Federal government flows: available data identified only insignificant balances from certain contracts between certain states and agencies (IDB, IBRD, KFW, and JBIC)
b) Subnational government flows cannot be captured
These flows have been classified as “repayable financing.”
Voluntary contributions (NGOs)
There is no reliable registry of information on these flows in national databases because in Brazil there is no tradition of making donations for WASH.
CNE (National Register of Entities/Ministry of Justice) is the source of available data in this category. However, WASH-related searches are not possible at present.
Repayable financing (loans)
Data obtained from the main sources of repayable financing: CAIXA (FGTS Management Report) and BNDES (financial report).
Partially available by type of service and comprehensively by provider, region, and type of cost, but not by type of use. Disaggregation by service: estimates based on available SNIS data on the relative share of investments made in each service.
Available data Partially available data + estimates Estimated data Data not collected
4 Key results
The WASH Accounts provided a comprehensive picture of financing in the WASH sector. The results obtained are summarized in the table below.
With regard to WASH vs. health sector expenditures, it should be noted that GDP calculations are based on values reported by the various sectors of the economy. However, the calculation of WASH expenditures was based on the sector’s total financial flow, while the health expenditures reported in the study correspond to final expenditures on goods and services by the public administration and by households. Therefore, these values cannot be compared with each other: they simply indicate correlations with GDP. Actual total expenditures on health must be higher than those indicated in the study.
5. 5
Table 2. WASH Accounts: Summary of indicators of expenditures on WASH services in Brazil
Unit 2010 2011 2012 Total WASH sector expenditure (millions) Local currency R$ 44,893.49 R$ 46,202.53 R$51,824.24 USD USD 25,518.88 USD 27,619.40 USD26,534.77 Total per capita WASH expenditure Local currency R$ 235.35 R$ 237.77 R$ 264.40 USD USD 133.78 USD 142.13 USD 135.38 Total WASH expenditure as % of GDP 1.22% 1.12% 1.18% Total health expenditure as % of GDP 9.01% 8.90% 9.31% Total public expenditure on WASH as % of total public expenditure 5.63% 5.39% 5.54% Total WASH expenditure in the urban sector as % of total WASH expenditure 96.85% 96.02% 95.31% Total household expenditure as % of total WASH expenditure 1.95% 2.29% 2.19% Domestic public transfers as % of total WASH expenditure 6.00% 6.16% 8.66% International public transfers as % of total WASH expenditure 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Total maintenance and operating costs as % of total WASH expenditure 63.60% 65.79% 60.53% Official exchange rate (R$ per US$, average for the period )(source: World Data Bank) 1.759 1.673 1.953
4.1. What is the total expenditure in the WASH sector?
Total expenditure in the WASH sector has been growing gradually in nominal and real terms, although they appear relatively stable as a share of Brazil’s GDP in the study period. With regard to total public spending, 2012 showed more significant growth, reflecting federal government investment in the sector since 2009.
Specific expenditures on hygiene/health activities are apparently still small, but have been growing quickly. Expenditures may be higher than those mapped, since they may not have been categorized in accordance with the methodology.
As shown on Figure 1 below, domestic public transfers remained stable in real terms in the first two years of the study, but then rose sharply in 2012, growing more than 50% in the period. However, service providers’ implementation capacity has not kept pace with the availability of funds guaranteed by the federal government: as a rule, approximately 50% of federally allocated funds are not used.
6. 6
Figure 1. Total WASH sector financing in Million Brazilian Real
As shown on Figure 2 below, the total capital cost of services showed significant growth in 2012 with respect to total expenditure in the sector, following relative stability in the two previous years. This growth was due to greater investment in sewage disposal––given the serious gaps in the provision of this service––at the expense of water supply, to which more resources have historically been allocated. This demonstrates that public policy for the sector is on the right course.
