Situational Analysis Of Vibrancy Of Water Sector

ETHIOPIA

The following questions provide guidance for the vibrancy report. Ensure data is attributed wherever possible to simply the process of updating the situational analysis over time. Overall impressions and opinions are required and valuable to the assessment. Wide consultation both during the write up and as part of the finalization of the analysis is however needed to ensure endorsement of these opinions.

Basic fact sheet

What are the HDI figures for the country as per measures below?

Total population 75.6 million, urban 15.7%

Measure / Country figure / Rank in the world
Human Development Index / 0.371 HDI index / 170
Life Expectancy at birth / 47.8 years / 153
Adult literacy / [1]
Adult literacy rate female as % of male / [2]
GDP per capita / 756PPP US $ / 166
Human Poverty Index / 55.3 / 98

Data from HDI 2006 report based on 2004 data

Overall context

What are the overall contexts influencing the water and sanitation policies?

Ethiopia is a FederalRepublic. Elections were held in 2005 and the ruling party since 1991 was returned to power through a turbulent and contested process. Issues of repression and instability in-country, as well as conflicts with neighbouring countries continue to haunt Ethiopia. Likewise, overall poverty and susceptibility to drought and famine remain prominent features of the country.

Decentralisation to the Regions and to the districts is probably the most important other context for the country at present. The government is attempting to reform the public sector and address capacity constraints through local government capacity building initiatives. Policy implementation at Federal level is guided by five year strategic planning initiatives and the Government of Ethiopia’s Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty (PASDEP), Ethiopia’s second Poverty Reduction Strategy Policy or PRSP.

Water and Sanitation basic data

What are the figures HDI figures for access to improved water and sanitation?

Regarding the percentage of the population with access to water and sanitation, Ethiopia is one of the bottom ranked countries. Furthermore, taking into account the size of the population, this translates into many millions of Ethiopians not having improved access.

People with access to improved water22 %, worst figure in the world

People with access to improved sanitation 13%, 3ndworstrank in the world[3]

Data from HDI 2006 report based on 2004 data

Performance Increases required for MDGs

What are the MDG targets and the urban rural split regarding access?

According to the UNDP Human Development Indicators, Ethiopia is currently well behind track in terms of meeting the MDG goals for water and sanitation. Very significant increases would be required to meet the goals, as can be seen in the table below.

Sector / Location / Performance
(households per month)
1990-2000 2000-2015 / Increases required for MDG
(additional performance required)
Water / Rural / 5,404 / 37,264 / 590%
Urban / 5,950 / 6,667 / 12%
Sanitation / Rural / 495 / 41,962 / 8,383%
Urban / 1,980 / 9,308 / 370%

WaterAid EthiopiaNational Sector Assessment 2005

Regional differences in water and sanitation coverage rates

What are the regional differences? Is regional inequality of access an issue?

The in-country government figures for access to water and sanitation is significantly higher than those in the Human Development Report. Although the difference is partly more due to more up to date data, the government figures are likely to be over-estimates. However, the table below clearly shows significant regional variations ranging from 8 to 100% for access to water and 6.6 to 75.5% for access to latrines. The four marginalized regions of Afar, Somali, Benishangul Gumuz and Gambella have the lowest figures, showing significant regional inequalities. The 92% difference between regional water coverage and 68.9% difference in sanitation coverage needs to be reduced.

No / Region / Population
2005 / Access to safe water
2005
Achieved % / Access to latrines
2005
Achieved %
1 / Tigray / 4,113,000 / 3,324,142 / 80.8 / 1,521,810 / 37.0
2 / Afar / 1,330,000 / 104,926 / 7.9 / 120,631 / 9.1
3 / Amhara / 18,143,000 / 5,368,385 / 29.6 / 5,805,760 / 32.0
4 / Oromia / 25,098,000 / 9,046,010 / 36.0 / 3,011,760 / 12.0
5 / Somali / 4,109,000 / 995,600 / 24.2 / 519,229 / 12.6
6 / Ben-Gumuz / 594,000 / 171,560 / 28.9 / 150,231 / 25.3
7 / SNNPR / 14,085,000 / 4,317,579 / 30.7 / 7,042,500 / 50.0
8 / Gambella / 234,000 / 68,120 / 29.1 / 15,551 / 6.6
9 / Hareri / 185,000 / 158,260 / 85.5 / 83,565 / 45.2
10 / Addis Ababa / 2,805,000 / 2,805,000 / 100.0 / 2,116,800 / 75.5
11 / Dire Dawa / 370,000 / 142,477 / 38.5 / 178,475 / 48.2
National / 71,066,000 / 26,502,059 / 37.3 / 20,566,312 / 28.9
National Health Statistics, Ministry of Health 2005

The figures show that the regions with the lowest access are

Financing and self-sufficiency

Current spending on water and sanitation

What are the levels of funding for water and sanitation sector? How do they break down in terms of government funding versus donor, NGO and community contributions? How much is the country self-sufficient in terms of funds?

