SuSanA - Forum Kunena Site Syndication http://forum.susana.org/ Tue, 02 Sep 2014 06:50:29 +0000 Kunena 1.6 http://forum.susana.org/components/com_kunena/template/default/images/icons/rss.png SuSanA - Forum http://forum.susana.org/ en-gb Re: Results based financing - by: JKMakowka http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9960-results-based-financing#9964 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9960-results-based-financing#9964
Another point often overlooked are the very different credit access conditions, with a government or other large organisation being able to pre-finance very cheaply, while a local organisation in a developing country might have to pay a huge interest rate (or not get any credit at all). This is also a question of cost efficiency by the way.

I wouldn't claim to be an expert on the topic, but I recently looked into it for a project here in Uganda. My impression is that can make a lot of sense for direct bilateral government support on paper, but usually the administrative budget structures have a hard time adjusting to it.

When it comes to local NGOs, the above limits in credit apply, but more in general one also have to acknowledge that a shift in risk should also come with a shift in benefits. This is still a big taboo in development circles, but if one talks about RBF one also needs to talk about potential profits and employee bonuses (also because as mentioned in the article they are often the ones that go without pay for months).

In regards to international NGOs it doesn't seem to make a big difference unless the donors would give them more leeway in designing their own approaches instead of just applying to pre-determined calls as it is usually the case. However here again I see issues in conflicting spending with individual earmarked donations which do not allow easy shifting.

Overall I am a bit sceptical when it comes to RBF outside of what it seems to have been originally invented for (bilateral government support and large utility parastatals contracts).
If implemented at NGO level it will result in a further commercialisation of those, just like many already operate on a quasi consultancy level. This has certainly some good aspects to it, but I think the sector as a whole is not really willing to go down that road. This is especially because people employed in development aid largely fall into the charity / social worker or alternatively government like administrator categories, plus some technicians... however all of these are not business minded people for the most case. Thus a top down donor driven RBF approach is doomed to fail.

A bit outside of the typical RBF debates, a community fund piloted here in Uganda is a nice example of creative thinking though. Instead of funding typical "software" activities directly, the target communities are invited to apply for a financial support to a self administrated "village bank" under the precondition that certain criteria are met. This is what I would call a "soft RBF" as from a community perspective the donor intended results are only a side effect and the resulting "profits" can be used as they see fit.
In addition it lowers the efforts and costs of monitoring by the donor agency, as it is in the interest of the communities to provide the "proof" of the met criteria themselves (and that at a much lower opportunity cost than the donor agency could do it).
Edit: however lessons need to be learned from unintended negative effects of "ODF awards" in government run CLTS programmes, which is ultimately not that different.]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Mon, 01 Sep 2014 07:15:11 +0000
Re: Results based financing - by: jonpar http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9960-results-based-financing#9963 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9960-results-based-financing#9963
I'd be interested to read about people's opinions/experience of results based financing as applied to sanitation. I've been involved on the preparation of the proposal to BMBF for Freetown (the different cities are listed in Roshan's posting on the link in your message).

I too think that there is a lot of potential and can be used at various points in the sanitation chain. One example of results based financing (not a non-sewer based solution) that I think has great potential is the River Basin Clean-Up Program (PRODES) in Brazil. I think the programme stopped for a while and then recommenced but I've only read brief documentation. I'd be really keen to read a more detailed evaluation of PRODES because to date. Could India adopt a similar approach for the Ganges Action Plan which seems to have already failed twice ?

What other examples are there where RBF has been applied ? What are the experiences ? How successful have the projects been - can we conclude that they RBF does achieve greater cost efficiency? Or is it too early to say?

Jonathan]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Mon, 01 Sep 2014 06:46:16 +0000
Re: Results based financing - by: christoph http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9960-results-based-financing#9961 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9960-results-based-financing#9961
thanks for posting and interesting reading indeed.... but... what comments do you expect?

This is an extremely broad field. I will concentrate in my answer to the aspect of non sewer sanitation.

I think/hope the Results-Based Financing for Sanitation approach "City Partnerships for Urban Sanitation Service Delivery (BMGF and DfID funded)" will show interesting results.

My very strong belief is that mass movement can only be achieved when the countries see in practical examples that integral non sewer santiation solutions are possible. And hopefully they start using their own (and let them be limited) funds to promote Results-Based Financing for Sanitation approaches for the sanitation utilities.
Let’s see what happens.

