Type of Review: Annual Review
Project Title: Water, sanitation and hygiene programme
Date started: 2008
Date review undertaken: March-May 2012
Instructions to help complete this template:
Before commencing the annual review you should have to hand:






the Business Case or earlier project documentation.
the Logframe
the detailed guidance (How to Note)- Reviewing and Scoring Projects
the most recent annual review (where appropriate) and other related monitoring reports
key data from ARIES, including the risk rating
the separate project scoring calculation sheet (pending access to ARIES)
You should assess and rate the individual outputs using the following rating scale and
description. ARIES and the separate project scoring calculation sheet will calculate the overall
output score taking account of the weightings and individual outputs scores:
Description
Outputs substantially exceeded expectation
Outputs moderately exceeded expectation
Outputs met expectation
Outputs moderately did not meet expectation
Outputs substantially did not meet expectation
Scale
A++
A+
A
B
C
Introduction and Context
What support is the UK providing?
The UK is providing £66 million of support (2008 - March 2013) to improve water supplies, sanitation
facilities and hygiene behaviour in Ethiopia, while simultaneously building capacity to deliver the
Government of Ethiopia’s sector policies and plans.
This support is through a World Bank trust fund, and paid into a specific purpose account administered
by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. Most of this money will be for water and
sanitation in rural areas, where more than 80% of the population live and where coverage levels are at
their lowest. The remainder will finance service improvements in towns with a population under
15,000.
1
What are the expected results?
The goal (impact):Ethiopia achieves national Universal Access Programme targets for access to
water and sanitation by 2015 (98.5% access to improved water).
The purpose (outcome): Increased access for poor people to sustainable water supplies and sanitation
services.
OVIs: - At least 60% of population in 224 participating woredas using improved water supplies within
1.5km of their homes by EoP.
- 80% of population in 25 participating small towns using improved water supplies within 0.5km of their
homes by EoP.
- Malfunctioning water supplies reduced to 10% in participating woredas by EoP.
Expected outputs by EoP:
Output 1: Improved rural (9896 schemes) and urban (25 DFID) schemes constructed
Output 2: Household (200,000 rural latrines) and institutional (450) sanitation facilities constructed
Output 3: Community water and sanitation committees or town water boards. Capable of managing and
maintaining their water and sanitation assets (for each scheme constructed, numbers as above)
Output 4: WASH sector reform maintains momentum
What is the context in which UK support is provided?
When this programme commenced Ethiopia’s water and sanitation coverage and consumption rates
were among the lowest in the world. In 2004, the government’s estimates of water supply and
sanitation coverage was only 47% and 30% respectively, with coverage much higher in urban than in
rural areas. Pre-programme there was very low capacity in the sector with decentralisation still in early
stages.
The national Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty (PASDEP) (and later the
Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP)) identified water and sanitation as priorities for sustainable
growth and poverty reduction. The government has produced a Universal Access Plan (UAP),
designed to achieve 98.5% water supply and sanitation access by the year 2015, and to reduce the
proportion of non-functioning facilities to 10%. It has also initiated a National Water Supply, Sanitation
and Hygiene (WASH) programme in all regions of the country – which includes this project. Under
Ethiopia’s decentralised system, woredas and town councils will be responsible for implementing the
project, supported by regional bureaux of water, health and education.
2
Section A: Detailed Output Scoring
Output 1: Improved rural and urban water supply infrastructure constructed.
Output 1 score and performance description:
B: Although much progress has been made in the past year, outputs are moderately less than
expectations particularly due to continued slow progress in the urban component.
Progress against expected results:
Rural – Milestone 9,896 (2011/12) rural schemes constructed.
Actual:The MoWE semi-annual progress report to 9th January 2012 reports that to December 2011
(mid 2004 EFY) of the 9,387 schemes that are currently progressed to be eligible for funding a
cumulative total of 7,430 schemes have been completed (including 2,840 Hand Dug Wells, 2,560
On Spot Spring, 1,297 Shallow Wells, 219 Deep Wells and others).The progress made in the
implementation of rural water supply over the past year is good. “Most of the schemes are constructed
and the remaining will be completed within the remaining period if design and procurement issues are
timely finalised to allow drilling before the rainy season and if adequate emphasis is given to large
schemes”.
