RWSEP Phase III Mid Term Review Report

Rural Water Supply and
Environmental Programme,
Phase III
Mid-term Review
February 2005
i
Rural Water Supply and Environmental Programme, Phase III
Mid-term Review
Table of Contents
Table of Contents i
Abbreviations and Acronyms iii
Preface iv
Executive Summary v
1. Scope and Context of Rural Water Supply and Environmental Programme 1
1.1 Background and History of Programme 1
1.2 Phase III 2
2. Background and Scope of Review 3
3. Review Findings 4
3.1 Rationale 4
3.1.1 Overall Policy Framework 4
3.1.2 Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Program 4
3.1.3 Environmental and Health Policies and Strategies 5
3.1.4 Gender Policy 6
3.1.5 Water Sector Policies and Strategies 7
3.1.6 Finnish Development Policies 9
3.2 Effectiveness 10
3.2.1 Achievement of Purpose and Main Results 10
3.3 Efficiency 13
3.4 Sustainability 15
3.4.1 Policy Environment 15
3.4.2 Economic and Financial Feasibility 15
3.4.3 Institutional Capacity 16
3.4.4 Socio-cultural Aspects 16
3.4.5 Participation and Ownership 17
3.4.6 Gender 17
3.4.7 Environment 18
3.4.8 Appropriate Technology 18
3.5 Specific Subjects 19
3.5.1 Community Development Fund 19
3.5.2 Guidelines for the Remaining Period of Phase III 20
3.5.3 Extension of Phase III 20
3.5.4 Matching Fund 20
3.5.4 Bahir Dar Zuria Woreda 22
3.5.4 Finnish Support beyond Phase III 23
4. Review Issues 23
5 Recommendations 25
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. PURPOSE AND TIMING OF THE MID-TERM-REVIEW 2
3. SCOPE OF WORK 2
3.1 Rationale and effectiveness 3
3.2 Efficiency 3
3.3 Sustainability 3
3.4 Specific Subjects to be Addressed 4
4. METHODOLOGY 4
5. THE CONSULTANT 4
3.1 Requirements of the consultant team members 5
5.1.1 International 5
5.1.2 National 6
5.1.3 Regional Experts 6
6. TIMETABLE AND REPORTING 7
Final Report February 2005

ii
Mid-term Review
Hulet Iju Woreda 3

Sources of Verification 3
Annexes
Annex 1 Terms of Reference

Annex 2 Documentation Consulted
Annex 3 Persons Consulted
Annex 4 Logical Framework of Phase III

iii
Mid-term Review
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ACSI Amhara Credit and Saving Institute

AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
ANRS Amhara National Regional State
BoFED Bureau of Finance and Economic Development
CDF Community Development Fund
DAG Donor Assistance Group
DPPC Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Committee
EFY Ethiopian fiscal year
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ETB Ethiopian birr
EUR Euro
FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
FSP Food Security Programme
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GNI Gross National Income
GoE Government of Ethiopia
GoF Government of Finland
GSG Gender Sensitisation Group
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus
IEC Information, Education and Communication
KGG Kebele Gender Group
MDG Millennium Development Goal
METB Million Ethiopian birr
MFA Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland
MoFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
O&M Operation and maintenance
PAN Poverty Action Network
PD Programme Director
PFO Programme Facilitation Office
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
RCC Regional Coordinating Committee
RWSEP Rural Water Supply and Environmental Programme
SDPRP Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Programme
TOR Terms of Reference
UN United Nations
UN DESA United Nations Department of Economic
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
USD United States Dollar
VIP Ventilated Improved Pit (latrine)
WATSANCO Water and Sanitation Committee
WRDB Water Resources Development Bureau
WSDP Water Sector Development Program
WSSDP Water Supply and Sewerage Development Program

