Qihe River Environmental Improvement and Ecological Conservation Project (RRP PRC 47069)

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

A. Introduction

1. The financial analysis of the proposed project was carried out in accordance with the Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) Guidelines for the Financial Management and Analysis of Projects and Financial Due Diligence: A Methodology Note.1 The financial analysis includes an assessment of the project’s financial viability and sustainability. The viability analysis was conducted on output 3, as both the solid-waste and wastewater subprojects contain some degree of cost recovery. Output 3 includes expansion of the capacity of wastewater treatment plants from 30,000 cubic meters per day to 60,000 cubic meters per day, and increase network coverage by installing additional storm water pipelines and sanitary sewers and providing new waste transfer stations and other related facilities. Outputs 1, 2, and 4 were not evaluated in this regard. The sustainability assessment was conducted on the project (all outputs considered) to evaluate the fiscal capacity of the implementing agencies to absorb incremental project costs.

B. Financial Evaluation

2. Tariff analysis. The People’s Republic of (PRC) has experienced large and fast growth in solid waste arising from urbanization, population growth, and industrialization, and is facing serious pollution issues. Management of solid-waste is still evolving, and so far significant reforms have been made with the aim of reducing industrial solid waste. However, the PRC has a long way to go to achieve the goal of sustainable management of solid waste, and the solid- waste fee has yet to catch up with these reforms. The current solid-waste fee is set at a very low level and is not enough to recover operating costs.

3. The minimum wastewater tariffs are determined by the National Development and Reform Commission. The Henan provincial government sets the wastewater tariffs in all cities close to the minimum prescribed by the National Development and Reform Commission. The wastewater tariff is intended to recover only the treatment costs, as collection and sludge treatment and disposal are treated as public goods.

4. Wastewater tariffs (Table 1) in Qi county were first introduced in 2005 and in Qibin in 2007 and have not been adjusted since. Water supply customers are billed for wastewater services based on metered water use.

Table 1: Water and Wastewater Tariffs, 2010–2015 (CNY per cubic meter) Water Wastewater Water Wastewater Item Hebi (includes Qibin District) Qi County Domestic 2.55 0.65 1.50 0.65 Industry 3.60 0.80 2.30 0.80 Commercial 3.60 0.80 2.80 0.80 Special 9.35 1.00 3.20 1.00 Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.

5. Wastewater operating authorities are units within local government departments. Revenues from the wastewater tariff are consolidated into a wastewater account of the provincial government and are exclusively used for application to wastewater operations (i.e.,

1 ADB. 2005. Financial Management and Analysis of Projects. Manila. ADB. 2009. Financial Due Diligence A Methodology Note. Manila. 2

wastewater costs are paid out of the wastewater account). Deficits are financed by transfers from city and provincial governments.

6. Average actual wastewater tariffs (Table 2) are less than the treatment variable operating and maintenance (O&M) cost and total treatment O&M costs. The variable O&M cost is the short-term marginal cost of wastewater treatment, while average incremental cost is the long- term marginal cost of wastewater treatment.

Table 2: Actual Average Tariffs and Estimated Wastewater Treatment Plant Costs (CNY per cubic meter) Item Qi County Qibin District Weighted average tariff 0.67 0.69 Variable O&M cost in 2020a 1.06 0.77 Total O&M cost in 2020a 1.24 0.93 Average incremental costb 3.19 2.03 O&M = operation and maintenance. a Measured net of depreciation. b Net present value (NPV) of cash-based costs / NPV of demand, period = 2015–2044, discount rate = 12%. Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.

7. Cost coverage will improve after implementation of new regulations announced by the national government requiring minimum domestic wastewater tariffs of CNY0.95 per cubic meter (m³) in urban areas and CNY0.85/m³ in rural areas by the end of 2016. Under the regulation, minimum nonresidential wastewater tariffs are CNY1.40/m³ for urban users and CNY1.20/m³ for rural users.2

8. The wastewater tariff is designed to recover only treatment costs, excluding the O&M costs of the entire wastewater network and capital costs. Wastewater operations are also not managed as independent self-financing enterprises and all wastewater revenue flows back to government.

9. At current tariff levels, the project does not generate incremental cash flows sufficient to recover full costs. The financial internal rate of return is below the weighted average cost of capital and the new investments are not financially viable. ADB’s investment in the project is predicated on the economic benefits derived from the project and on the commitment by the local governments to maintain sound fiscal capacity to enable them to finance the counterpart funds and O&M costs, including debt service. Tariff reforms, where considered, will substantially improve the project’s profitability (Table 3). Incremental costs associated with wastewater and solid-waste operations were included in the fiscal sustainability analysis.

Table 3: Projected Tariff for Wastewater Operations Cost Recovery (%) Tariff Increase (every 5 years) Item Existing Tariff Increased Tariffa (%) Qi county (5.63) 3.85 70.0 Qibin district (7.01) 4.71 55.0 ( ) = negative. a Assumes tariff is increased every 5 years by 15.9% to keep pace with inflation. Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.

2 Global Water Intelligence. 2015. China Steps Up Wastewater Tariff Reform. http://www.globalwaterintel.com/news/ 2015/5/china-steps-wastewater-tariff-reform 3

C. Fiscal Sustainability Assessment

1. Budget Process

10. Project financing responsibilities rest with Qi county, Qibin district, and which will service the ADB loan and be responsible for counterpart funding and incremental recurrent and O&M costs. Hebi city is only financially responsible for institutional support (output 4).

