Results based financing for sanitation – do the costs outweigh the benefits? WEBINAR on Wednesday 29 April 2015 - follow-up discussion

  • pippa
  • pippa's Avatar
    Topic Author
  • Regular forum user
  • WASH consultant, sanitation specialist. i-san Associate | WEDC Research Associate
  • Posts: 20
  • Karma: 2
  • Likes received: 8

Results based financing for sanitation – do the costs outweigh the benefits? WEBINAR on Wednesday 29 April 2015 - follow-up discussion

Dear colleagues,

Please join us for a webinar on 'Results based financing for sanitation – do the costs outweigh the benefits?’ on Wednesday 29th April 2015 at 13:00 (UTC/GMT) where three speakers with very different backgrounds will discuss what, from their perspective, we know and don’t know on the questions of "Do the costs outweigh the benefits of results based financing for sanitation, and what are the right conditions for it to work?"

We have planned the webinar to have ample time for discussion - the speakers will only give short inputs (5 minutes each). We will have an excellent panel of speakers:
  • Minh Chau Nguyen and Per Ljung of Thrive Networks, speaking on the East Meets West (Vietnam) Community Hygiene Output Based Aid (CHOBA) Program in Vietnam. Minh Chau is now with Results for Development Institute
  • David Ehrhardt and Wil Goldenberg of CASTALIA Strategic Advisors speaking on their review of Results Based Financing in WASH.
  • Robert Chambers, Institute of Development Studies offering his view from a wider development perspective on Results Based Financing.
This webinar, open to all, is being organised under the Knowledge Management initiative of the Building Demand for Sanitation (BDS) program of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The webinar will be moderated by Peter Feldman, and supported by Pete Cranston and myself of Euforic Services . It is being hosted by Stockholm Environment Institute (using Adobe Connect) and the SuSanA secretariat.

Registration details
Title: Results based financing for sanitation – do the costs outweigh the benefits?
Date: 29th April 2015
Time: 13:00 (UTC/GMT) - i.e. 09:00 in Washington DC, 14:00 in London and 20:00 in Hanoi. Please check your equivalent time here: http://bit.ly/1EyaZGn
To register click here: www.susana.org/webinar-registration

In the run up to the webinar we will be sharing relevant background resources on behalf of the speakers. Watch this space!

Pippa Scott
WASH Consultant www.i-San.co.uk
WEDC Research Associate
+44(0)7817737686
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Skype: p.c.scott
The following user(s) like this post: muench, cecile, Katakana
You need to login to reply
  • pippa
  • pippa's Avatar
    Topic Author
  • Regular forum user
  • WASH consultant, sanitation specialist. i-san Associate | WEDC Research Associate
  • Posts: 20
  • Karma: 2
  • Likes received: 8

Re: Results based financing for sanitation – do the costs outweigh the benefits? WEBINAR on Wednesday 29 April 2015 (14:00 London time)

In the run up to the webinar we will be sharing relevant background resources on behalf of the speakers.

The first of our speakers, we are delighted that Minh Chau Nguyen and Per Ljung of Thrive Networks will join us to speak on their East Meets West (Vietnam) Community Hygiene Output Based Aid (CHOBA) Program. We are welcoming Thrive Networks / East Meets West back to continue a conversation on Output Based Aid that we started via webinar in 2014.

We invite you to view this short video of CHOBA program in Vietnam :



You can watch the previous CHOBA webinar here .

And further details of the CHOBA (Vietnam) program can be found here .

Watch this space for details of our second speakers David Ehrhardt and Wil Goldenberg of CASTALIA Strategic Advisors in the next few days!