Figure 2. Total expenditures on WASH services in Million Brazilian Real
Total expenditure in the sector has been increasing in recent years. This trend is confirmed both by the “financing sources” approach (from R$44.9 billion in 2010 to R$51.8 billion in 2012) and the “costs-based” approach (ranging from R$43.6 billion to R$52.5 billion in the same period). We used the two approaches in the study, since it was not possible to identify the sources and the causes of differences among them, which would require more detailed research on the available sources and the concepts involved.
Overall, the current levels of financing have been sufficient to cover the operating and maintenance costs of the services, to amortize repayable financing, and to finance expansion and replacement (new infrastructure), with more funds allocated for investment in sewage disposal. This financing has succeeded in fostering the expansion
R$ 0.00
R$ 10,000.00
R$ 20,000.00
R$ 30,000.00
R$ 40,000.00
R$ 50,000.00
R$ 60,000.00
2010
2011
2012
Repayable financing
Voluntary contributions
International public
transfers
Domestic public transfers
Households’ expenditure for self-supply
Tariffs for services provided
R$ 0.00
R$ 10,000.00
R$ 20,000.00
R$ 30,000.00
R$ 40,000.00
R$ 50,000.00
R$ 60,000.00
2010
2011
2012
Taxes
Support costs
Cost of capital
Operating and
maintenance
expenditure
Capital Investments
7. 7
of services at a pace that is reasonable (faster than population growth), but not yet sufficient to achieve the universalization of services in the medium term.
With regard to the “cost-based approach” and the volumes of water use reported by providers in the SNIS, the domestic use of services accounts for a predominant share of the sector’s expenditures and has remained stable in proportion to total expenditure in the sector. However, due to the lack of disaggregated data on revenues from tariffs and taxes in each category of use, it was not possible to evaluate the relative weight of household expenditure in the financing of the services. Based on information from certain public companies and municipalities, it can be estimated that the tariffs paid by households and direct household expenditures on self- supply (domestic uses) account for nearly 60% of total financing.
The main sources of financing for WASH investment (C1: Capital costs) are repayable public funds, which come from the FGTS (Workers Guarantee Fund), Worker Assistance Fund (FAT), and others, reinvestment of earnings by corporate providers, and domestic public transfers.
4.2. How are funds distributed for the different types of services and expenditures?
Figure 3. WASH expenditures by subsector in Million Brazilian Real
One of the challenges related to basic sanitation services in Brazil is the extreme concentration of population in urban areas. It is estimated that 60% of the urban population is concentrated in just 224 of the country’s 5,570 municipalities.
However, based on the available information, WASH expenditures for urban areas are estimated to represent about 96% of total expenditures, compared with an average of only 4% in rural areas. As information or parameters needed to estimate the actual cost of services in each region is not available, the values attributed to the rural subsector may be underestimated. This distribution has been changing in recent years with a sharp increase in expenditures in rural areas; however, rural expenditures remain below reasonable levels, considering that rural households account for about 14% of all households in the country. This trend should continue and increase more quickly with the implementation of PLANSAB, which plans priority investment in this sector.
Half of the expenditure in rural areas is made by households for self-supply of services. The other half is divided between direct federal government expenditure (through the Special Secretariat for Indigenous Health (SESAI) and the National Health Foundation (FUNASA), both dependent on the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of the
R$ 0.00
R$ 10,000.00
R$ 20,000.00
R$ 30,000.00
R$ 40,000.00
R$ 50,000.00
R$ 60,000.00
2010
2011
2012
Water resources Management
Support to WASH
Rural Sanitation services Rural
Urban Sanitation services Urban
Rural Water supply Rural
Urban Water supply Urban
8. 8
Interior) aimed at serving indigenous communities, African-descendent quilombolas, mine workers, river dwellers (traditional populations), and agricultural settlements, and for building cisterns; and expenditure by formal providers aimed at serving small communities.
Expenditure supporting the WASH sector––known in Brazil as structural expenditure––is currently very low, according to the little available information. However, over the long term––after 20 years of PLANSAB––it is expected that there will be a reversal in the trend, with higher structural expenditure today giving way to and higher structuring expenditure in the future.