11. A review of statements of revenue and expenditure for the last 5 years (2010–2014) indicated that line items follow a functional classification and include O&M costs as well as costs associated with capital investments made within the year and debt service costs. Local governments use cash-based accounting. Annual fiscal surpluses may be assumed to be not subject to any future appropriations for capital works or debt service given that annual expenditures already consider capital and debt service requirements for the year. However, the unconstrained amount of any annual surplus cannot be quantified or confirmed.

12. County departments for municipal management assume responsibility for wastewater assets, and environment and sanitation departments assume responsibility for solid-waste assets. Operating units within these departments are responsible for preparation of annual cost budgets. These are consolidated at the department level and submitted to the finance bureau for review and approval. The operating units are not responsible for the revenue budget. Public utility tariffs are set by the government, usually under the regulatory oversight of the price bureau one level up within the government structure (e.g., county tariffs are approved by city or prefecture price bureaus). Wastewater charges are levied on the water bill and collected by the municipal water supply companies. Wastewater tariff revenues are transferred to the finance bureau and are dedicated to wastewater operations. Wastewater and solid-waste tariffs are not currently set to recover full costs. In Hebi, wastewater tariff levels reflect provincial guidelines and fail to achieve full cost recovery, while solid-waste tariffs are quite small and recover only a fraction of solid-waste costs.

13. All jurisdictions have generated annual surpluses (Table 4) over the past 5 years (2010- 2014) with revenues often growing somewhat faster than expenses. Revenues have grown at average annual rates of 22% for Qi county, 24% for Qibin district, 28% for Xun county, and 12% for Hebi city, while expenditures have grown at average rates of 15% for Qi country, 21% for Qibin district, 28% for Xun county, and 18% for Hebi city. Qi and Xun counties are heavily dependent on transfers from senior governments.

Table 4: Government Fiscal Performance Total Revenue Own-Source Total Expenditures Total Surplusa Average Growth Revenue Average Growth Average Growth % of Item (CNY’000) (%/year) (% of total) (CNY’000) (%/year) (CNY’000) (%/year) Revenue Hebi cityb 3,913.6 12.0 78.0 3,046.7 8.0 866.9 22.0 22.0 Qi county 2,050.4 22.0 50.0 1,191.4 15.0 859.0 37.0 42.0 Xun county 2,450.5 28.0 31.0 2,292.8 28.0 157.7 18.0 6.0 Qibin district 1,329.0 24.0 72.0 911.8 21.0 417.2 31.0 31.0 a This can be considered unencumbered surplus since annual expenditures include capital expenditures and all debt service costs for the year. b Excludes counties and districts. Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.

4

2. Conclusion

14. Capacity to meet funding requirements during project implementation typically relies on a comparison of annual cash needs for counterpart funding to revenues, expenditures, and surpluses. One benchmark for assessment of capacity assumes that the project-related fiscal burden is acceptable provided it is no greater than 2% of revenues. A more telling test compares funding requirements to the expected annual unencumbered surplus. Both these tests are applied below (para 15-16).

15. The assessment of fiscal sustainability requires a forecast of government revenues and expenditures prepared by the local governments. However, currently the county and district governments forecast budgets for only 1 year corresponding to the budget year, although a medium-term budgeting process with a 3-year rolling budget forecast may be implemented for the ADB project. The fiscal sustainability analysis used historical revenues and expenditures. Counterpart funding and incremental O&M costs were compared to annual expenditures, revenues, and surpluses. Based on the estimated fiscal burden (Table 5), the counterpart funding for project construction is estimated to be 3.7%–4.0% of the revenue base for Qi county and Qibin district. Counterpart funding requirements for Xun county are estimated at 0.2%. Incremental O&M costs, including debt service, are approximately 2.3% for Qi county and Qibin district and 0.1% for Xun county. Based on this analysis, the fiscal burden for Qi county and Qibin district is above ADB’s acceptable threshold.

Table 5: Fiscal Burden of Incremental Project Costs Full Costs vs Annual Revenues (%) Full Costs vs Annual Surplus (%) 2016–2020 2021–2025 2016–2020 2021–2025 Item Average Maximum Average Average Average Average Average Average Hebi city 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.14 Qi county 4.10 6.20 2.30 2.40 9.20 14.00 5.20 5.40 Qibin district 4.40 6.60 2.30 2.40 10.80 16.30 5.70 6.00 Xun county 0.20 0.30 0.10 0.10 3.80 6.40 1.40 1.60 Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.

16. The annual surplus for Qi county is approximately 2%, for Qibin district 31%, and for Xun county 7%. The annual surpluses vary year-on-year, except for Qibin district where it has trended upward for the last 5 years (2010–2014). The unconstrained surplus cannot be measured or confirmed, given this behavior and the lack of available data. For this analysis, unconstrained surplus is assumed to be nil and counterpart funding for capital costs, O&M, and debt service will need to be specifically appropriated in budgets annually. The local governments issued commitment letters to the Hebi city government to commit to the provision of adequate and timely counterpart funds during implementation and postcompletion to cover construction, O&M, debt service, and other recurrent costs. Historically, transfers from senior governments have been adequately provided and no fiscal deficits have occurred during the last 5 years (2010–2014).