31st WEDC International Conference, Kampala, Uganda, 2005

MAXIMIZING THE BENEFITS FROM WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION

Water MDG Targets Need in Favor of Poor Focus - Ethiopia

Country Case Study

Fikru Tessema, Ethiopia

Abstract: Ethiopia has the lowest level of water supply coverage in sub-Saharan Africa: in 2000, only 30% coverage nationally. Ethiopia is one of the off track countries with respect to the water MDG target. This study is, therefore, the analysis of focus of water MDG targets to be met in 2015. Ethiopia has a predominantly rural population suffering significantly from lower (in 2000, 24%) water coverage than urban area. Sources of funds for the investment is not more than 25% from the public sector and much more is expected from out side sources ( private sector and donors) and very few (5%) from the communities. This implies that water MDG targets need in favor of low income countries. Ethiopia needs massive investment in water sector and priority changes: in supplying technologies not too costly or sophisticated; boosting existing executing capacity and developing ownership especially on the sufficiently involvement of women.

1

Introduction

Provision of safe water and basic sanitation

are basis to reduce morbidity and mortality.

Good policies, strategies and economic

growth, which work to improve people's

lives, can also work to improve water and

sanitation Millennium Development Goals.

Lack of potable water and basic sanitation is

the main reason for fecal borne diseases

transmission. For stance, diarrhea led to

millions of deaths, in which most (85%) of

the cases among the children (1).

The Millennium Development Goals will

require providing about 1.5 billion people with

access to safe water and 2 billion with access

to basic sanitation facilities between 2000 and

2015 globally. That means it requires not less

than 80 million additional people to tap the

earth’s water each year (1,2).

In 2000, 1.2 billion people still lacked access

to an improved water source, 40% of them in

East Asia and Pacific and 25% in Sub-Saharan

African countries. Ethiopia has abundant,

untapped stores of water to support growth

well into the future. But many people in the

country suffer from lack of potable water for

drinking (2,3).

Background

Ethiopia like other sub-Saharan countries

faces number of challenges in improving

water supply coverage. The major constraint

is lack of adequate financing. While

increasing funding to the sector is proving

difficult in many countries, the use of

available funds tends to be inefficient and

potential sources of funding from system

users remains largely under-utilized (3,4).

Under the Water Sector Development Program (WSDP) (June 2002), targets for service coverage have been formulated for urban and rural water supply as summarized in Table 1.

2

Table 1: Water Supply Coverage Targets,

WSSDP

2000 2005 2010 2015

Urban Water

Supply

Percentage

coverage

74.4% 85.4% 95.8% 98.2%

Population

reached

(mil.)

7.05 9.97 13.75 17.16

Rural Water

Supply

Percentage

coverage

23.1% 34.2% 49.2% 67.2%

Population

reached

(mil.)

12.48 20.99 34.01 51.78

Country

Level

Percentage

coverage

30.8% 42.4% 57.2% 72.9%

Population

reached

(mil.)

19.53 30.96 47.76 68.94

Source: UNDP, Ethiopian Water Millennium

Development Goals Need Assessment Report.

Not withstanding the definition of water supply coverage which is controversial and different by various stakeholders, the coverage for water supply estimated at 19% in 1990 has increased to 30% in 2000.The SDPRP appraisal report of June 2003 estimated the coverage as 34 %. Data form the Ministry of Water Resources also indicate that the coverage estimated for year 2004 is about 36.7%. Other estimates are also indicated in Table 2 below. Even though complete and accurate data is not available this figures are good indicator of the trend and also the current status (4).

Table 2: Current estimates of Water Supply

coverage for Ethiopia

MWR

Year Rural (%)

Urban (%)

National (%)

1990 11 70 19

1994 14.7 87 22.5

1995 15 87 23

2000 17.1 74.4 30.9

2003 24 82 33.7

2004 24.2 85 36.7

SDPRP Appraisal Report 2003

2003 25 85 34

Millennium Dev Goals - MOFED & UNCT 2004

2000 24 72 30

Source: UNDP, Ethiopian Water Millennium

Development Goals Need Assessment Report.

This study is, therefore, to review a challenge

so as to make recommendation for the

extension of coverage of water supply to the

poorest in rural areas and shanty urban

centers (4).

Objectives

The objective of this study was particularly

aimed at analyzing focus of water MDG

target to be met in 2015.

Methods

This case study was conducted predominantly

as a desk-based study. The analysis is mainly

drawn from different materials obtained from

local and international sources.

Obtaining accurate figures on water coverage

and investment were difficult and different

sources often conflict, which is therefore a

key gap as to the country’s inconsistent data

management system.

3

Results

Major portion of the population in Ethiopia

do not receive adequate water supply and live

in the rural areas. As per the set targets the

additional number of people that will be

supplied through MDG by the year 2015 is

estimated as 39.4 million. This comprises of

7.7 million for urban and 31.8 million for

rural. Because, water service delivery is the

one that poorly managed in rural areas with a

lack of community ownership and investment

being flagged as key problems. In rural areas

there is an urgent need for rehabilitation of

supply schemes, with high number of existing

schemes (30%-45%) estimated to be inactive.