Pippa Scott
WASH Consultant www.i-San.co.uk
WEDC Research Associate
+44(0)7817737686
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Skype: p.c.scott
The following user(s) like this post: Marijn Zandee
You need to login to reply
  • pippa
  • pippa's Avatar
    Topic Author
  • Regular forum user
  • WASH consultant, sanitation specialist. i-san Associate | WEDC Research Associate
  • Posts: 20
  • Karma: 2
  • Likes received: 8

Re: Results based financing for sanitation – do the costs outweigh the benefits? WEBINAR on Wednesday 29 April 2015 (14:00 London time)

I'd now like to introduce the second speakers of the above webinar from Castalia Strategic Advisors (Washington DC office) who were commissioned by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to do a review of Results Based Financing in WASH, available here .

We are lucky enough to be joined by both David Ehrhardt (Chief Executive) and Wil Goldenberg (Analyst). Castalia will participate in the webinar in two ways:

First, they will provide a general overview of what we mean by ‘Results Based Financing’, defining terms and setting the scene for our webinar.

Second, they will present their perspective and insights from their Review of Results Based Financing in WASH on what we know and don’t know on the questions: "Do the costs outweigh the benefits of results based financing for sanitation”, and “what are the right conditions for it to work?"

We are very pleased to have them both on board!

Watch this space for updates of the last, but by no means least, final speaker of our webinar – Mr Robert Chambers of the Institute of Development Studies.

Pippa Scott
WASH Consultant www.i-San.co.uk
WEDC Research Associate
+44(0)7817737686
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Skype: p.c.scott
You need to login to reply
  • secretariat
  • secretariat's Avatar
  • Moderator
  • SuSanA secretariat currently allocates 2 full time person equivalents of time from members of GIZ Sustainable Sanitation Team: Arne Panesar, Doreen Mbalo, Annkathrin Tempel, Shobana Srinivasan and intern Alokananda Nath
  • Posts: 664
  • Karma: 22
  • Likes received: 225

Re: Results based financing for sanitation – do the costs outweigh the benefits? WEBINAR on Wednesday 29 April 2015 (14:00 London time)

Dear Susanne,

yes it is still possible to register.
Simply click here and fill out the form.

See you at the webinar!

Regards, Lasse (on behalf of the SuSanA secretariat)

Posted by a member of the SuSanA secretariat held by the GIZ Sustainable sanitation sector program
Located at Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Eschborn, Germany
Follow us on facebook: www.facebook.com/susana.org and twitter: twitter.com/susana_org
You need to login to reply
  • pippa
  • pippa's Avatar
    Topic Author
  • Regular forum user
  • WASH consultant, sanitation specialist. i-san Associate | WEDC Research Associate
  • Posts: 20
  • Karma: 2
  • Likes received: 8

Re: Results based financing for sanitation – do the costs outweigh the benefits? WEBINAR on Wednesday 29 April 2015 (14:00 London time)

Our final speaker for the above webinar is Professor Robert Chambers of the Institute of Development Studies in the UK.

Robert Chambers is a leading development practitioner and scholar and has been one of the leading advocates for putting the poor, destitute and marginalised at the centre of the processes of development policy. Robert’s current concerns and interests include professionalism, power, the personal dimension in development, participatory methodologies, teaching and learning with large numbers, agriculture and science, Seasonality Revisited, and Community-Led Total Sanitation.

We have invited Robert to the webinar to bring a wider development perspective on results based finance. In 2014 he wrote a passionate blog in response to the UK’s Department for International Development’s Payment By Results Policy “Perverse Payment by Results: frogs in a pot and straitjackets for obstacle courses” , is available by clinking on the link.

Another good read is Duncan Green’s blog (of Oxfam GB) “Should NGOs jump on board the Payment by Results bandwagon? New research suggests proceed with caution.”

Registration details
Title: Results based financing for sanitation – do the costs outweigh the benefits?
Date: 29th April 2015
Time: 13:00 (UTC/GMT) - i.e. 09:00 in Washington DC, 14:00 in London and 20:00 in Hanoi. Please check your equivalent time here: bit.ly/1EyaZGn
To register click here: www.susana.org/webinar-registration

We look forward to seeing you there!