Regards

Christoph]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Sun, 31 Aug 2014 23:39:27 +0000
Results based financing - by: jonpar http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9960-results-based-financing#9960 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9960-results-based-financing#9960
Please take a few minutes to read the short article by Antoinette Kome (Global Sector Coordinator for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene, SNV) entitled "The promise of results based finance in WASH" at:

sanitationandwaterforall.org/partner_per...sed-finance-in-wash.

A very pragmatic perspective of results based financing which I concur with.

It would be interesting you opinions/experience of results based financing as applied to sanitation.

For further information about results based financing, I encourage you to read
"Identifying the Potential for Results-Based Financing for Sanitation" by Sophie Trémolet (November 2011)

www.wsp.org/sites/wsp.org/files/publicat...-Based-Financing.pdf

best regards,

Jonathan Parkinson]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Sun, 31 Aug 2014 21:49:35 +0000
Equipment leasing as a financing mechanism for sustainable solid waste and sanitation services in Kampala, Uganda Master - by: jonpar http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9661-equipment-leasing-as-a-financing-mechanism-for-sustainable-solid-waste-and-sanitation-services-in-kampala-uganda-master#9661 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9661-equipment-leasing-as-a-financing-mechanism-for-sustainable-solid-waste-and-sanitation-services-in-kampala-uganda-master#9661
thesis.eur.nl/pub/12080/(1)29753.pdf

"Equipment Leasing as a Financing Mechanism for Sustainable Solid Waste and Sanitation
Services in Kampala" by Ivan Katongole,Uganda

MASTER’S PROGRAMME IN URBAN MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
(October 2006 – September 2007)

"The motivation for the study was the challenge in the delivery of solid waste and
sanitation services in Kampala city due lack of appropriate equipment by formal and
informal service providers who use very old vehicles for transportation of solid and
liquid wastes to secondary collection points and/or to disposal sites. The main objective of this study was therefore to assess the potential of leasing
equipment as an innovative financing mechanism for sustainable solid waste and
sanitation services in Kampala."

Section 5.5.3 (The potential of leasing according to leasing companies and
equipment suppliers) sums up the focus of the dissertation...

"All respondents from leasing companies and equipment suppliers intimated that
leasing is a financial product with commercial viability and that leasing is
increasingly becoming an attractive financing option in Uganda because it facilitates
SMEs to acquire expensive equipment which they cannot acquire by making cash
down payments. The respondents revealed that one of the best ways to promote the
use of leasing is through unlocking the potential of the solid waste and sanitation
market in Kampala as this would increase the confidence of service providers,
financial institutions and equipment suppliers in the solid waste and sanitation sector
as a commercially viable and worth their investment plans. "

It would be interesting to hear from anyone who has experience of public authorities purchasing sludge trucks (with IFI finance to lease to private operators on a lease contract arrangement.

best regards,

Jonathan]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Thu, 07 Aug 2014 14:53:27 +0000
WERF Decentralized Systems Planning Tool including Spreadsheet for costing options - by: jonpar http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9575-werf-decentralized-systems-planning-tool-including-spreadsheet-for-costing-options#9575 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9575-werf-decentralized-systems-planning-tool-including-spreadsheet-for-costing-options#9575
***************************************************************************************
Decentralized Systems Performance and Costs Fact Sheets

Small community leaders and planners have a critical need for information and tools to help make good decisions concerning local wastewater management.

www.werf.org/i/c/DecentralizedCost/Decentralized_Cost.aspx

The spreadsheet tool provides planning level cost estimations of different decentralized wastewater management scenarios commonly used in small communities. Initial capital costs as well as long-term maintenance and energy costs are included. Users can take advantage of the default unit cost values provided based on national data or use better, local information when available.

The information on this page is not intended to serve as a design manual, but rather to provide small community decision-makers the information necessary to work with engineers, soils professionals, construction managers and financial personnel to get the best wastewater solution for their community.]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Thu, 31 Jul 2014 17:42:18 +0000
Request for literature on demand for investment in water services infrastructure - by: sachs77 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9483-request-for-literature-on-demand-for-investment-in-water-services-infrastructure#9483 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9483-request-for-literature-on-demand-for-investment-in-water-services-infrastructure#9483
I am a faculty member at National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, New Delhi, India. I am looking for literature (empirical) on 'demand for investment in water services infrastructure'. By water services, I mean access to safe drinking water and sanitation. I would appreciate if you could kindly share your thoughts and experience on the following issues:

a) Available methods for estimation of global demand for investment in water services infrastructure
b) Cost to provide access to safe drinking water to a person or household
c) Cost to provide access to sanitation to a person or household

To make the estimates robust, I need to know the unit costs from all continents, if not available for countries.

The objective of this exercise is to project demand for investment in water services infrastructure to met MDGs or beyond. Information shared with me will be used for academic purposes only not for any commercial gains.