iv
Mid-term Review
Preface
The Mid-term Review is part of the project cycle of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland
(MFA) as well as a monitoring element agreed in the Programme Document. The purpose of
the Mid-term Review, as defined in the Terms of Reference (TOR) attached as Annex 1, was
to provide MFA and Amhara Region with the analysis of the strengths/weaknesses/limitations/
opportunities of the Rural Water Supply and Environment Programme (RWSEP). The review
was to measure the extent to which the objectives set for Phase III have been met and to
assess the sustainability of achievements made. The review was also to assess and provide
guidelines and recommendations for the remaining period of the Programme, including both
substance and financial aspects. The review was also to study the demand for possible
continuation or withdrawal after Phase Ill. The scope and methodology of the review have
been defined in the TOR (Annex 1).
The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland assigned two international consultants – Mr. Hannu
Vikman (Hannu Vikman Consulting) and Ms. Merja Mikkola (EconoMik) – and Water Re-
sources Development Bureau (WRDB) assigned two national consultants – Dr. Laike
Selassie Abebe and Mr. Fanta Fayisa (both from Metaferia Consulting Engineers) – to
undertake the review. The Mission was further reinforced by two Resource Persons: Mr.
Beyene Melese from the Bureau of Finance and Economic Development, and Mr. Tesfaye
Yesigat from the Water Resources Development Bureau. The review mission was carried out
between 22nd of January and 5th of February, 2005. The Mission reviewed relevant docu-
mentation, listed in Annex 2, interviewed about 90 people involved in or familiar with RWSEP,
community based management, decentralisation or other relevant topics. Moreover, the
Mission met numerous users of water points in four woredas in the field. The Mission
presented initial findings and recommendations in a debriefing workshop in Bahir Dar. The list
of persons consulted is attached as Annex 3.
The interpretations, views and opinions presented in this Mid-term Review Report are those
of the Mission, and are not to be considered official statements of the Governments of Finland
or Ethiopia. The Mission’s views are those of a neutral, external observer. The competent
authorities of the Programme through the Board should make clear decisions to what extent
the Mission’s views and recommendations should be adopted and operationalised.
The Mission wishes to thank the officials of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, relevant
ministries and other organisations at the Federal level, the Embassy of Finland and other
international stakeholders, relevant bureaux, woreda offices and other organisations in
Amhara region, the Project Facilitation Office (PFO) staff as well as members of communities,
who provided relevant information and documents and facilitated the Study by constructive
support and valuable discussions.

v
Mid-term Review
Executive Summary
Background
The Rural Water Supply and Environment Programme (RWSEP) in Amhara Region is a
regional programme that has been supported by the Government of Finland (GoF) since
1994. Phase I (1994-1998) focused on capacity building at the regional level, Phase II (1998-
2002) shifted this focus to the level of zones and woredas, and Phase III supports further de-
centralisation to the community level. In all phases the Programme has had significant com-
munity capacity building components.
Phase III of RWSEP introduced some significant changes. In line with the Government policy
on decentralisation, Phase III aims at effectively transferring responsibility and decision
making power over the long term sustainability of rural water supply and environmental efforts
to the communities. The changes include the establishment of a Community Development
Fund (CDF) to facilitate efficient financial management and the development of financial
mechanisms that allow the communities to assume the responsibility for re-investment in the
schemes thus ensuring sustainability.
Findings
It is not possible to fully separate the impact of RWSEP in the achievement of Programme
purpose and the Programme’s results. It is obvious, however, that it is substantial. RWSEP
strongly supports decentralisation and empowerment of communities and is well ahead of the
Government and other external supporters in this respect.
The CDF approach, which started at the beginning of the Ethiopian fiscal year (EFY) 1996 in
two RWSEP woredas (Yilmana Densa and Guangua) with a CDF advisor in both, is deemed
to be successful in its endeavours. The CDF stakeholders were involved in the practical de-
velopment of the scheme. In EFY 1997, three new woredas were included into the scheme
and an additional adviser was contracted. The RWSEP plan is to introduce the CDF in the re-
maining seven programme woredas in EFY 1998. Based on interviews of various CDF stake-
holders, the following was discovered by the Mission:
❑ CDF approach has increased the ownership of the water points among the user
groups.
❑ The promotion of the CDF approach conducted by the kebele development of-
ficers is crucial for the understanding of the approach by communities.
❑ CDF training of Water and Sanitation Committees (WATSANCOs) before water
point establishment is necessary.
❑ Communities have become more accustomed to deal with a bank.
❑ The woreda water desks play important role in the CDF implementation.
❑ The paper work for CDF expected from water desks is vast.
❑ The CDF advisors’ presence in the establishment phase has been important.
❑ The practices to run CDF water points vary, i.e., the water point operation times,
the guarding arrangements, the sizes of user contributions.
❑ The communities have been able to identify the poorest of the poor among them-
selves and apparently they are not excluded from water supply. They are given a
possibility to pay by providing labour contribution instead of cash or, in some
cases, to fetch water free of charge.
❑ The number of the poorest of the poor recognised by the communities appears to
be somewhere between 5 to 15 % of the water point households (mainly disabled
or elderly people).
❑ The need for operation and maintenance (O&M) budgeting has been understood
by the user groups.