Estimates for the expenditure on water and sanitation in Ethiopia during 05/06 are 83 million US dollars, most of this being on water rather than sanitation. Of this 32% is accounted for by Federal and Regional funds. Donors account for an estimated 19% and NGOs for 22% and user charges for 27%. A very rough summary would therefore be that Ethiopia relies in terms of expenditure on itself for 50% of its funds and on external assistance for the remaining half.

Table: Estimated actual WS&S sector expenditure for 2005/6 (million ETB)

Source / Recurrent / Capital / Total / US$ m / % / Notes
Federal budget / 1.0 / 18.4 / 19.4 / 2.2 / 3% / MOWR 2005/6 expenditure estimates
On-budget donors / 47.5 / 47.5 / 5.5 / 6%
Regional
Decentralised regions (4) / 33.0 / 142.0 / 175.0 / 20.1 / 24% / 2004/5 spending outturn, Review of Public Expenditure 2006
Other regions – estimate / 6.6 / 28.4 / 35.0 / 4.0 / 5% / Est. based on 20% of Decentralised regions
NGOs / 156.6 / 156.6 / 18.0 / 22% / DSA report, 2004. 2001 data escalated.
Off-budget donors / 91.3 / 91.3 / 10.5 / 13% / Based on DAG Donor mapping - adjusted by utilization rate of 70%
User-charges / 192.5 / 192.5 / 22.1 / 27% / Tearfund report, 2005. Figures for 2001/2 escalated by 25%
Community contribution / 1.0 / 1.0 / 0.1 / 0% / Tearfund report, 2005. Figures for 2001/2 escalated by 25%
Total ETB m / 233.1 / 485.1 / 718.2 / 82.6 / 100%
Total US$ m / 26.8 / 55.8 / 82.6

Adapted from 14 Sept 06 Draft for the Financing of the Water Sector, EUWI (% figures wrong in the draft)

Projected spending on water and sanitation

What are the projections in terms of investments in the sector to achieve full coverage? How do investment targets compare with expenditure levels?

According to government calculations universal access can be reached by 2011/12 if sufficient funds are made available.

The figures in the following table show that significant increased funding is needed. Expenditure in 05-06 was estimated at US 82.6$ million (from earlier table) when investment needs for the year were projected at 211$ million, i.e. expenditure was 39% of the estimated needs. At current level of expenditure it would take 31 rather than 7 years to reach the targeted investment.

Table: Projected investment needs for water supply & sanitation: UAP (million US$)

TOTAL / 2005/6 / 2006/7 / 2007/8 / 2008/9 / 2009/10 / 2010/11 / 2011/12
Water
Rural / 1,006 / 157 / 157 / 157 / 142 / 142 / 126 / 126
Urban (excl AA) / 505 / 19 / 123 / 161 / 91 / 48 / 41 / 22
Addis Ababa / 414 / 0 / 12 / 158 / 198 / 46 / - / -
Sanitation*
Rural* / 211 / 30 / 30 / 30 / 30 / 30 / 30 / 30
Urban* / 169 / 5 / 10 / 3 / 5 / 89 / 36 / 31
Addis Ababa* / 275 / *** / *** / *** / *** / *** / *** / ***
Total / 2,580 / 211 / 331 / 509 / 466 / 355 / 234 / 209
UAP - Coverage targets
Rural – water / 98% / 44% / 53% / 62% / 71% / 80% / 89% / 98%
Rural - sanitation / 100% / 29% / 41% / 53% / 65% / 76% / 88% / 100%
Urban – water / 100% / 81% / 83% / 86% / 89% / 93% / 96% / 99%
Urban - sanitation / ***unavailable at time of writing
*These costs should be viewed as indicative only
Source: MoWR, 2006

14 Sept 06 Draft for the Financing of the Water Sector, EUWI

According to the call for action launched with the Human Development Report 2006 developing countries should aim to spend 1% of GDP on water. In Ethiopia’s case, GDP is estimated at 8 billion US$[4] 1% of this would be 80 million whilst expenditure in 2005 was estimated to be 26.7 million US $, roughly a third of the target. Significant lobbying to triple internal expenditure on water and sanitation is therefore also required. This applies to sanitation and the health budgets as well as to water budgets. In the past less than 1% of the health budget was dedicated to environmental sanitation and hygiene.