This equates to 2.66 million beneficiaries of completed schemes. (An additional 1957 schemes are in
the construction planning phase, equivalent to an additional 1.21 millionbeneficiaries).
(Note: It was agreed in 2010 to reduce the number of participating woredas from 300 to 224 (with a
related reduction in the number of schemes from 12,000 to 9,896 ) due to cost escalation and DFID’s
decision to re-allocate £4m from the project in 2010 due to slow disbursement).
Urban– Milestone: 100% of participating towns water systems expanded or rehabilitated, functioning
properly supplying at least 20 litres per capita per day.
Actual: Although a lot is happening in the urban WSS component, implementation progress is slow. Of
the 63 small towns that have graduated to step 3 (Works – expansion and rehabilitation), 25 are
funded from DFID. Of these 8 are completed and 2 are 95% completed - resulting in 40%
accomplishment. The remaining 15 towns are at various level of construction stages indicating
progress towards achieving the target by 2012, but completion by the existing EoP date of the WSSP
(March 2013) is likely to be challenging.
Although the log frame shows a milestone of 100%, the end date of the WSSP is March 2013 so a
milestone of 75% completion at this stage would have been more reasonable but still not met (logframe
to be updated to show actual end date of WSSP).
Over 350,000 urban residents have obtained access to improved water supply services from the
various project interventions completed so far.
Recommendations:
Rural - The main concern is to ensure sustainability of the operation of schemes with continued support
to the community level management structures . Contract management and supervision of rural piped
system should also be given due attention.
Urban – Contract management and implementation supervision capacity needs to be given enhanced
attention in order for the component to show better progress.
Impact Weighting (%): 50%
Revised since last Annual Review? Y/N No
Risk: Low/Medium/High
Medium
Revised since last Annual Review? Yes: Was low, revise to medium given the intensity of activity
3
required over the next year and present implementation capacity
Output 2: Household and institutional sanitation facilities constructed.
Output 2 score and performance description: A+. Progressing well and numbers of sanitation
facilities reported exceeds the targets.
Progress against expected results:
Indicator 1 (household)–No. of household latrines constructed in rural communities rural communities
benefitting from new water supply: Milestone 200,000 hh latrines (2011/12) in project areas.
Actual – last year WB estimated that 288,000 had been constructed, surpassing the target, there is
currently no update on this figure but improvements to recording the sanitation component have been
instigated.
Indicator 2 (Institutional) – No of institutional latrines (blocks) constructed in participating woredas
(milestone 450).
Actual - Progress has surpassed the targets. The cumulative progress report from only three Regions
(Oromyia, Amhara and Tigray) shows that about 486 institutional latrines (at schools and health posts)
have been constructed so far and about 143 are under construction. Data is not currently available for
all project areas to give the total numbers, since the six month report from MOWE doesn’t include a
sanitation and hygiene report. But it was agreed on the recent review workshop for MOH to compile
and report on sanitation and hygiene interventions from all regions starting from the 1stquarter of 2012.
251 school latrine and 319 health post latrine are planned to be constructed in the remaining project
period
[In addition there have been urban sanitation results beyond the specified outputs: Program towns
have integrated sanitation plan which include the construction of sanitation facilities (public shower,
public toilets etc). For example in Tigray the construction of eight public toilets and eight public
showers were completed in five program towns, the remaining five towns are either under construction
or under bid process].
Recommendations:
Although this component has surpassed targets, within the funds available there is scope to further
expand results. All regions should revise their Sanitation and hygiene action plans.
A focus on strong coordination between Water, Health and Education is needed, ensuring appropriate
flow of funds, and addressing reporting gaps and M&Eto ensure full capture of data.
Regional WasH Steering Committee should enforce the recently developed standard manual for Water
supply and sanitation facilities for school guidance on institutional sanitation service standards.
Future programmes should consider including urban sanitation within appropriate results and M&E
framework
Impact Weighting (%): 30%
Revised since last Annual Review? No
Risk: Low/Medium/High - low
Revised since last Annual Review? No
4
Output 3: Community water and sanitation committees and town water boards, capable of managing
and maintaining their water and sanitation assets.
Output 3 score and performance description:
A: All water schemes have WASHCOMs or water boards in place as expected.