vi
Mid-term Review
Other major findings of the Mission include:
❑ Communities have been able to manage the implementation cost-efficiently, re-

ducing the cost of construction compared to the previous approach; community
initiation and management is strong.
❑ Phase III Programme Document sets the minimum level of community contri-
bution initially as 15% of investment (cash and kind) and this level to be raised up
to 20 % by the end of Phase. Some communities have already contributed 40-
50%.
❑ Consequently, the CDF approach suggests that by decentralisation of the re-
sponsibility to the community, higher output can be achieved with the same
budget from the Government and/or donor.
❑ The concept of the users’ responsibility for financing rehabilitation and major
overhaul (re-investment) has been widely accepted, but further clarification of this
principle and its implications is still needed.
❑ RWSEP has trained artisans, developing their technical skills and entrepreneur-
ship, to help communities in water point construction and maintenance. This
creates jobs in rural areas.
❑ RWSEP is in the forefront of gender mainstreaming, community ownership and
utilisation of a plethora of media in information, education and communication
(IEC), e.g., user friendly environmental manuals for thematic groups (gender,
school, WATSANCOs, etc).
❑ Rural women’s involvement (quota mechanism applied) in different committees
(WATSANCO, Kebele Gender Group (KGG), contact women, etc.) enhances
their participation in decision making. Yet, it seems that their voice in practice still
remains quite weak.
❑ RWSEP has achieved considerable success in awareness creation, promotion of
suitable technology such as MIRT stoves, establishment of school nurseries,
maintenance of hygienic environment at all water points and schools, promotion
of household hygiene and sanitation, water point catchment management, ero-
sion control, forestry, and control of deforestation.
❑ RWSEP has generally encouraged inter-sectoral collaboration of sector partners
and managed to integrate messages delivered by health, water, education, rural
development and agriculture desks, yet, there is still room for improvement.
❑ The commitment and outputs of the PFO are impressive. The PFO staff has
carried out substantial development effort for CDF and other new aspects, and
they have extended their role to fill gaps left by other stakeholders.
❑ The Programme’s effort to orderly withdraw from certain woredas in East Gojjam
Zone is also appreciated. It seems, however, that the capacity of the woreda
water desk to follow-up existing schemes is limited. There is also a concern that
the revenues collected for O&M (the lowest observed by the Mission being ETB 3
per household per year) do not cover the O&M cost, not to speak of financing of
re-investment.
Recommendations
The Mission welcomes attempts to speed up the construction of water points and latrines but
not at the expense of ownership, building quality, reliability of yield, and sustainability. The
past experience years suggests that realistically the woreda water desk can facilitate the con-
struction of 50-60 water points during the relatively short season. If higher output rate is
targeted, water desks are likely to need additional resources.
The Mission considers the CDF approach to provide many advantages: cost savings, owner-
ship, commitment of communities to implementation and O&M as well as rehabilitation of
water point, utilisation of the private sector participation and water point implementation to

vii
Mid-term Review
substantially increase the coverage of rural water supply. This would call for the adoption of
the approach by the Region and mobilisation of additional human and financial resources.
RWSEP together with Amhara Credit and Saving Institute (ACSI) has created a list of relevant
capacity needs of ACSI sub-branches with a price tag. Until now, RWSEP has purchased
the capacity upgrading package. ACSI could assume the responsibility for the purchase and
the comprehensive price should be included in the CDF management commission. The
capacity upgrading of a specific sub-branch would then be audited by RWSEP advisors.
In Phase III, ACSI is considered to be an intermediating agent, although their management