Likewise lobbying is needed to triple the external funds to the sector.[5]

Expenditure should be monitored to ensure that funding for the rural areas is double urban expenditures (excluding Addis) – according to the Universal Access Plan government costings which recognize that urban infrastructure is significantly more costly than the rural work serving larger numbers. Greater lobbying is also required in the marginalised regions of the country with the lowest current access figures to reduce the current 92% for water and 68.9% differences for sanitation between the best and least well served regions.

Institutional framework

What is the institutional framework under which the water sector operates, (look at both levels of decentralization and the different line departments, etc)? Use organograms to explain

Overall in terms of sector responsibilities water for domestic uses, as well as for irrigation and hydropower falls under the responsibility of the Ministry of Water. The ministry of Water is also responsible for sewerage, though in large towns,water and sewerage authorities have been delegated authority to different levels. The health sector is responsible for hygiene promotion and latrines. The relationship between these two ministries and the clarity of institutional responsibilities used to be problematic but look to be increasingly resolved. Links also exist with numerous other ministries and authorities including Ministry of Education, Agriculture, Capacity building, Trade and Industry, the Environmental Protection Agency, etc. River authorities falls under the Ministry of Water, though cross-boundary ones such as the Nile Basin Authority are bound by international treaties.

Ethiopia is a federal state which has increasingly adopted decentralisation to the wereda or district level. Most government funds are channelled through the Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs to the region and the wereda, based on their total plans,rather than through sector specific ministries. (green boxes 1-3 in the figure below). Block funds to the regions are allocated based on complex calculations which include population size and levels of development. The allocation methods have changed on occasion and are highly controversial – with arguments about whetheror not the smaller regions are getting a fair share of the total funds available.
External funds in the form of general budget support also followed this route, however, following the political events connected to the elections in 2005 sector specific funding allocations are also re-emerging. The ESRDF, the Ethiopian Social, Rehabilitation and Development fund, (green box 4), though significant in the past has phased out, whilst the WDRF, Water Resources Development Fund, (green box 5) is set to be a key financing source for the urban sector. Internal generation and community contributions (box 6 and 8), according to the policy supposed to cover operation and maintenance costs in the rural areas and to include capital replacement in urban areas. Off-budget donors (box 7) include many of the large multilateral, bilateral and NGO funds.

The diagram refers to water sector, however, the same process – with significantly less money – applies to the sanitation work falling under the health sector.

Figure: Financial arrangements from the federal to the village level

Ethiopia Sector Flow Assessment WSP

Other line departments such as education and agricultural are funded in similar ways and can provide additional funds to water related initiatives. For example funding to schools should, though historically has not necessarily – include funding for water and sanitation facilities.

The following table summarizes the key roles and responsibilities at the different levels – within the water sector.

In addition to the roles and responsibilities outlined above there are in Ethiopia public works companies operating at federal and regional level of government thatundertake infrastructural work. In essence therefore the government is still heavily involved in implementation work resulting in inefficiencies linked to state-run initiatives and there is a lack of a level playing field for the private sector.

Policy development, dissemination and review

Is there a comprehensive and up to date water and sanitation sector policy? What are the formulation, dissemination and review processes? Are the policies implemented?

The water and sanitation sector in Ethiopia is currently framed by a number of key documents namely:

Under the Ministry of Water

  • Water Resources Management Policy, Ministry of Water Resources, 1999
  • Water Resources Management Proclamation, Ministry of Water Resources, 2000
  • Ethiopian Water Sector Strategy, Ministry of Water Resources, 2001
  • Water Sector Development Program, 2002-20016, Ministry of Water Resources, 2002
  • Ministry of Water Resources, National Water Supply and Sanitation Master Plan Framework, January 2003

Under the Ministry of Health

  • Health Policy, Ministry of Health,1993
  • Public Health Proclamation 200/2000, Ministry of Health, 2000
  • Environmental Health Policy, Ministry of Health, 2000
  • National sanitation strategy, Ministry of Health and partners, October 2004
  • Health Sector Strategic Plan (HSDP – III, 2005/6 – 2009/11), Ministry of Health, 2005
  • Health Extension Package, Ministry of Health, 2005
  • National hygiene and sanitation protocol, Ministry of Health, draft 2005

Joint

  • Ministry of Health, Ministry of Water Resources, Ministry of Education, Memorandum of Understanding 2005

A quick scan of the list above can be summarized in terms of the existence of significant policy formulations, most date from the last 6 years, with increasing attention to hygiene and sanitation and to cross ministry collaboration.