A vicious circle exists between poor water

supply service delivery, poor maintenance,

lack of ownership and lack of investment.

The rural water supply is, therefore, the key

challenge at present. On the other hand, the

rapid population growth is occurring in urban

areas. This will have significant impacts on

urban water coverage in years to come

(3,4,5).

The linkage of water–poverty– economy:

Clear linkages between water and economic

development have been incorporated into

policy frameworks. However, while studies

have been conducted to establish the linkage

between water and poverty, findings have not

been incorporated into policy. While the

linkage between water and economic

development is clear, there is no

corresponding link between water and poverty

(3,5,6).

National policy frameworks for water:

Ethiopia has a dedicated line ministry or

institution that is responsible for developing

and implementing the national water policy,

strategy and subsequent government

initiatives. The existence of this specific line

ministry gives the issue some prominence in

the government. Considerable donor attention

has led to strong policy frameworks at a

national level, and government leadership in

the water sector is increasing. The WSDP

programme is seen by some to be a response to

donor issues, rather than looking more

strategically at the sector as a whole (3,4).

Coordination of institutions within the sector:

Initial steps have been taken to address the

lack of coordination within Ethiopia’s water

sector, however a cultural change may be

required regarding the expectations of

government towards donors. The WSDP lacks

an agenda for comprehensive planning, which

may constrain progress towards a truly

collaboration. Poor institutional coordination

between the water and health ministries has

hindered progress (3,4,5).

Financing plans and budget:

Government spending on water is extremely

low. Water supply expenditure for example in

2001/2002 was USD 456 m, equating to only a

2.7% share of the government budget only.

Education contrastingly receives a 13.9%

share of the budget. The estimated cost stated

in the water sector programme itself overall is

USD 7,444.8million over the 15 year period.

Sources of funds for the investment is not

more than 25% from the public sector and

much more is expected from out side sources

(international & local private sector and

donors) and very few (5%) from the

communities. The development programmes

give attention to water, but government

commitment in terms of expenditure does not

match this policy commitment (4,5,6).

Much more has been spent in recent years on

urban water supply than on the more needy

rural water supply networks, with reasons

given being for example that urban centers are

usually drivers for economic growth and

4

generic development. Data on sector spending

is extremely hard to come by and different

sources often conflict. Data is unavailable for

local spending. Effectiveness of spending

however with the data available is thought to

be poor (3,5,6).

Organization for financing the sector appears

weak with no clear institutional roles and

responsibilities. Line ministries lack the power

to allocate sector resources, and hence lack

incentives to develop effective sector

frameworks and budgets. Accountability and

transparency in budgeting and in sector

spending is also poor (5,6,7).

Spending tends to be on urban projects despite

overwhelming need in rural areas, possibly

due to the links between urban areas and

economic growth. Urban water is financed

through grants and loans from donors,

channelled through the federal budget, while

rural water supply tends to be financed

through regional budgets, and local funding by

bilaterals and NGOs. The level of donor funds

required to meet the government’s investment

plan is 4-5 times current levels of sector

funding. There seems to be no strategy to

increase ODA flows, nor evidence of a longer

term plan to leverage funding from the private

sector or to increase government contributions

to the sector. Much of the existing targeted

donor funding is short-term and emergency

orientated (4,5,6,9).

Implementation through decentralization

process:

While government has devolved water sector

responsibilities to municipalities, capacity

building to support the decentralisation effort

remains a considerable challenge. Sequencing

of decentralisation, with capacity building

prior to fiscal decentralisation is a concern, as

funds may be ‘lost’ or inefficiently used. In

turn, this potential mismatching of capacity

and funding may deter future investment. It

appears that much of the fund is under-utilized

due to complicated and opaque access

procedures and lack of awareness. The overall

WSDP has some very ambitious targets in

terms of capacity building and personnel

recruitment. It is unclear, however, how this

programme will be funded sustainably (5,7,8).

Engagement with and reaction to

stakeholders:

As a result of the government’s weak policy

framework and poor budgetary processes, the

capacity for constructive stakeholder

engagement in the water sector development

process is weak. Civil society was not closely

involved at all in developing and

implementing the national water policies and

strategies that may contribute to poor policies

implementation. Governance and funding

issues, resulting in poorly timed disbursement

of funds, leads to insufficient efforts for

stakeholder consultation at a project level. Few

stakeholders address policy issues or advocate

for reform (4,5,7).

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E):

There is potential that current efforts to link

performance with funding may adversely

impact the poorest municipalities, who lack

the capacity to perform and require additional

budget and training. Implementation of these

plans has not yet occurred and hence M&E is

very weak. A proliferation of M&E systems

for different projects has resulted in a lack of

coordination and standardisation. M&E is

noted as being particularly weak at the

municipal level (4,5,7,8).

Lessons learned

The analysis of the country studies identified a

number of lessons important for donor

engagement in driving governance reform in

5

the water sector to achieve progress towards

MDG Water Target. They can be categorized

as follows: identifying drivers of change, for

initiating reform in the water sector;

sequencing of reforms; and identifying

urban/rural drivers of change (3,4,5,9).

