10 page Summary of TrackFin's results in Brazil

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

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

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

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

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

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 publictransfers

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 andmaintenanceexpenditureCapital Investments

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

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 andmaintenance expenditure

Capital Investments

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 supplyservices

Sanitationservices

Support toWASH

Waterresources

Management

Households

NGOs and community-basedorganizationsBanks and FinancialInstitutionsBilateral and multilateraldonorsEconomic and qualityRegulatorsNon-network corporateprovidersNetwork corporate providers

Local authorities

Regional authorities

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

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

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.