A number of weaknesses in the Ethiopian context lie in the failure to ratify some policies (e.g. Environmental Health Policy 2000), and in poor dissemination strategies (e.g. Water Strategy). However, increasingly some level of multi-stakeholder involvement in policy feedback processes for policy formulation and review are becoming the norm, though more substantive rather than tokenistic consultation are still required. Most fundamental of all however is a sense amongst involved stakeholders of a gap between policy formulation and implementation. The problem in Ethiopia is not the lack of strong policies but the absence of strong links between policy formulation and implementation.

Emerging policy issues

What are the key emerging issues in terms of policy development and implementation? What are NGOs working in the sector currently advocating or lobbying on? What are some of the other key sector players, e.g. donors, academic institutions, the private sector currently advocating or lobbying on?

On 11-13th October the first multi-stakeholder forum in Water supply, sanitation and hygiene took place in Ethiopia, under the auspices of the EU Water Initiative.

The nine undertakings agreed during the forum are reflections of stakeholder’s views on current weaknesses or areas that need further attention. The undertakings are therefore key emerging policy contexts. They are:

  1. Popularise and operationalise the Universal Access Plan

Includes the needs for increase funding, more dialogue and consultation amongst stakeholders and the need for communication strategy

  1. Disseminate and communicated Water, Sanitation and Hygiene sector policies

Includes developing policy implementation guidelines, action plans and events to support these

  1. Implement policy and regulatory measures to increase private sector participation

Includes promotion of public-private partnerships, greater incentives for private sector investment

  1. Establish and improve regulations for community management in the sector

Includes look at legislation at regional level

  1. Enhance and harmonize financing mechanisms

Includes follow up to draft financing strategy

  1. Implement M&E system for water, sanitation and hygiene

Includes refining and adopting sector wide golden indicators, developing framework for M&E at project and sector levels, communication strategy and tracking studies and institutionalizing the multi-stakeholder forum

  1. Plan, budget and scale up existing Human Resource Development Activities

Includes scaling up capacity building initiatives, establishing wereda WASH strategic plans

  1. Implement and monitor the WASH MOU signed by the Education, Health and Water ministries

Includes ensuring that the MOU is disseminated, staffed and implemented

  1. Establish Supply Chain outlets

Includes institutionalizing the supply of spare parts, ensuring water quality testing, training of pump mechanics and standardization issues

The above nine points are the key opportunities for policy engagement and advocacy at present in Ethiopia. A number of task forces have been given the remit to push forward on these points and to feedback at the next annual stakeholder forum planned for 2007. The EUWI is being led by the Italian Cooperation with support from DfID and can be contacted for more information.

Networked implementation

Does the environment encourage coordination mechanisms between government, NGOs, the private sector and academia? What are the existing networks and coordination forums and what are their strengths and weaknesses?

Ethiopia is a very large country with a large population and, in general, implementation work has been focused on individual isolated project work. Policy work has also historically been done at the centre by government and has not impacted work on the ground. However, this context has begun to change very significantly. There is now a growing context of collaboration and coordination between the key actors in the sector, with the government at different levels and in different departments also increasingly involved in these initiatives.

The networks, most of which emerged in the last five years include:

  • The general awareness raising focused WASH Movement linked to the international WSSCC;
  • The Ethiopia Country Water Partnership, the Ethiopian chapter of the Global Water Partnership focusing on networking around integrated water resource management;
  • The European Union Water Initiative EUWI;
  • The CRDA Water Working Group under which NGOs in the sector have started to network;
  • The DAG Water group linking some of the key funders and government;
  • The Scaling up multi-stakeholder network;
  • The World Water Day coordination group;
  • The Millennium Water Partners;
  • The DfID funded RIPPLE project;
  • Regional initiatives such as the Amhara Regional Water, Sanitation and Hygiene task force supported by the HIP, USAID and WSP.

In addition there are also sundry task forces with more specific remits, e.g. one looking at the role of the private sector and another at the legal constraints to community management in the sector.

The issue of collaboration within the sector across key actors in particular government, NGOs and donors, is currently very much the preferred approach in general awareness raising processes, in advocacy and policy reviews, in capacity building initiatives and in direct implementation work. This collaborative agenda is still however patchy now needs to move from coordination at the national level – now increasingly the norm - to regional and district level linkages. So far there are few examples of effective district or regional coordination, though different models are beginning to emerge and there is an increasing sense that this is the only way forward.