Pippa Scott
WASH Consultant www.i-San.co.uk
WEDC Research Associate
+44(0)7817737686
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Skype: p.c.scott
The following user(s) like this post: Marijn Zandee
You need to login to reply
  • muench
  • muench's Avatar
  • Moderator
  • Freelance consultant (former roles: program manager, lecturer, process engineer)
  • Posts: 2011
  • Karma: 42
  • Likes received: 597

Re: Results based financing for sanitation – do the costs outweigh the benefits? WEBINAR on Wednesday 29 April 2015 (14:00 London time)

Dear all,

I look forward to joining this webinar next Wednesday even though (or because!) I know very little about results based financing for sanitation so far.

I welcome you all to use this thread to already now pose any questions you may have about this topic to the speakers and also to use it after the webinar to continue the discussion. Perhaps you would also like to share your own successful or unsuccessful projects with results based financing here?

The first question that I - as a novice - had, was "is results-based financing the same as output-based aid (OBA)?". The easy answer is: no.

In the Castalia report that Pippa mentioned above ( www.susana.org/en/resources/library/details/2177 ), there is a nice overview on page vii with the definitions:

+++++

Results-Based Financing (RBF) is an aid mechanism where payments are made to service
providers upon verification of the delivery of desired outputs, or the performance of
desired behaviors.

RBF needed to be distinguished from three closely related mechanisms:
- Payment for Results (PfR): PfR provides loan disbursements to governments upon
verification of desired outputs. These disbursements are loans to governments, rather
than grants to service providers.

- Public-Private Partnership (PPP): Governments contract with private firms to provide
services, such as through concession or performance-based contracts for operations
and maintenance, and may pay for services provided under the contract.

- Viability Gap Funding (VGF): Donors provide upfront grant contributions to cover gaps
between what customers will pay and what providers need to be paid, instead of
providing output-based subsidies.

There are various types of Results-Based Financing. The three main types of RBF used in
WASH are shown below.

Type of RBF:

Output-Based Aid (OBA) - In OBA projects, service delivery is contracted out to a third
party—public or private—which receives a subsidy to complement or replace the required user contribution.

Conditional Cash Transfers (CCTs) - CCT projects provide cash payments to poor households
that meet certain behavioral requirements. Note: We had a discussion about CCT started by Madeleine here on the forum not long ago: forum.susana.org/forum/categories/164-fi...and-sanitation#11185

Voucher Programs - In voucher projects, a consumer receives a redeemable voucher from a Government or donor agency which can be exchanged for a specified good or service.

++++++

Another thing that I thought could be useful to point out is that some of these topics have Wikipedia pages already, for example:
Conditional Cash Transfers: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_cash_transfer
Output-Based Aid (OBA): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Output-based_aid
Payment by Results: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_by_Results

I can't judge whether these pages are good or not, as it's not my area of expertise and as I haven't read them carefully yet (I still plan to do so). Perhaps as part of this webinar process, folks could look at these pages and make improvements or state on the talk pages what improvements are necessary. Perhaps we could also insert here and there relevant sanitation project examples (with references to projects, and hyperlinks to sanitation) so that people reading up about these finance mechanisms are also pointed towards sanitation as a possible application area.

What do you all think about these suggestions?

Elisabeth

Dr. Elisabeth von Muench
Independent consultant
Community manager of this forum via SEI
(see: www.susana.org/en/resources/projects/details/127 )
Wikipedian, co-founder of WikiProject Sanitation: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sanitation

Location: Frankfurt, Germany
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Twitter: @EvMuench, website:...
The following user(s) like this post: JKMakowka
You need to login to reply
  • muench
  • muench's Avatar
  • Moderator
  • Freelance consultant (former roles: program manager, lecturer, process engineer)
  • Posts: 2011
  • Karma: 42
  • Likes received: 597

Re: Results based financing for sanitation – do the costs outweigh the benefits? WEBINAR on Wednesday 29 April 2015 (14:00 London time)

If you are planning to attend this webinar which starts in two hours (15:00 time in Germany, but come a bit earlier if you can to mingle with other participants), then you may like to read up about the CHOBA project in Vietnam and Cambodia which will be used as an example for results based financing in this webinar.