Progress against expected results:
WaSH committees (WASHCOMs) have been established according to byelaws, trained and bank
accounts established for each participating water supply scheme – so progress is as expected.
Likewise 100% of the towns supported by DFID/WB have established autonomous water boards
according to byelaws with business plans in place
Recommendations:
Sustainability remains a concern. Strengthening of the WASHCOMmanagement structure at the
community level is needed to ensure the use of community contribution for start-up activities and
expenses (such as fuel and lubricants) and other associated technical support such as training of
Motor operators, operation manuals and guidelines, during handing over.
The Ministry of Water and Energy (MoWE) and Regional Water bureaus should strengthen postconstruction support - and have agreed tostrengthen structures for operation and maintenance (O&M)
activities and implement recommendations in the supply chain study.
Continue to address capacity limitation at woreda water offices etc due to inadequate staffing and high
staff turnover(which limits effectiveness of training) through targeted and continuous refresher training.
Although all WASHCOMs have established bank accounts, they do not necessarily use the funds to
support ongoing maintenance often going straight to the woreda office for simple repairs.
Impact Weighting (%): 10%
Revised since last Annual Review? No
Risk: Low/Medium/High - Low
Revised since last Annual Review? No
5
Output 4: WASH sector reform maintains momentum.
Output 4 score and performance description:
A+ WASH sector reform is currently increasing momentum with significant progress on M&E,
National WASH inventory, and the WASH Implementation Framework (WIF) towards a One
WASH vision.
Progress against expected results:
Milestone: The indicator in the logframe is “progress in WASH M&E system implementation” with
2011/12 target that the M&E system piloted and lessons learned.
Actual: Progress meets expected results on M&E and in addition significant progress has been made in
other areas of sector reform.
The M&E pilot was completed and lessons learned in 2008 and this led to the agreement of a
Nationwide WASH Inventory. All data has now been collected and entered for this inventory, with the
exception of Somali Region. Data is currently being validated and we are awaiting publication of the
Inventory.
The design and development of Web based MIS Software is complete and pilot tested in 16 sites,
preparation is underway for scale up in 300 woredas.
Progress has also been made in a number of other areas – the WaSH Implementation Framework
(WIF) has been agreed and signed by MoWE, Health and Education, and is under discussion with
MoFED for their signature.
The Univeral Action Plan (UAP) has recently been updated.
Recommendations:
MoWE to actively take forward dissemination of NWI, and engagement across government and donors
on revised UAP and WIF to enable further progress on the One WASH vision.
Consider additional logframe output indicator that captures wider elements of the ongoing sector
reform
Impact Weighting (%): 10%
Revised since last Annual Review? No
Risk: Low/Medium/High - Medium
Revised since last Annual Review? No
6
Section B: Results and Value for Money.
1. Progress and results
1.1 Has the logframe been updated since last review? Y/N
Yes – the logframe was revised following agreement to reduce the number of participating woredas
to 224 (from 300) because of price escalation and DFID decision to reduce budget by £4m due to
slow disbursement.
1.2 Overall Output Score and Description:
By weighting 50% outputs score B, 40% score A+ and 10% A. Giving an overall score of A.
Overall the programme is making progress on the output indicators, exceeding expectations in some
areas while in other areas progress is slow.
1.3 Direct feedback from beneficiaries
During missions communities are visited and beneficiaries are met at water points while using the
service. The feedback frequently obtained is that beneficiaries are satisfied with the service and have
solved their problem of water sources compared to without the project conditions. However in some
cases there is request for more schemes. Beneficiaries state that there has an improvement
particularly in children’s health status.
1.4 Summary of overall progress
Currently a great deal of activity is taking place, and an acceleration of results has been delivered over
the past few months. However implementation remains slower than required to deliver results intended
and a major emphasis on contract management is needed in the months ahead to ensure results are
achieved and reduce impact of delays on both the beneficiaries and VFM.
1.5Key challenges
- limited govt capacity in procurement and contract management and supervision combined with
reluctance to use local private providers to fill the capacity gap.
- limited pool of private sector capacity, and works dragging on
- some good collaboration between MoWE, MoH and MoE but this needs continuing focus at all levels
- ensuring community level capacity and spare supply chain for adequate O&M(operation and
maintaince) and sustainability of completed schemes
7
1.6 Annual Outcome Assessment
Purpose (outcome) - Increased access for poor people to sustainable water supplies and sanitation
services.