Discussion

The water MDGs in Ethiopia is agreed by the

majority to be extremely off-track. Reasons

given for this are generally along the

following themes: low level of government

and donor investment expenditure

commitment historically as compared to

investment in health and education; lack of

strong and effective donor co-ordination and

civil society involvement at the policy level;

lack of private sector participation due to a

poor institutional environment, particularly at

local levels in terms of financial management

and cost recovery and lack of community

involvement in operation and maintenance of

schemes, particularly in terms of women's

involvement (5,4,8).

In order to meet water MDG by 2015 a large

amount of annual investment is required

which more than 3 times current investment

rate on the sector. This calls for serous

scaling up of donors community contribution

to meet the gaps. Private Sector Participation

is also limited at present. Concern also raised

that the private sector is already closely

involved in health and education sectors in

Ethiopia and this has helped progress greatly:

the same should apply for the water sector

(3,5,7,8).

The informal supply network is also not

sufficiently acknowledged. Consideration

should be given to formalizing this network

in order to boost the national private sector

involvement and to introduce fair water

service charges for users to grow accustomed

to the idea, that this would be a useful start in

financing water sector development (5,6,9).

Conclusions

From the progress made in Ethiopia, it is

extremely difficult to see how the plans are at

all realistic because of the current extreme

off-track nature of the MDG of the water

sector and some governments' plans with very

ambitious targets for water coverage, some of

which go beyond that necessary for MDG

attainment (5,6,9).

Focusing on a less ambitious initial target of

improving effectiveness and co-ordination of

the existing water sector before the

substantial planned scale-up and expansion of

the water sector may be advisable and ensure

plans are more realistic and flexible.

Leverage of private sector investment is

limited by: the fact that user charges are low

and WTP (Willingness to Pay) and hence cost

recovery are very low, and the fact that funds

disbursed to the local level are poorly

managed at present due to low capacity,

which deters and discourages investors

(3,6,10).

The existing informal supply network is not

utilized, particularly in urban areas, as a way

of increasing coverage and reliability. This

would be a way of encouraging grass-roots

private sector activities and also of

implementing a network that already is

working and delivering. It will be important

to get the capacity in place to plan, operate

and maintain services economically and

effectively before the increased funding

levels will be realized (5,10,11).

Money is not the only problem. More

political commitment still exists to the health

and education sectors, versus the water sector.

The reason for this is widely acknowledged to

be historical donor influence. Government

also seems to be very much in the pocket of

donors. A cultural change is therefore perhaps

required in the behaviours of government

6

towards donors and vice versa in order to see

some real reforms in the water sector and

hence meet the water-related MDGs

(3,5,6,11,12).

Recommendations

1. Government should increase government

funding commitments and stop over-

reliance on donor and external funding.

Many donors still focus on education and

health and could now reasonably leave

health and education and focus more on

the struggling water sector.

2. The government should also work on

raising awareness on the need and to

include the private sector because of the

fact that, the sector will not attract

sufficient funds and be ultimately

sustainable.

3. The investment practices should also be

towards fair sharing of potable water

supply among urban and rural areas so as

to reduce rural population suffering

significantly from lower water coverage

than urban areas.

4. Increased civil societies co-ordination and

lobbying could ensure that water issues

are given higher priority in terms of

government policy and particularly

budget allocation. Therefore, co-

ordination and involvement of key

stakeholders at all stages is essential.

5. The limited institutional capacity is the

major constraint affecting the water

sector. Need also to pay sector staff more.

Financial constraints are also significant,

but these are linked to and are mostly a

by-product of weak institutional

infrastructure. This calls for serous

scaling up of donors communities

contribution and priority changes if the

MDG target for water is to be met.

References

1. UN, United Nation Millennium

Development Goals Declaration,

2000.

2. WB & MoH, Ethiopian Sanitation

Strategy, 2004.

3. MoWR WSDP (2002-2016),

Executive Summarry,2002.

4. UNDP, Ethiopian Water Millennium

Development Goals Need

Assessment, 2004.

5. DFID, Meeting the Water and

Sanitation Millennium Development

Goal, Main Report, May 2005.

6. MoWR, Water Sector Development

Programme, Projects Profiles, 2002.

7. WB, World Bank Information on

Environment, Millennium

Development Goals, September

2004.

8. UN-Water/Africa, African Water

Journal, December 2003.

9. MoWR, WSDP, Water Supply and

Sanitation Programme, 2002.

10. UN-Water/Africa, Africa Water

Vision, 2025.

11. UN-ECA, Integrated Water

Resources Management: Issuess and

Options in Selected African

Countries, November 1999.

12. UN-Water/Africa, Africa Sub

Regional Protfolio of water Projects

and Programmes, 2004 .

Contact addresses

Fikru Tessema

Position: Principal Investigator

Address: Mailing: P.O.Box: 21431,

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Tele: +2519641776 (Mobile)

Email: ft.et@yahoo.com OR

t.fikru@freemail.et