The relative share of different WASH service providers in the allocation of resources in the sector remains stable, with slight growth in the participation of governmental institutions and households (self-supply).
Network corporate providers tend to predominate over governmental providers in attending to the demand for expanded sewage disposal service, particularly in municipalities with populations over 20,000. This is because corporate providers already provide water supply services in most of the municipalities where there is a proportionately greater lack of sewage disposal, while also having greater capacity to capture repayable funds to finance investments. These conditions encourage municipalities to delegate sewage disposal services to these providers.
In rural areas, it is households that are most able to meet most of the demand through self-supply solutions, with financial support from low-interest, reimbursable public funds and with funds transferred from the central government to the municipalities to be used for individual self-supply solutions. The rest of the demand, corresponding to collective, networked solutions for small rural communities, may be better served by formal community organizations. This is already happening and is being expanded in the northeastern region of the country, particularly in the states of Ceará, Bahia, and Rio Grande do Norte, with the establishment of the Integrated Rural Sanitation Systems (SISAR), supported by the state governments.
Figure 4. WASH expenditure by type of cost (2012) in Million Brazilian Real
R$ 0.00
R$ 5,000.00
R$ 10,000.00
R$ 15,000.00
R$ 20,000.00
R$ 25,000.00
R$ 30,000.00
R$ 35,000.00
Taxes
Support costs
Cost of capital
Operating and
maintenance expenditure
Capital Investments
9. 9
The data in this table show that operation and maintenance costs are predominant, accounting for about 60% of total costs. Capital costs represent the second largest expenditure, at 19.5% of total costs. Capital costs accounted for 14.34% of expenditures in 2012. The relative weight of water supply and sewage disposal services also remained stable in the period, remaining near 59% and 40% of total costs, respectively. Tax-related expenditures represent about 4.9% of total costs, increasing the cost of services for users in the same proportion.
In principle, the expenditures allocated for operations and maintenance have been sufficient and reasonably proportionate to expenditures on investment, and to the total cost of services, considering current conditions, which continue to require large investments in service expansion. However, while sufficient to significantly expand services, the trend in investments appears to be insufficient to achieve the access (expansion) goals and the asset modernization and/or replacement goals (large capital maintenance costs) established in PLANSAB. Insignificant funds have been allocated to investment in support activities, even taking into account the amounts that providers classify and record together with operating and maintenance costs (C2)––in particular, actions to improve service management, such as planning, operational performance, and regulation.
4.3. Who pays for WASH services and how much do they pay?
Figure 5. WASH expenditure by type of financing unit in Million Brazilian Real
The main financing units for services are network corporate providers, which account for almost 60% of total expenditure, followed by local authorities/providers (about 17%). During the study period, banks and financial institutions provided about 12.5% of the sector’s financing, with a downward trend. This type of financing should stabilize in the short term due to the limited financing sources used by these financial institutions and also due to the limited borrowing capacity of most providers, whether corporate providers or governmental institutions. Most corporate providers are already at their maximum borrowing capacity, whether in terms of leverage of equity or their ability to pay off new loans. The public sector is also restricted by the debt limits set in the country’s Law on Fiscal Responsibility (Complementary Law 101/2002).
Contributions by national authorities rose from 5.5% in 2010 to 8.1% in 2012, a rising trend that should continue in the coming years as the PLANSAB programs develop. Household self-supply was responsible for nearly 2% of
R$ 0.00
R$ 5,000.00
R$ 10,000.00
R$ 15,000.00
R$ 20,000.00
R$ 25,000.00
R$ 30,000.00
R$ 35,000.00
2010
2011
2012
2010
2011
2012
2010
2011
2012
2010
2011
2012
Water supply
services
Sanitation
services
Support to
WASH
Water
resources
Management
Households
NGOs and community-based
organizations
Banks and Financial
Institutions
Bilateral and multilateral
donors
Economic and quality
Regulators
Non-network corporate
providers
Network corporate providers
Local authorities
Regional authorities
10. 10
expenditure in the sector, similar to the participation of state governments that provide services through non- corporate public entities.