As stated in the WSP (Water and Sanitation Programme) /AWCOW Country Status Overview, water
supply coverage is a “strong upward trajectory”. “Ethiopia has been making substantial progress in
increasing water supply coverage. While achievement of the ambitious plan for universal access will be
a challenge, reaching the water supply Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target looks achievable,
irrespective of data source used.” A significant proportion of this progress can be attributed to the
WASH programme.
Indicator 1 / Milestone: 60% (2011/12) of population in participating woredas using improved water
supplies within 1.5km of their homes. This data is currently not available for participating woredas, but
should be available when National WASH Inventory data is shared.(To date the aggregate number of
beneficiaries served from the project interventions in all the woredas is used, disaggregation was used
for regional level reporting on beneficiaries).
Indicator 2 - % of water supply rehab and expanded in participating small towns. There has been a lot
of progress especially around tendering/contract award in the last 3 months, but implementation is
behind schedule and completion currently looks very ambitious before EoP.
Indicator 3 - % of malfunctioning water supplies reduced in participating woredas
At present there is no data on this specific to WASH woreda.The findings of the National WASH
inventory when available will give as the current %. But the government five years plan (the Growth
and Transformation Plan-GTP) indicated 20 % of non functionality rate for rural schemes as the
baseline in 2009/10 which was about 30% at the start of the project.
2. Costs and timescale
2.1 Is the project on-track against financial forecasts: Y/N
No. The WB/DFID programme has been overall slow to disburse against overall financial forecasts,
therefore DFID deducted £4million in 2010, and our final £5 million tranche has been delayed a few
months against the forecast. DFID funds are weighted however on the rural side where progress is
better so this has mitigated the impact on our financial flows - the urban schemes are currently the
slowest to disburse.
2.2 Key cost drivers
Exchange rates, TA and construction costs.
Exchange rates and inflation have impacted on the cost of schemes and therefore number of schemes
achievable for the budget available. Annex G of the Project Memorandum shows an indicative budget
financing scenario in USD based on the 2007 exchange rate of £ 1 sterling = 2 USD making the £70m
DFID contribution equate to $140 million. Av cost per person of a rural scheme was a constant over 5
years of 34 USD. Both these projections were optimistic. The exchange rate dropped from £ 1 sterling
= 2 USD to USD 1.62 making the total DFID contribution of £ 70 million equate to $113.4 million
resulting in exchange rate loss of US$ 26.6 million.
8
The unit cost varies by region and scheme type. In pastoralist regions and for drilling of large schemes
the increase in unit cost is very high compared to highlands and small schemes.
Inflationary pressures such as on units (concrete etc) has had an impact. For example in Oromiya unit
cost per rural piped system has increased from 70,152 USD in 2007 (approx 24 USD/beneficiary) to
135,000 USD in 2010 (approx 45 USD/beneficiary).
Cost efficient use of national consultants has been made (rather than more expensive international
consultancy).
2.3 Is the project on-track against original timescale: Y/N
No – Original project documentation gave the end date of the DFID support as September 2012. A
huge amount of construction is currently underway and a no cost extension is envisaged to tie in with
the World Bank end review and Implementation Completion Report. The WB programme current
completion date is 31 March 2013.
3. Evidence and Evaluation
3.1 Assess any changes in evidence and implications for the project
No significant changes in evidence identified. The Theory of Change and assumptions used in the
project design have been reflected in practice. GoE has remained committed to achieving
PASDEP/GTP targets. The assumption/risk identified as “Posts are filled and trained staff remain in
post (PBS achieves objectives)” has been shown to be challenging. The State Minister is planning a
tour of Regional offices to raise awareness and maintain momentum.
3.2 Where an evaluation is planned what progress has been made?
Given the intensity of ongoing subprojects, frequent review has been recommended with the next
planned for June. A multi-stakeholder joint technical review (JTR) of the sector is taking place in May
2012.
4. Risk
4.1 Output Risk Rating: Low/Medium/High
The overall output risk is low.