Best regards,

Sacchidananda

--


Sacchidananda Mukherjee, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
National Institute of Public Finance and Policy
18/2, Satsang Vihar Marg, Special Institutional Area
(Near JNU East Gate)
New Delhi – 110 067, INDIA
Ph. (O): +91-11-26960439, 26967935, 26852398, 26569780
Fax: +91-11-26852548, Mobile: +91-9868421239
E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Web: works.bepress.com/sacchidananda_mukherjee/]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Fri, 25 Jul 2014 03:57:47 +0000
Re: Subsidizing household connections from poor households to sewerage - by: hajo http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9369-subsidizing-household-connections-from-poor-households-to-sewerage#9414 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9369-subsidizing-household-connections-from-poor-households-to-sewerage#9414 ‘So the real problem for many was the high investment for a bath room not the connection itself.’
‘Probably cheaper for the donor as well as for the user and for the sanitation utility.’

It was these two statements in your (Christoph) contribution which lured me out of only lurking through the forum… to add my two pennies worth working in Africa:

1. I would not be sure whether I can believe the economic reasons given for not having a sewer connection because people may not want to admit that they are not interested (like they cannot admit that they ‘do not know’ something);
2. Sanitation has a very low priority in Africa (as opposed to water or mobile phone or ...), the immediate need as for water is not obvious because the health aspects always quoted by professionals are not ‘visible/tangible’ to the average person; people always complain about poor water supply, low pressure, rationing, even about water quality but rarely about a poor sanitation situation (which is comparable even worse than the WS);
3. And therefore the respondent may prefer to give economic reasons rather than stating ‘non-interest’ and risk being lectured by you/the project about the (health) advantages of safe sanitation.

With regard to the second statement:
1. As described before I do not believe that ‘cheaper’ is an argument for the user as he is basically not interested in sanitation no matter what it costs, he does not see/believe in the health advantages and it is no status symbol for him (yet, here I see a possible driver to spark interest in improved sanitation) to have a ‘nice’ toilet’ (like to have a mobile phone);
2. Sanitation utilities, local authorities, national policies in Tanzania (and possibly elsewhere in Africa) are not interested in on-site sanitation (pit latrines, VIP, UDDT, septic tanks). Official policy is that construction and O&M of these systems are households’ responsibility. Public services only include sewers and WWTPs and although only 1% of Tanzanian population is currently served by sewers they believe to increase this considerably in a short time. This has possibly three reasons: i) technical training only comprises sewers and WWTP; ii) socially sewers have a ‘flair’ of development as opposed to ‘backwards’ VIP and UDDTs being considered as pit latrines; and iii) construction of sewers guarantees much more money flow with associated ‘side effects’.
3. And two of these reasons also apply to donor/funding agencies: i) their (management) consultants may have less knowledge and interest in sustainable on-site sanitation; ii) the administrative overhead costs of ‘cheaper’ projects are comparably too high; and iii) it may be questionable whether donors really want ‘cheaper’ projects as long as a good percentage of the more expensive project supports their home economy (40 to 60% of a 15 millEUR project serving 20% of a town population with sewers may flow back while only 10-20% of a 8millEUR project serving 60% of the town population with on-site sanitation services).

Thus I think that currently neither user, donor nor sanitation authorities have an interest in ‘cheaper’ solutions. The question to us is what are possible drivers for these stakeholders to support sustainable sanitation which can be up-scaled nationwide? And how can we start influencing donors and national policies in that direction? Can/should SUSANA become also a political (sanitation) force, something like Avaaz, Foodwatch or Attac which I feel we need (and possibly not only for sustainable sanitation but for development cooperation overall)?

We have to find ways not only trying to develop alternative sustainable sanitation systems (to which this forum and its participants contribute tremendously) but we must also try convincing the public, the politics and the financiers that sewers and WWTPs are NOT a feasible/affordable/sustainable solution for the majority of areas/population in the developing world and

that -per se- it makes not much sense to use drinking water to flush shit and with the flush increase the contaminated mass hundredfold from 300ml (faeces) to 30 litres black water (2-3 flushes per day); a much bigger mass which needs to be safeguarded from human contact, be transported, treated and disposed off.

Ciao, Hajo]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:28:03 +0000
Re: Subsidizing household connections from poor households to sewerage - by: JKMakowka http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9369-subsidizing-household-connections-from-poor-households-to-sewerage#9409 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9369-subsidizing-household-connections-from-poor-households-to-sewerage#9409
The second point that promoting UDDTs makes perfect sense where people do not have water based wash-rooms yet is also important, however I am unsure if the water & sanitation utility would be really the best organisation to pick up the servicing of UDDTs. In these cases there is often a strong correlation to inadequate solid-waste services, which in my opinion are the much more natural point of entry for UDDT emtying services etc... although of course in the European (German?) setting the solid-waste and water&sanitation municipal utilities are usually the same.