I have just posted some more information about the CHOBA project here on the forum:
forum.susana.org/forum/categories/164-fi...-thrive-networks-usa

It is not yet too late to register, using the link provided earlier in this thread, i.e.
www.susana.org/en/webinar-registration

Dr. Elisabeth von Muench
Independent consultant
Community manager of this forum via SEI
(see: www.susana.org/en/resources/projects/details/127 )
Wikipedian, co-founder of WikiProject Sanitation: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sanitation

Location: Frankfurt, Germany
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Twitter: @EvMuench, website:...
You need to login to reply
  • pippa
  • pippa's Avatar
    Topic Author
  • Regular forum user
  • WASH consultant, sanitation specialist. i-san Associate | WEDC Research Associate
  • Posts: 20
  • Karma: 2
  • Likes received: 8

Re: Results based financing for sanitation – do the costs outweigh the benefits? WEBINAR on Wednesday 29 April 2015 (14:00 London time)

Hi everyone,

Many thanks to all who joined the RBF webinar yesterday. It was great to see so many people and such a high level of interest and excellent questions. Many of the questions were answered in the chat rooms but as always we couldn’t get to you all so as promised I am posting a few outstanding questions here and encourage all of you to continue the discussion here.

On improving accountability to deliver results
  • Blake McKinlay: I understand the concerns around the costs of RBF, however, one of the key strengths of RBF is increasing accountability on implementers to deliver results. Still if people are opposed to RBF, what are some other ideas regarding how to increase accountability? I would argue we have all been frogs in a pot of producing unsatisfactory results for too long and are now 'ok' with it.


On RBF’s ability to reach the right people and the poor.
  • Tripti: investments from MFIs and donors is also limited, often due to high risk ...does that mean we haven’t been able to meet the expectations of the people at the bottom wrt products, services offered?
  • Edward Guzha: How do we deal with possibility of service provider selling to non-WASH consumers for cash instead of vouchers?


On sustainability
  • Goutam Aryabhusan: How to verify that the changed behavious stands for long?
  • Tripti: do you think that lack of enabling services such was water for the facility is a challenge?

And a couple of questions specifically to Thrive Networks:
  • Blake McKinlay: From my understanding the verification process is essential and can be quite time consuming. Have there been any challenges and/or lessons learned here you can share?
  • Theodora Adomako-Adjei: can you elaborate on what you mean by product innovations not yet proven?

Of course there was much more debate to be had on many aspects of the call including upwards vs. downwards accountability, and if RBF stifles or encourages innovation and we hope we can get into this more once the video is made available.

More to follow soon,
Pippa

Pippa Scott
WASH Consultant www.i-San.co.uk
WEDC Research Associate
+44(0)7817737686
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Skype: p.c.scott
You need to login to reply
  • mnguyen49
  • mnguyen49's Avatar
  • Regular forum user
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: 1
  • Likes received: 1

Re: Fwd: RBF - thanks and outstanding questions

I would like to answer some of the questions that came up in our RBF webinar yesterday (RBF = results-based financing) which Pippa had listed above. Perhaps others want to answer the other questions, namely those on RBF’s ability to reach the right people and the poor; or others may want to add their own perspective on these questions and answers.


On improving accountability to deliver results

Blake McKinlay asked: I understand the concerns around the costs of RBF, however, one of the key strengths of RBF is increasing accountability on implementers to deliver results. Still if people are opposed to RBF, what are some other ideas regarding how to increase accountability? I would argue we have all been frogs in a pot of producing unsatisfactory results for too long and are now 'ok' with it.