4.2 Assessment of the risk level
The assessment of risk level in the original project documentation (PM) was “medium” with the first of
the main risks identified as (i) GoE capacity and WB procedures may constrain the speed of
implementation. This has been at the forefront of discussions throughout the programme with a strong
focus on building capacity and streamlining procedures. Capacity has been significantly strengthened
but staffing issues including high turnover of government staff contributes to capacity gaps particularly
in procurement and contract management continuing to constrain the speed of implementation.
Progress is positive but risks associated with slow implementation remain “medium”.
4.3 Risk of funds not being used as intended.
9
In January 2012 a financial management review was carried out for the project and the overall financial
management Implementation Status and Results (ISR) rating for the project is classified as moderate
satisfactory. The current staffing arrangement is considered adequate to manage the project fund.
External audit report has been submitted within the deadline and the project financial statements and
special record were unqualified (clean). The audit deemed that there were adequate controls but
recommended a number of areas for strengthening. Follow up is required to action these
recommendations.
The review mission did not come across instances of any reported or detected fraud and corruption.
Furthermore, neither the current review of transactions nor past audit reports reveal signs of fraud and
corruption.
4.4Climate and Environment Risk
A review of the safeguard implementation covering environmental and social risks was carried out as
part of this overall review. The project is Category B as per the World Bank OP4.01. Overall, the
project has positive and beneficial environmental health impacts by providing safe drinking water and
reducing water borne diseases among others. In order to enhance the positive impacts and avoid or
minimise negative impacts, an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) and
Resettlement policy Framework (RPF) were prepared to screen sub-projects to identify their
environmental and social impacts prior to their implementation. Phase 1 training was conducted in
2010 to 30 project staff members which was instrumental in building the capacity of federal and
regional experts in the use of ESMF and RPF project screening. Other planned training was not
implemented because of contractual concerns and it is recommended to conduct a thorough review of
the implementation of ESMF and RPF.
This safeguards review focused on Tigray region. It founds that all water supply schemes in the 10
selected cities had been screened using the ESMF checklists and reports prepared by the
environmental expert at the Bureau of Water Resources. A review mission visit to one of the ten cities,
AdiGudom, confirmed that the water supply facilities were implemented with no impact on the
environment. Sites were selected in collaboration with the local communities. Also compensations
were paid, ands records filed, for those farmers who lost part of their agricultural land temporarily when
distribution lines were constructed. However as part of a sanitation scheme, a land fill site in
AdiGudom is under construction which was not screened using the ESMF and RPF procedures. An
immediate action should be taken to screen the landfill site using ESMF and RPF and avoid
contamination of the ground water with liquid waste.
In rural areas the review found that it was found that not all sub-projects had been screened using
ESMF and RPF, government officials gave the justification that these were hand-dug wells with
minimal impact on the environment. This was confirmed on site but agreement reached with the
Regional coordinator that all future sub-projects (whatever the size) should be screened.
Most of the rural piped schemes are designed with diesel generators. This review recommended that
wherever possible connection should be made to the national grid that will reduce both running costs
and carbon emissions.
In general the project will increase resilience to climate variability by increasing water availability and
safeguards are in place to minimise negative environmental impacts. Monitoring is needed to ensure
that these safeguards are consistently applied to both water supply and sanitation sub-projects.
10
5. Value for Money
5.1 Performance on VfM measures
The Project Memorandum 2007, was drafted prior to the current Business Case format that specifies
VfM measures explicitly. However it carefully considered these issues in adopting a harmonised
approach with GoE and World Bank. Annex G of the project memorandum sets out an indicative
financing scenario in USD, and some price escalation due to exchange rates and inflation has been
unavoidable.
The unit cost varies by region and scheme type. In pastoralist regions and for drilling of large schemes
the increase in unit cost is very high compared to highlands and small schemes. In Oromiya unit cost
per rural piped system has increased from 70,152 USD in 2007 (approx 24 USD/beneficiary) to
135,000 USD in 2010 (approx 45 USD/beneficiary).
However economy, efficiency and effectiveness have been addressed throughout the programme:Economy:
As mentioned above (section 2.2) key cost drivers include the cost of programme TA, and the cost of
constructing schemes (in addition to the government’s own staffing costs which are met outside this
programme). TA has been largely provided through national consultants (rather than more expensive
international consultants) and the unit costs of contracting sub-projects (water schemes) have been
addressed through competitive tendering. An independent WSP evaluation (focussing on COWASH)
cited strengths of the WB/DFID procurement as including strong control mechanisms and economy of
scale.