It is important to note, however, that the main source (nearly 80%) of the funds allocated by local authorities and by network corporate providers, including reinvested earnings, are the tariffs and taxes collected from users for the provision of services. The funds allocated for basic sanitation by the national authorities (between 6% and 8.6% of total WASH expenditure) come from the General Budget of the Union––a general tax source. It is also worth noting that most of these funds corresponded to contributions collected from WASH service providers themselves (cost type C6), with a small reduction in 2012.
Taking into account funds raised through tariffs (FS1) and expenditure for self-supply (FS2), the financial burden on households represents almost 80% of total expenditure in the sector. Transfers by domestic or foreign donors were not identified in the available data consulted in the study period.
4.4. Which entities are the main funding channels for the WASH sector?
The main funding channels for the sector are providers associated with local authorities (P1) and network corporate providers (P2), whose main source of funds consists of tariffs collected for services provided (FS1) to households, which provides nearly 80% of all transferred resources. The equity allocated to the sector by service providers consists almost entirely of reinvestment (through amortization and tariff revenue).
Domestic public transfers (FS3)––almost entirely by federal government entities––ranged from 5.5% to 8.1% of expenditure in the sector during the study period. Only a small part of these resources is channeled directly by federal government entities (FUNASA and SESAI/Ministry of Health) to the direct provision of services to indigenous communities, quilombolas, river dwellers, and agricultural settlements. However, most of these funds are transferred to the sector through regional and local governments, which are responsible for their direct or indirect implementation through service providers. This policy of decentralizing resources is consistent with the constitutional powers of the federal government, which also makes local governments responsible for the direct or indirect provision of WASH services, in cooperation with the regional governments.
Another significant part of the sector’s funds (around 12.5% in the study period) is allocated by financial institutions, through repayable financing transferred directly to corporate providers and, indirectly, to regional and local governments. However, there are problems with the disbursement of funds allocated by national authorities and by financial institutions, if those who take these resources do not succeed in using them in accordance with the commitments made. There are different reasons for this situation, the main ones being: i) the lack of planning and investment management capacity on the part of providers and the regional and local authorities that act as their partners; and ii) the scarcity of companies in the market that can implement projects and public works, due to strong competition from other infrastructure sectors.
5 Lessons learned from the process
Implementation of the TrackFin pilot project was positive for the country in the following areas:
Data: The exercise made it possible to map the different databases and analyze the quality of the available data. The following were identified: a) data gaps; b) a need for improvement in existing information systems (type of data collected, how data are organized and made available for consultations, whether for internal use by the federal government or for the general public); and c) a need to improve statistical research, with a focus on financial data.
Results related to financing flows: It was confirmed that the available data and information on financing flows and costs in the sector are insufficient for a more conclusive evaluation of the effectiveness of the public policies outlined for the sector, demonstrating the need for improving and expanding the existing information systems. In the current national context of implementing and monitoring PLANSAB, it will be essential to carry out
11. 11
monitoring and economic/financial assessment in order to reach the projected service provision goals within the next twenty years (2013-2033). In this regard, TrackFin is a tool that will be useful in monitoring financing trends, whether to redefine financing guidelines or to develop new financing strategies.
WASH Account results: The study shows that:
The financing flows for the sector not yet are aligned sufficiently with the objectives and goals set in PLANSAB. The funds allocated for new investments to expand services and replace existing assets show a rising trend, but below projected estimates. However, the available data showed that growth in federal public spending in the WASH sector is in keeping with the directives and federal policy objectives established in Law 11.445/2007.
More funds were allocated to the sector by the federal government and by financial agencies in the sector (CAIXA and BNDES) than the providers were able to use, demonstrating ineffective resource implementation.