My answer:

I would agree with Blake about increasing accountability. I think people oppose to RBF because of its market disruption nature. In EMW (East Meets West) case, EMW Board was reluctant in the beginning as it was too much risk but once they understood the benefits of RBF, they even put their own resources behind it in case we did not perform to relieve the organization from the financial risk. Fortunately we did not have to call on this reserve. Our partners also opposed to it in the beginning as they thought this was unheard of and too difficult. But now they apply RBF with their own resources as they see the benefit of delivery of results and increasing accountability, not to talk about transparency from the cost side. RBF time will come with more evidence, but we also need to come out with clearer evidence on whether this is more preferable than traditional financing with good implementers. If I can be so bold to say that we would succeed with traditional financing, but RBF gives us the flexibility and the incentives to become even more efficient.


On sustainability

Goutam Aryabhusan asked: How to verify that the changed behavious stands for long?

My answer:
On sustainability question, RBF instrument does not really allow us to verify sustainable changed behaviors. In CHOBA case, RBF is one of the instruments used along side with other tools such as CLTS, value chain development, finance, behavioral change (BC) campaign etc. The difference is that the payment for the mobilizers is based on results, which are defined as the hygienic latrines built and used. If you go back to watch the video that we sent prior to the webinar (see above), you will see the definition of hygienic latrines and the activities that took place in order to arrive at results. We can only verify the BC by observation and alert our partners to step up their campaign. We cannot withhold the payment that is based on hygienic latrines.


Tripti asked: do you think that lack of enabling services such was water for the facility is a challenge?

My answer: Our experience demonstrates that the lack of water facility is an inconvenient factor, but not a constrained factor for sanitation and hygiene. Where people prefer to upgrade to septic tank or pour flush latrines then they will need water. We see an accelerated demand from the communities for sanitation when there is a piped water connection. Quite often when households decide to invest in hygienic latrines (in Vietnam, mostly septic tank), they would like to invest also in bathing facilities next to the latrines, and thus water helps facilitate it.

And a couple of questions specifically to Thrive Networks:

Blake McKinlay: From my understanding the verification process is essential and can be quite time consuming. Have there been any challenges and/or lessons learned here you can share?

Here are some lessons:
1. Invest in technology from the start of the project if one can afford it. We made the mistakes to start our M and E (Monitoring and Evaluation) system which is essential for the verification manually, with paper excel sheets. We were also too ambitious in information gathering from households in enumerating them. We were concerned about gaming and therefore we verified more than 70% of the list submitted to us from our partners. The quality of data was very bad to start with and we had to generate our own data. So the lesson learnt here is that you should assess the quality of the existing baseline data, be clear about what you want to verify, and stick to the most simple way to verify the results. But agree in advance with donors the lag time for establishing the M&E system and test it out. Maybe donor would be willing to have a development period when this testing would be carried out.

2. We can get away with verification for the Conditional Cash Transfer without the laborious verification process that we have now from the enumerated database. For household rebate, one cannot avoid the enumeration process

3. Train your partners well in data collection and reporting. Structure incentives in quality data collection, but also penalties when they are bad.

4. There will be gaming, so need to enforce a firm policy of rejection of results submitted that are incorrect. But there is a nuance to this. We were concerned in the beginning that the zero tolerance policy that we designed was too tough and would discourage our partners. We did encounter this problem among others, and hence we did miss our first year target. We adjusted the policy (but not abandoned it) while at the same time built capacity of our partners. Once our partner realized that RBF is beneficial to them, then they can tolerate the strict policy better and therefore less gaming, and hence less risk for us in meeting the target
There are other short cuts we could take to reduce the time, but once we get our partners in the routine, we hesitate to refine it for fear of confusing them. But you really need to invest time in the beginning to think through and consult implementing partners. Our partners in Vietnam have not been engaged in M&E before and it was such a challenge to implement it. I think it was easier in Cambodia with the Provincial Department of Rural Development (PDRD). But now, it is a piece of cake for our partners and they also apply to other sectors that we are not engaged in.


