1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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