Below the water line

On 8 September 1854, London health authorities removed the handle of a water pump located at the juncture of Cambridge and Broad Streets. The well was famous in the city for the sweetness of its water, apparently used as an ingredient in a “celebrated nectar”.

This fact was all the more astonishing because the well was also responsible for the deaths, in less than a fortnight, of nearly 700 people. The cause of death was cholera. Dr John Snow, a British physician credited as one of the founders of epidemiology, identified the source of the fatal outbreak as the Broad Street pump. Further investigation revealed that faulty brickwork around a cesspool, which lay within a metre of the pump, had allowed infected water to seep into the surrounding soil and thence into the well. The water level in the cesspool was two and a half metres higher than that of the well. On Dr Snow’s recommendations, authorities removed the pump handle.

The solution was simple, and in many cases, better drinking water and sanitation requires only the close scrutiny of authorities. But today, investment is rarely simple. Modern water use and sanitation systems are administratively and politically complex. Water is considered a human right, unlike electricity or telecommunications. Nor do people see water as an “infrastructure” like the mesh of power lines overhead. It is taken for granted, partly because the bulk of water infrastructure lies out of sight underground, which also makes it difficult and costly to maintain. Further complications arise from the fact that sanitation is often administered by a slew of ministries and departments rather than by a single agency, giving rise to potential conflicts of authority which can affect management and quality. Lastly, in the present economic climate, a dim view is taken of any proposal to make households or governments pay more.

Sufficient funding is necessary to maintain or improve existing infrastructures and to ensure access to healthy drinking water. This holds true not only for developing countries but OECD and emerging market (chiefly BRIC) countries as well. Together, OECD and BRIC countries will have to spend between 0.35% and 1.2% of their GDP to maintain existing infrastructures. This currently amounts to US$576 billion per year, an outlay projected to rise to nearly $780 billion by 2015 and $1,035 billion by 2025.

Developing countries face different problems, the main one being access to clean water. The World Health Organization estimates that clean water and hygiene would reduce the global burden of disease by 10%, and generate revenue of up to $84 billion per year. Diarrheal diseases such as cholera kill 1.8 million people a year, 88% of whom are infected as a direct result of impure water, poor sanitation and hygiene. Improving the water supply and sanitation reduces morbidity by 58.5% and the simple act of washing hands reduces it by another 35%. Yet there is a caveat. “Having a water tap does not necessarily mean having sustainable access to safe drinking water,” a recent OECD report warns. Cross-contamination, as the Broad Street pump example shows, can have grave consequences. Access must remain a priority, but without corresponding investments in sanitation, its provision may be a poisoned chalice.

Investors are already shy of the heavy initial outlay needed for water infrastructure. Economic uncertainty in developed countries and political instability in developing countries do nothing to embolden them. So where is the money to come from? A lot can be saved through efficiency. Leakage is a notorious problem, not only in developing countries, where up to 70% of water is lost through leaks, but in developed countries as well. Decrepit infrastructure built during the Victorian era was responsible for the 40% leakage rate in the London water network, prompting the economic regulator, Ofwat, to impose reduction targets. In other developed countries, leakage may be at similarly high levels.

Even with gains in efficiency, poorer countries will not reach the Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of people without access to clean drinking water by 2015. The United Nations estimates that hitting that target will require anything between $6.7 and $75 billion per year, increasing to between $33.5 and $375 billion by 2015. At current levels of financing, this target is out of range. Closing the financing gap means softening some long-held assumptions.

In 2009, the OECD recommended a combination of tariffs, taxes and transfers of development aid and philanthropic donations as the surest way to close the funding gap. The steady stream of revenue from these sources would open the way for repayable finance in the form of loans, bonds and equity. This approach, known as “sustainable cost recovery”, departs from the earlier concept of “full cost recovery”, which held that tariffs alone were sufficient to recover costs. While largely true in OECD countries such as France, where tariffs account for 90% of financing, it is clearly not the case in developing countries. In Mozambique, for example, tariffs cover only 30% of financing; in Egypt, a mere 10%. This is not surprising. Proponents of full cost recovery overlook the fact that water infrastructure in developed countries evolved over a period of 50 to 100 years and until recently was largely financed from public budgets. Until sound infrastructure is in place, and household affordability has improved, developing countries will have to rely on their public budget resources, on assistance and donations in addition to tariffs.

