This document discusses different methods for monitoring access to water in Ethiopia and how they generate varying results. It notes that data collected directly from water providers and that collected from household surveys will naturally differ. The Ministry of Water collects provider data while the Central Statistical Agency collects household survey data, though a National WASH Inventory collects both. Neither method is considered better or worse, as each has strengths and weaknesses. Estimates for water access in Ethiopia have varied between 39-49% depending on the source. Reconciling these parallel monitoring processes and making data more transparent are priorities moving forward.

1. Why different methods generate different
numbers: case study from Ethiopia
John Butterworth, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre

3. Key points
• Provider (scheme inventory) and user (household survey) data
are, obviously, fundamentally different
• Ministry of Water and Energy collect one, Central Statistical Agency the
other, but the National WASH Inventory is an exception
• Neither method good or bad, but both have strengths and weaknesses
• Neither are well related to the published targets
• Parallel monitoring processes at global, national, and local levels likely
to persist: may even be more complex post-2015
• Investment in multi-stakeholder reconciliation processes vital

4. New data
points
available
2013

5. Focus on JMP estimates
• Data, data, data:
– the most recent data hasn’t always been available and trend
lines are sensitive
– accuracy and representativeness of underlying household
survey data
• Definition of ‘improved water facilities’
• Errors
• Transparency in methodology and calculations

6. Focus on MoWE estimates pre-2010
• Estimates based on design capacity: outputs rather than outcomes
• Occasional inventories, new schemes added
• Simple, reliable, low cost: provides useful data for frontline service
delivery
• Multiplication factors the Achilles heel: under- and over-estimates
• Overestimates generated by inclusion of non-functional
schemes, clustering

7. Post-2010 and the National WASH Inventory
• Standard nationwide survey
• Uniquely collected provider and user data
• Beyond water points and households: institutions included
• Estimate made of users within quantity/distance norms and total
users
• Data approved, to be validated, made available and put to use

8. Where are we? Somewhere in the 40s
• JMP (2011) – 39%
• DHS(2011) – 42%
• MoWE NWI household survey – 45%
• MoWE NWI scheme inventory – 49%
• Bearing in mind water quality issues and risks of slippage, the rural
water supply challenge is bigger than previously acknowledged

9. Top priorities: what is most important?
• Transparency: methods, access to data
• Put data to use
• Update and maintain the NWI
• Strengthen links with Central Statistical Agency
• Promote monitoring as a research topic
• Investing in communications and multi-stakeholder reconciliation
processes

10. Key points
• Provider (scheme inventory) and user (household survey) data
are, obviously, fundamentally different
• Ministry of Water and Energy collect one, Central Statistical Agency the
other, but the National WASH Inventory is an exception
• Neither method good or bad, but both have strengths and weaknesses
• Neither are well related to the published targets
• Parallel monitoring processes at global, national, and local levels likely
to persist: may even be more complex post-2015
• Investment in multi-stakeholder reconciliation processes vital