Efficiency and effectiveness:The WSP evaluation of the Finnish programme utilising the COWASH approach (community managed
water supply) included comparison of VFM aspects and showed that the WB/DFID had a lower ratio of
TA to programme (construction) costs indicating better efficiency under this WASH programme, but
that annual disbursement ratios were better under COWASH. This indicates that there may be a
degree of trade-off between efficiency and effectiveness (in terms of rate of results) that merits further
assessment and analysis.
5.2 Commercial Improvement and Value for Money
Sub-projects have been tendered competitively to maximise economy aspects. The supply market in
Ethiopia is somewhat limited and MoWE is starting to take steps to support private sector capacity for
drilling and artisan capacity (further follow-up on this aspect would be appropriate). Procurement
capacity/performance of government partners is a recognised area of weakness that has been
supported by the programme, with TA at all levels including development of a procurement manual and
a comprehensive Procurement training programme. Turnover of staff remains a concern as to the
retention of this improvement capacity. Procurement capacity must continue to be an area of focus in
this (although most actual procurement is complete now) and any subsequent programme.
5.3 Role of project partners
GoE at Federal, Regional and woreda level are ultimately the project partner to ensure VFM.
Performance, and reporting on progress and costs takes place quarterly. The FMoWE has followed up
on issues of concern with the private sector contractors. World Bank have been playing a key
supportive and monitoring role on the relevant systems, and are in close contact with the MoWE in this
regard.
11
5.4 Does the project still represent Value for Money : Y/N
Yes, despite increases in unit costs these compare well to other approaches in the sector. Overall the
programme is contributing to major advances in the sector, with influences beyond its immediate
scope. Although analysis of attribution is limited, major improvements in terms of health status have
been realised, particularly in reduction in under-5 mortality.
Considering benefits including value of time saved from reduction in time spent for fetching water as
well as from reduced medical expenditures due to increased availability of safe water and sanitation
facilities and increased knowledge of good sanitation and hygiene practices the project is still cost
effective. Though not done for the rural component , a financial analysis done for town water supply
with 80 Million US$ additional financing has revealed that the project has still internal rate of return of
27.4% and net present value is Birr 58.5 million.
5.5 If not, what action will you take?
6. Conditionality
6.1 Update on specific conditions
The project document states that “Disbursement will only be interrupted should there be a major
change in the political situation, such as a serious civil or international conflict, or if concerns are raised
that commitment to poverty reduction or financial management standards are not being maintained”.
These conditions are being maintained. GoE has shown a strong commitment to delivering basic
services, and to sound management of public finances. Trends in the broader political context –
including around democratic governance and human rights – will be monitored closely and handled
with GoE through a range of bilateral and multilateral mechanisms.
7. Conclusions and actions
- GoE and the WaSH programme have made impressive progress on WaSH coverage, but it is
-
still lagging behind implementation targets. MoWE (State Minister) is planning to tour Regional
Bureaus to strengthen commitment and gather momentum
Remaining procurements weaknesses to be addressed including procurement plan and training
Increase contract management/ supervision capacity for timely completion of ongoing subprojects (MoWE and Regional Bureaux)
Ensure sustainability of the operational rural schemes with continued support to the community
level management structures
All Regions to revise their Sanitation and Hygiene action plan
Strengthen the coordination between Water, Health, Education and BoFED.
Use ESMF and RPF screening forms for all future implementation of new sub-projects in
woredas and monitoring existing schemes for environmental compliance
Follow up on audit recommendations for strengthening of internal controls
8. Review Process
The review is drafted by DFID in discussion with WB and MoWE and largely based on findings of
12
the Joint World Bank, Government team interim implementation review from 23 January to 1
February 2012, which included visits to Amhara and Tigray regions, discussion with federal PMU
and MoFED, and review of progress reports and action plan for EFY2004 (2011 AD) as well as the
Sanitation and Hygiene status review and action plan revision workshop. Findings during the Joint
Technical Review (particularly field visits to Tigray and SNNPR) in May 2012 were also
incorporated.
13