Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Financial approaches

224 bytes added, 18:31, 14 November 2008
→‎Cross subsidies / Differential tariff systems
This approach is considered to be a good way to reach the poorest. However, the [[Asian Development Bank (ADB)]] concluded that whereas it helps to sustain existing systems, current approaches do not reach the poorest [http://www.adb.org/Water/Policy/consultations/IND-2005-Consultation-Report.pdf#page=3]. Tariffs based on volume are interesting, but metering is normally a problem, since it is costly. Customer involvement in the process is also very important. China’s Rural Water Supply program, for instance, has over 90% payment compliance in households with metered systems whereby the salaries of the operations staff are tied to monthly bill collection and raising tariffs if they do not cover operating costs
[http://www.wsp.org/publications/global_wtp_china.pdf]. Cross subsidies has have high potential however, particularly for poor slum dwellers, but innovative ways of dealing with the problem of metering are needed.
Differential Regarding sanitation, the BMGF landscaping recognized differential tariffs in sewered systems charging below cost to poor users and above cost to others. These is a tipical example of cross subsidies (non-poor users subsidizing poor ones).
Good It is considered a good approach in relation to addressing the differences in users' income provided , aiming at recovering total system cost are recovered , which at present is often not the case. Also, it It is however difficult to ensure that subsidies reach the poorest groups (in sanitation approaches [http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/waterandsanitation/funding/estab-price-policy.html ; http://www.sanicon.net/themes/intro.php3?theme=3)]. High  This approach has high potential for connecting more people , but it is costly and may reduce interest for dry alternatives.
== Fighting Corruption ==
Diaz
59
edits
Retrieved from "https://akvopedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1733"

Navigation menu