Maybe this is the strongest advantage of UDDTs from a user point of view (i.e. one that does care much about the fertilizer by-products): A UDDT can offer a "sewered bathroom" like experience in a non-sewered situation.
Which is probably also why the latrine like UDDTs (as usually build by NGOs) fail to attract any considerable uptake outside of areas where the reuse is seen as important.

Your type of design, maybe improved with the "dry-flush-screw" design showcased elsewhere in this forum (forum.susana.org/forum/categories/106-us...installed-in-ecuador), is probably the only UDDT design poeple will start constructing with their own funds.]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:35:37 +0000
Re: Subsidizing household connections from poor households to sewerage - by: christoph http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9369-subsidizing-household-connections-from-poor-households-to-sewerage#9406 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9369-subsidizing-household-connections-from-poor-households-to-sewerage#9406 We went in one year in Bolivia in a Project from 21% connected to 63% (see table). This were 3 small towns where the sewer was implanted but the people did not connect.



What was our way?
  • Mapping the main actors in the process.
  • We analayzed the real and apparent reasons for not connecting (as in the first survey everybody wanted to have a connection)
  • We identified the restrictions to overcome.
  • We accompanied the process closely.

We found strong differences between the apparent and real reasons.
From the side of the sanitation utility.
  • Billing was more important than real connection
  • Making effective a connection is a conflictive action and it is street work.

From the side of the authorities:
  • When I (authority) offer the possibility to connect it is sufficient to say “I did it”. If the people use it or not does not bring votes.

The restrictions for connection we analyzed by a 100% survey of the non connected users.
Easy to see that there where strong differences in between the towns in terms of sanitation use.

The result is that these people not only have to pay the connection, but as well the total infrastructure for a bath, 36% to 65% need a complete sanitary installation.
We asked “why did you not do the connection”.

So the real problem for many was the high investment for a bath room not the connection itself.

Furthermore the survey identified a good number of “possible” connections where there were no houses or abandoned houses.
We saw VERY clearly that it was not a lack of sanitation education.
We identified 3 groups of users:
  1. The user with sufficient economic background - we just organized notifications and follow up to enhance connection rate
  2. The user with economic limitations but his own installations – we organized an installment plan linked to the water bill.
  3. The extreme poverty (not)user without any installations and no economic possibilities. WE organized a municipal support program for the construction of minimal bathrooms.


For the cases 1 and 2 it was very helpful that the bolivian regulation allows to bill a user who has the possibility to connect itself, even if he is not connected physically.

I hope these experiences help a bit.

In my opinion these towns could have had perfect UDDT –bathrooms (see picture - sorry for the size did not know how to make it smaller ),




financed with the money which was spend for the sewer and treatment. Probably cheaper for the donor as well as for the user and for the sanitation utility.
Accompanied by a recollection service by the sanitation utility this would have been the perfect sanitation solution for everybody, as the poorest still lack sanitation in these towns.


Yours
Christoph]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Sat, 19 Jul 2014 13:42:35 +0000
Subsidizing household connections from poor households to sewerage - by: jonpar http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9369-subsidizing-household-connections-from-poor-households-to-sewerage#9369 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9369-subsidizing-household-connections-from-poor-households-to-sewerage#9369
The issue of whether to subsidizing household connections from poor households to sewerage is a "hot potato" in the sector and alot of different approaches / lack of consistency between different projects.

Some projects provide no subsidy and expect households to pay for the connection - this often leads to a poor connection rate because people don't want to pay the connection fee and the ongoing sewerage charge. Other projects fully subsidize the connection.

It is questionable whether the sewerage network should be constructed in the first place if there is insufficient demand... but it is not always as clear cut as this because there may be demand from a proportion of households but lower income households can't afford to pay.