Theodora Adomako-Adjei asked: can you elaborate on what you mean by product innovations not yet proven?

For example, we were considering to promote some technology from reinventing the toilet and thought that it would solve our FSM problem. Yet the technology was not proven in Vietnam and not accepted, and thus it would be risky for us to spend our resources on this product with uncertain results. So unless you are certain about the consumers' acceptance of the product, you should not use RBF to promote the product. I think Jan Willem also referred to this point from his experience, RBF works best where results can be predicted with certainty.

Regards,
Minh Chau

Minh Chau Nguyen

Formerly with Thrive Networks & responsible for the CHOBA project before handing over to Jeff Albert in January 2015
Now with Results for Development
Washington, DC, USA
www.r4d.org


* Note by moderator:
Abbreviations:
MFIs = Micro finance institutions
EVM = East meets West / Thrive Networks
FSM = Fecal sludge management
CHOBA = Community Hygiene Output Based Aid
PDRD = Provincial Department of Rural Development in Cambodia
RBF = Results-based financing

We have started a full list of abbreviations here and invite everyone to add to it:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProj...iations_and_acronyms
The following user(s) like this post: pippa
You need to login to reply
  • JKMakowka
  • JKMakowka's Avatar
  • Long-term forum user
  • Just call me Kris :)
  • Posts: 783
  • Karma: 34
  • Likes received: 233

Re: Results based financing for sanitation – do the costs outweigh the benefits? WEBINAR on Wednesday 29 April 2015 (14:00 London time)

pippa wrote: On improving accountability to deliver results

  • Blake McKinlay: I understand the concerns around the costs of RBF, however, one of the key strengths of RBF is increasing accountability on implementers to deliver results. Still if people are opposed to RBF, what are some other ideas regarding how to increase accountability? I would argue we have all been frogs in a pot of producing unsatisfactory results for too long and are now 'ok' with it.


I like the frog metaphor in that regard; Glad I am not the only one that feels like that.

While RBF seems like a great idea in theory, in practical terms it seems more suitable towards encrusted government programmes (both in the developed and the developing countries) where the flexible engagement of large private sector service providers that are operating on their own risk can reduce costs and improve the service even when factoring in their profit. One can argue about problems with democratic accountability, or that government agencies should be reformed to be more effective, but many practical examples show that here some sort of flexible out-contracting can work well.

In the "NGO world" however, RBF seems to be a "fix" to an entirely different problem, which was created by an equally well meaning and theoretically sound idea that (in my opinion) turned out to really hurt accountability and implementation results:
The idea to shift from direct implementation by the international NGO itself, to work with "local partners".
Without bad intentions, this has turned into a very convenient way to shift the blame if something goes wrong to often tiny and hardly established (and sometimes corrupt) local NGOs (however as the int. NGO knew before, e.g. "we will build their capacity" this is in my eyes a weak excuse). Under such constructs, the only real accountability left to int. NGOs is financial (as one can easily see by their staff structure), and under such circumstances RBF seems like an "convenient" way to try and shift even that away (again to local partners that lack the capacity and thus this "scheme" will not really work).

As such I wouldn't really mind if institutional donors would turn the stick around and offer RFB funding to international NGOs (that often are capable of taking the risks if not constrained by other non-RBF funding requirements) as that would probably make them return to direct implementation and thus more tangible results.

(Disclaimer: limited(!) cooperation with "local partners" can of course do good, and working together with one local partner over decades, like the Red Cross societies are for example doing it, can result in an sufficiently strong local partner to also do RBF with them).

Krischan Makowka
Microbiologist & emergency WASH specialist
You need to login to reply
  • arno
  • arno's Avatar
  • Moderator
  • Senior Research Fellow Stockholm Environment Institute
  • Posts: 224
  • Karma: 17
  • Likes received: 125

Re: Results based financing for sanitation – do the costs outweigh the benefits? WEBINAR on Wednesday 29 April 2015 - follow-up discussion

Here is the link to the webinar held by SEI/SuSanA on April 29, 2015 dealing with Results-Based Financing in Sanitation.