Setting tariffs offers a good example of the complexity of water issues, especially in countries where the provision of water is heavily subsidised. Subsidies are rightly meant to protect poor consumers. However, there is little incentive to save water if those subsidies are overly generous and reduce the water price. Politicians may be loath to raise tariffs on a “public good” and “human right”, but sustainable cost recovery cannot be realised unless a balance is struck between affordability and financial sustainability. The question is whether the criterion of affordability should apply to the population as a whole or only to the most vulnerable?

An example of a flawed approach to ensuring affordability is when water tariffs are subsidised across the board, as is the case in Egypt for example, where 90% of water utility revenue comes from tax payers’ money. As a result, the rich, who are the largest per capita water consumers, receive a larger subsidy than the poor and pay a relatively small percentage of their income, while the poorest sections pay a larger share of theirs.

Governments could cushion this by compensating poorer households directly and by making it easier for those consumers, whose incomes are often irregular, to pay their bills: week by week, for instance, rather than quarterly.

While tariffs may cover cost for provision and maintenance, the hefty capital required to develop and to repair infrastructure generally comes from taxes in the form of government subsidised loans, grants and guarantees. With governments today scrambling for cash, these sources of revenue are being siphoned off, although some countries, such as China, Korea and the United States, specifically targeted the water sector in their economic stimulus packages. The crisis also makes it hard for both developed and developing countries to borrow at acceptable rates. The result may be “temporary” cuts in funding.

For developing countries, the situation is brightening. In 2001, aid for water and sanitation began to rise sharply. Between 2002 and 2009, bilateral aid increased on average by 18% per year, with multilateral aid increasing by 10%. Official development assistance (ODA) is most effective when used to support public goods, such as wastewater treatment, improved access for the poor, and as leverage to attract private investment. Allocation for water and sanitation is a problem, however, with some countries receiving more ODA than they need, and spending it disproportionately on urban areas rather than water-stressed rural ones. Unfortunately, as donor countries shore up their finances, ODA is unlikely to see further increases any time soon.

The OECD has a range of tools to help policymakers achieve more sustainable financing of water and sanitation. The strategic financial planning approach helps decision-makers to find the right mix of funding. This is supported by FEASIBLE, a computer-modelling programme that evaluates the discrepancy between the cost and the financial reality of proposed water and sanitation projects. Another tool is the OECD Checklist for Public Action, a set of 24 principles that guides policymakers in assessing their policy framework against the objective of attracting private sector investment and expertise in the water sector, which has now been used by Egypt, Russia, Lebanon and Mexico.

Water and sanitation have often suffered from the poor judgement of policymakers, who fail to look closely at the financial realities of the sector, whether because of idealism, political temerity or economic necessity. Beckoning investors requires the presentation of a realistic and balanced approach to financing. Like the water from the Broad Street pump, certain policies may sweeten the reality but only hands-on action will change it. Lyndon Thompson

For more on water management, contact or

Global Forum on Environment: Making Water Reform Happen Paris, 25-26 October 2011


Borkey, Peter, and Brendan Gillespie (2006), “Safe water: A quality conundrum”, in OECD Observer No 254, March.

OECD (2011), Meeting the Challenge of Financing Water and Sanitation: Tools and Approaches, Paris.

WHO Water Sanitation: Hygiene Facts and Figures.

See also and

©OECD Observer No 286 Q3 2011

Economic data


Stay up-to-date with the latest news from the OECD by signing up for our e-newsletter :