What experiences do you have to share ? Does anyone know of any systematic assessment of experiences / lessons learnt that can help in project design?

best regards,

Jonathan]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Wed, 16 Jul 2014 10:46:25 +0000
Overview of WSP's Economics of Sanitation Initiative (ESI) - by: jonpar http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9363-overview-of-wsps-economics-of-sanitation-initiative-esi#9363 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9363-overview-of-wsps-economics-of-sanitation-initiative-esi#9363
www.wsp.org/media/ESI-website-presentation/index.htm]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Tue, 15 Jul 2014 23:06:54 +0000
RE: 18th SuSanA meeting in Stockholm September 5th - 6th 2014 - by: jonpar http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9316-18th-susana-meeting-in-stockholm-september-5th-6th-2014#9340 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9316-18th-susana-meeting-in-stockholm-september-5th-6th-2014#9340
Stockholm Water Week (www.worldwaterweek.org) runs from August 31 - September 5, 2014

I am writing to inform you that the SuSanA meetings schedule for the 5th - 6th September will therefore take place after SWWW, not before as I indicated my previous communication.

For more information about what is going on during the week, please refer to

www.worldwaterweek.org/documents/WWW_PDF...Registration_web.pdf

best regards,

Jonathan]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:04:52 +0000
18th SuSanA meeting in Stockholm September 5th - 6th 2014 - by: jonpar http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9316-18th-susana-meeting-in-stockholm-september-5th-6th-2014#9316 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/9316-18th-susana-meeting-in-stockholm-september-5th-6th-2014#9316


At the beginning of September (5th and 6th), prior to the Stockholm World Water Week (SWWW), SuSanA is holding its 18th SuSanA meeting . This will be held at Stockholm Environment Institute.



You will find details of the meeting page at :

www.susana.org/lang-en/meetings/18th-sus...ing-stockholm-sweden



As well as encouraging you to participate in the main SuSanA meeting, I am writing to enquire if you would be interested to join a knowledge exchange meeting specially for WG2 members.



This could either be organized on 6th September at SEI or during the week in the SWWW venue. If the latter, I need to check on the arrangements for hiring a room.


I therefore kindly ask you:



1) If you are interested in attending?



2) What you would expect from such a meeting?



3) If you would like to share a special topic/issue (e.g. past/current work; ideas for working group activities; etc.) either during the WG meeting or alternatively with the whole SuSanA crowd during the plenary meeting.

As I am not in a position to attend this year, I would be particularly keen to here from anyone who would be willing to play a role in organising the meeting.

I am currently lacking a co-lead for this WG and would therefore appreciate anyone who wants to raise their profile and be more actively involved in the WG to step forward. This does not mean that you need to be an expert in finance and economics. I personally am an engineer with a keen interest in finance and economics. Interest and time is all that is required.



Please contact me directly if you would like to help out with the organisation of the meeting and/or you'd be interested to assist me and support the group as co-lead.

best regards,
Jonathan]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Fri, 11 Jul 2014 17:54:43 +0000
Resources For WASH Financial Products, Toolkit for Wash Microfinance - by: jayantikc http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/8923-resources-for-wash-financial-products-toolkit-for-wash-microfinance#8923 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/55-wg-2-finance-economics/8923-resources-for-wash-financial-products-toolkit-for-wash-microfinance#8923 Water.org and MicroSave Launch Resources for WASH Financial Products

In an effort to expand our impact in solving the global water crisis, Water.org and MicroSave are jointly developing a series of toolkits to provide information and tools for financial institutions to develop microfinance products for water and sanitation investments.

The toolkits present essential information, principles and practices for successful development of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) financial products. The more financial institutions that have WASH products in their portfolios, the more loans that can be made to people in need – giving them safe access to safe water and/or sanitation and a chance to break the cycle of poverty. The toolkits are designed to be applicable across a variety of markets, lending methodologies and business models.

The first two toolkits are now available to download at WASHMicrofinance.org. Toolkit 1 is an introduction to WASH microfinance and toolkit 2 covers the development of a WASH financial product. The remaining three toolkits are scheduled for release over the next 18 months.

The toolkits were made possible with the support and vision of our generous partners – The MasterCard Foundation, the PepsiCo Foundation and the Caterpillar Foundation.
For more information on MicroSave please visit www.MicroSave.net

About Water.org
Water.org has been at the forefront of developing and delivering solutions to the water crisis for about two decades. Founded by Gary White and Matt Damon, Water.org challenges the traditional approach by pioneering innovative, community-driven, and market-based solutions to ensure all people have access to safe water and sanitation; giving women hope, children health, and communities a future. Water.org has positively transformed the lives of more than 10 lakh (one million) individuals in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean by providing access to safe water and sanitation.

Water.org in South Asia
In India, Water.org has been active since 2003. With the support of 18 local NGOs, Water.org is implementing Water and Sanitation programs in the states of Tamil Nadu, Odisha, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Assam, Rajasthan, Delhi, Bihar and Maharashtra. Similarly, it is implementing two projects in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
For more information, please visit www.water.org]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Wed, 11 Jun 2014 06:06:56 +0000