Link to the Playlist containing all 7 videos:

www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0gMdVBup...c0dL9j338ztxnxMzBlZr

Links to the individual videos below:

Peter Feldman (introduction):




Wil Goldenberg of CASTALIA Strategic Advisors (USA):



This attachment is hidden for guests.
Please log in or register to see it.



Minh Chau Nguyen & Per Ljung (Thrive Networks, USA & Vietnam):



This attachment is hidden for guests.
Please log in or register to see it.



David Ehrhardt of CASTALIA Strategic Advisors:



This attachment is hidden for guests.
Please log in or register to see it.




Robert Chambers (IDS, UK):




Leonard Tedd (DFID, UK):




Peter Feldmann (Euforic Services) - wrap-up:



The webinar was organized by SEI and the SuSanA secretariat along with Pippa Scott, Peter Feldman and Pete Cranston of Euphoric Services who have been working on knowledge management within the Building Demand for Sanitation Programme at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The webinar was chaired by Peter Feldman and consisted of several papers covering what Results-Based Financing is and a review of experience by Will Goldenberger and David Erhardt of Castalia Strategic Advisors, a specific case from Vietnam provided by Minh Chau Nguyen and Per Ljung of Thrive Networks, a critique from Robert Chambers of the Institute of Development Studies in Sussex and a further assessment by Leonard Tedd from DFID. Each paper can be seen separately in the individual MP4 files.

I found the caliber of the webinar and the papers given by the 6 speakers to be top class. The webinar provides a good overview of what RBF is and examines the challenges surrounding monitoring of results in development projects in order to earn full funding. Although there are additional costs incurred in monitoring performance, and there is a risk of compromised flexibility when things go wrong, project goals tend to be better defined and accountability and the level of innovation tend to be higher than for input-based financing. Also the element of profit can be introduced in a transparent fashion thus enabling private sector participation. RBF can take the form of output-based aid, conditional cash transfers and redeemable vouchers for performance. These are further explained in the webinar.


[[End of Page 1 of the discussion thread]

Arno Rosemarin PhD
Stockholm Environment Institute
Linnegatan 87D, Box 24218
10451 Stockholm, Sweden
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

This message has attachments files.
Please log in or register to see it.

You need to login to reply
  • muench
  • muench's Avatar
  • Moderator
  • Freelance consultant (former roles: program manager, lecturer, process engineer)
  • Posts: 2011
  • Karma: 42
  • Likes received: 597

Re: Results based financing for sanitation – do the costs outweigh the benefits? WEBINAR on Wednesday 29 April 2015 - follow-up discussion

[[Start of Page 2 of the discussion thread]


And for those who don't have access to Youtube, you can download the video recordings from the Webinar from this link at One Drive (which will be valid for a few weeks/months):

1drv.ms/1ziz3MN

Enjoy!

Like Arno, I also found this webinar really very high calibre and have learnt a lot about results-based financing for sanitation.

In this webinar, I also heard about three large projects that are funded by DFID which are also using results-based financing (or payment by results (PBR) which is another term for it). They are being implemented by Oxfam, SNV and Plan and are now included here in the project database:
www.susana.org/en/resources/projects?search=rbf

It would be good if we could hear more about those projects here on the discussion forum as well.

Thanks to Pippa, the presenters and all involved for making this webinar a success and for making the information available to us all!

Regards,
Elisabeth

Dr. Elisabeth von Muench
Independent consultant
Community manager of this forum via SEI
(see: www.susana.org/en/resources/projects/details/127 )
Wikipedian, co-founder of WikiProject Sanitation: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sanitation

Location: Frankfurt, Germany
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Twitter: @EvMuench, website:...
You need to login to reply
Share this thread:
Time to create page: 0.790 seconds