The amount of funds allocated to the sector for support activities and complementary WASH-related hygiene and health activities continues to be very small and far from meeting the sector’s needs.
Expenditure on WASH services for the rural subsector remains very low and does not meet the demand in this subsector, where the biggest gaps are found in the provision of adequate water supply and sewage disposal services.
National stakeholder group: The group showed interest in and commitment to obtaining results. However, because of the highly specialized and unusual content (even for actors in the sanitation sector) and because the group had few face-to-face meetings and there was little time to discuss and align ideas, it was impossible for each agency involved in this exercise to truly appropriate and internalize the results and potential of the methodology. However, the positive results obtained will help ensure that this does occur in future exercises with the methodology. The main challenge encountered in the course of the exercise was the very small team available.
6 Recommendations for future studies and next steps
The following measures are both recommended and necessary for a more in-depth, comprehensive study of the sector, using the proposed methodology to include state and regional breakdowns, with regular monitoring and evaluation of the sector:
a) Create mechanisms and procedures for the regular and systematic implementation of TrackFin methodology in the Ministry of Cities (within the structure of SNSA), also adapted for PLANSAB monitoring and evaluation;
b) Revise, expand, and qualify financial information found in SNIS in order to close the identified gaps and allow better data disaggregation by service (S1 to S5), by financing source (FS1 to FS6), by use (U1 to U5), and by urban/rural area;
c) Include the categories adopted in the TrackFin pilot project in the Report on Public Expenditure on Basic Sanitation and in managerial reports by the financial agencies that deal with funds that finance the sector. In the case of financial agencies, publicize the reports on the financing of the sector;
d) Develop information modules on other public policy areas associated with WASH services and integrate them into the new National Information System on Sanitation (SINISA);
e) In the medium term, expand and/or revise the questionnaires used by PNAD and/or POF (IBGE) for statistical research in order to enter information on household expenditure on basic sanitation;
f) Carry out exercises with regional and state breakdowns with a view to more broadly identifying the effects of public policies and helping state providers to internalize the methodology;
12. 12
g) WHO should study the classification of hygiene and health promotion expenditures more closely in order to provide greater clarity in this area and to facilitate data collection at the national level (in the available databases of the ministries of Health and Education);
h) Evaluate the viability of collaboration between the TrackFin exercise and the SEEW-A accounts now being adopted by the Brazilian government.
i) Design research related to categories FU7—Governments and bilateral and multilateral donors, and FU9—NGOs and community-based organizations, in order to step up consultations on available data sources.
j) Achieve clearer understanding of including the “hygiene” category in water and sanitation services, and evaluate whether to keep the category in future exercises. There are hygiene initiatives promoted as part of health, education, and basic sanitation policies in Brazil; however, they cannot be identified in the national databases.
k) Reduce the scope of the categories or allow the subdivision of categories, taking into account the characteristics of each country. Within public policies for the WASH sector, Brazil does not consider the self-provided water supply or sewage disposal in the industrial and commercial categories (U6); therefore, it should not be included as a category of use. With regard to category P1—“Government agencies”: in Brazil these institutions act as service providers of the federal, state, and municipal governments. For future editions of TrackFin, it would be useful to split this category into three parts, similar to the proposal for the classification of financing units. In Brazil, the institutions or authorities that regulate basic sanitation services (category FU6) do not finance the services in their jurisdictions; it is therefore proposed that this category be excluded in future editions of TrackFin in Brazil.
l) Extend the period for completing the exercise and ensure that a specialized team is exclusively devoted to in in future editions. If the state of information sources at the federal level remains unchanged or is little improved in future replications of the methodology in Brazil, at least eight full months will be necessary to complete the entire process, with a team exclusively devoted to the task. The working team should be made up of at least five people: a coordinator, a senior analyst specialized in economic/financial management of the services and in public administration; two experienced researchers with an understanding of the economic and financial considerations relevant to the methodology; and an assistant.
