CITY - ISBN 92-64-02398-4 © OECD 2006 5. THE IMPACTS OF CHANGE ON THE LONG-TERM FUTURE DEMAND FOR WATER SECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE facilities to be built over the period 2000-20, plus reinvestment costs over the period 2000-20 - i.e. investment costs needed to maintain the same level of quality/service of the existing infrastructure. The estimate was prepared by COWI (OECD, 2005). The estimates did not include such costs under the "MDG costs", where the level of quality/service is assumed to be improved above the current level. This cost estimate corresponds to an aggregate of costs over two different periods, 14 and 21 years. It is this estimate that COWI uses to explore the feasibility of financing the cost of reaching Target 10, Table 5.12. The annual "total costs" estimates per country are obtained by dividing the "total costs" estimate by 20. Table 5.12. Water supply and sanitation estimates for EECCA countries Million euros Water supply Sanitation Total as % Total Total Total of GDP Per capita Per capita Per capita Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Georgia Kazakhstan Kyrgyz Republic Moldova Russian Federation 2 408 1 254 3 662 Tajikistan Turkmenistan Ukraine 1 252 Uzbekistan Total 4 689 2 233 6 922 Source: OECD, 2005b. The report notes that the annual "total costs" estimate of EUR 6.9 billion per year appears out of proportion with the so-called "MDG costs": over a 14-year period, it amounts to nearly EUR 97 billion, more than six times the "MDG costs". This reinforces the contention that the real challenge for the EECCA regions in the years to come lies much more with the O&M of the water supply and sanitation (WSS) systems and maintaining the existing infrastructure at its current level of quality/service than with extension costs or costs incurred to improve the current level of quality/service and bring it to an "MDG Target 10 compliant" level. The final column reveals what might be considered some anomalous results, in that some appear too low. For example, for the Russian Federation, 0.32% of GDP does not accord 