Twitter feed

Suscribe now

<b>Subscribe now!</b>

To receive your exclusive print editions delivered to you directly

Online edition
Previous editions

Don't miss

  • Low interest rates here to stay for half a century, says OECD director Adrian Blundell-Wignall.
  • OECD speak on support it will offer to Greek
  • 3.4 bn people or 56% of the world's population live only just above the global poverty line, on US$2-10 a day. The global middle class is both smaller and poorer than thought. Read more about the results of this Pew Research Centre's new study on the Financial Times.
  • Resale of charity shop rejects has destroyed Kenya's local textile industry but a proposed ban on the importation of used garments risks putting thousands out of work. Read more about this economic dilemma on The Guardian.
  • Bill Gates visited the OECD on 26 June. He met with the Secretary-General Angel Gurría to discuss areas of collaboration with his foundation and participated at a briefing session on official development assistance modernisation with OECD experts.
  • "Countries that are home to high proportions of immigrants tend to have better integration outcomes”, according to the OECD Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2015, released on 2 July 2015. Read more on The Guardian.
  • The People’s Republic of China decided to enhance longstanding collaboration with the OECD and to join the OECD Development Centre, in a historic visit by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang on 1 July to the OECD in Paris.
  • In order to face global warming, Asia needs at least $40 billion per year, derived from both the public and private sector. Read how to bridge the climate financing gap on the Asian Bank of Development's website.
  • One dollar in aid for trade generates eight dollars in extra trade for all developing countries and 20 dollars for low-income countries. Read OECD Secretary General's post on the newly released Aid for Trade at a glance 2015.
  • Catherine Mann, OECD Chief Economist, explains on Bloomberg why "too much bank lending can slow economic growth".
  • Interested in a career in Paris at the OECD? The OECD is a major international organisation, with a mission to build better policies for better lives. With our hub based in one of the world's global cities and offices across continents, find out more at .
  • Come va la vita in Italia? How's life in Italy? The OECD Better Life Index is an interactive online platform in seven languages that goes beyond GDP by offering important insights into measuring well-being and quality of life. Try it for yourself!
  • What does it mean to live on less than US$2 a day? Xavier Godinot, Delegate for International Affairs of ATD 4th World and René Locqueneux, a member of this NGO, gave an insightful presentation on the topic based on their field experience, at the 2015 OECD Forum.
  • How to jump-start slack investment to drive global growth and jobs dominated discussions at the annual OECD Ministerial Council Meeting, chaired by the Netherlands, which ended 4 June.
  • The IMF calls for a decisive energy subsidy reform in order to use the freed resources to meet critical public spending needs and to reduce pollution ahead of the Paris climate change summit.
  • More than 35 million young people, aged 16-29, across OECD countries are neither employed nor in education or training according to the newly released OECD Skills Outlook.
  • Have a look at these posters representing a world without fundamental rights at work – including child labour, forced labour and inequality. Read more about this ILO image competition here.
  • Rising inequality threatens social cohesion and growth. Income inequality has reached historical highs in most OECD countries and is still rising.
  • Time to vote! As the dust settles after the UK general election, let’s remember that voting at the ballot box is not an innate right enjoyed by everyone. Indeed, although the number of democracies across the world has spiked from 48 in 1989 up to 95 today, billions of people are still living in non-democratic, authoritarian regimes.
  • How can we achieve a zero-carbon future? A new World Bank report provides a few insights.
  • Today alcohol causes more deaths worldwide than HIV/AIDS, violence and tuberculosis combined. In order to reduce damages to health, the OECD recommends that regular drinkers reduce their consumption by one unit a week, that is, a small glass of wine for example. In addition, increasing prices, regulating advertising, effectively treating drinking problems together with stricter police enforcement would greatly contribute to reducing damages done to individuals and society.
  • video alcohol
  • Africa vs profit shifting African countries heavily rely on the income generated by multinationals’ taxation, which can represent as much as 88% of a country’s tax base. Little wonder Africa is involved in the OECD’s initiative to address tax base erosion caused by profit shifting, known as BEPS. The need to strengthen inter-governmental co-operation to curb cross-border tax losses was reaffirmed at the Africa Tax Administration Forum (ATAF) in Sandton on 21 April 2015.
  • Africa v. profit shifting
  • Rana Plaza
  • Wal-Mart, Other Retailers Sued over Bangladesh Factory Collapse Two years after the April 24, 2013, Bangladeshi factory collapse in the capital of Dhaka, the victims' families filed a lawsuit in U.S. federal court in Washington against Wal-Mart Stores Inc and other U.S.-based companies that sourced out their products from the Rana factory. Read more on Telesur's website.
  • #OECD360: Your country in figures.
  • How to ensure transparency in public procurement? Read Cobus de Swardt's article on OECD Insights.
  • After three decades of extraordinary economic development, China is shifting to a slower and more sustainable growth path, according to the OECD's latest Economic Survey of China.
  • In pursuit of the American Dream
  • Tim Harcourt Video
  • G20 and Australia: Bestselling economist Tim Harcourt speaks to the BBC about how Australia has gone from "Down Under to Down Wonder".

Most Popular Articles


What issue are you most concerned about in 2015?

Euro crisis
Global warming
International conflict

OECD Insights Blog

NOTE: All signed articles in the OECD Observer express the opinions of the authors
and do not necessarily represent the official views of OECD member countries.

All rights reserved. OECD 2015