commission needs to be re-discussed in order to enhance operational sustainability and
operational development of the agency motivation. ACSI could be instrumental in scaling up
and promotion of the CDF, in order to develop CDF approach into a “trade mark” in which
other sources of funding could be integrated as deemed necessary. ACSI sub-branches could
also absorb more tasks in relation to the CDF approach, e.g., to promote the CDF among its
clientele. Also, in the future CDF could act as a channel to other water sector financiers, i.e.,
other donors, international financing institutions and the Government could inject capital to
CDF. That could help expanding the CDF approach to woredas where RWSEP is not active.
In the CDF approach the relevant water user groups receive capacity building in a form of
training. The possibility to provide the standardised training package for CDF management
in connection with or by a local ACSI sub-branch is one option valid to be further studied.
Since the CDF approach is new and still needs some streamlining and development work in
order to make it replicable in larger extent and to be properly introduced and rooted into the
remaining RWSEP woredas, the input of field advisors is deemed to be important until the
end of the Phase III. Also the paper work of the implementers needs to be streamlined.
The Mission recommends that the CDF approach will be continued in the operational woredas
(excluding withdrawal woredas) since it increases ownership, but at a lower pace than
planned. In EFY 1998 the CDF approach is to be introduced in three new woredas out of
the remaining seven. The selection criteria should include the performance of the woredas in
2004 and 2005. The remaining 3-4 woredas would be included into CDF approach by the end
of Phase III. The inclusion of Bahir Dar Zuria during Phase III should be considered for the
last batch on the basis of the assessment of its performance in EFY 1998.
The ceiling of CDF allocation should be reconsidered and a pilot project for a small rural town
implemented applying CDF approach. Such pilot project should be carefully prepared and
RWSEP should not carry the sole risk of unsuccessful borehole. Moreover, the beneficiaries
should cover the cost of the higher service level than provided by point source systems.
The woredas should make every effort to ensure that the matching funds will be disbursed
in full during EFY 1997. The woredas should also make a serious effort to provide adequate
amount of matching funds for the remaining programme period.
In terms of the environment, RWSEP could expand the scope from the protection of the
immediate surroundings of water points to cover the catchment. RWSEP could also in-
corporate the assessment of the catchment, and aquifer drawdown in the initial environmental
examination to be undertaken as part of field appraisal of CDF water points. Furthermore, the
awareness creation should include protection against pollution from the use of fertilisers.
There are many options for household latrines from very low cost to refined ECOSAN toilets.
The most critical aspect is to ensure that latrines are safe and also convenient. The progress
in household sanitation could be seriously affected by accidents resulting form collapsing pits
or breaking slabs. Convenience can be improved by odour and insect control.

viii
Mid-term Review
Health education should cover all aspects of health, such as food and hygiene, vector
control, housing, air pollution control (stoves), prevention of tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, etc.
The Mission recommends that the institutional structure of RWSEP will be streamlined.
One example is to merge Kebele Gender Groups and Gender Sensitisation Groups. The
ownership of stakeholders is likely to become stronger when responsibilities are not as dis-
persed as they are now. The Mission raises again the question if the Project Facilitation Office
(PFO) should be more integrated into GoE structures. Definitely, the bureaus and offices
should see RWSEP as a resource to help them to achieve their targets instead of being a
burden. On the other hand, they should not leave activities to be carried out by PFO.
The Mission discussed these institutional arrangements and heard a variety of views. The
Mission is not convinced that, as long as RWSEP involves many sectors, albeit some of them
with relatively low budgets and soft components, the mandate of Water Resources Develop-
ment Bureau (WRDB) is strong enough for inter-sectoral co-ordination. Therefore, when
preparing Phase IV, this issue should be seriously addressed, e.g., by incorporating the
mainstreamed activities under WRDB.
The Mission has also raised a question if a full-time Programme Director is needed. The
tasks and responsibilities of the PD are diverse: on the one hand he should take decisions; on
the other hand s/he is responsible for a high number of administrative routines. The Mission
recommends that the job description of the PD is reconsidered and the duties possibly divided
between a high level, part time PD (a line manager of WRDB) and a full time RWSEP
administrator accountable to the PD.
The Mission calls for more efficient donor co-ordination. BoFED is not responsible for the co-
ordination of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) co-ordination. This is a duty of the
Food Security Programme (FSP) and Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Committee
(DPPC). Therefore, close co-ordination between these two bodies is necessary. Also the
Embassy of Finland could be active and contribute to the harmonising of the policies and
operational principles of donors at the Federal level.
In order to ensure the sustainability of RWSEP outputs in withdrawal woredas, these

woredas should increasingly decrease their dependence on RWSEP. Experience from the
withdrawal from individual woredas should also provide lessons for the future phasing out of
RWSEP. It is recommended that RWSEP will withdraw from six East Gojjam woredas by the
end of EFY 1997. Yet, occasional support may be provided if needs emerge.
The high initial capacity building investment per woreda is rather high. There is a need for
careful analysis of the return of this investment: RWSEP needs to analyse the cost-
effectiveness and necessity of all this investment. Before extending RWSEP to new woredas
beyond Phase III, the criteria for the selection of woredas need to be revisited.
The Mission recommends that the budget savings will be made available and Phase III
targets achieved by extending the implementation of RWSEP by six months within the same
budget. A lesson from the delay of Phase III start up is learned by the Mission. Therefore, it is
proposed that the six-month extension is not considered merely an extension of Phase III
but a bridging phase of Phase IV (or a renamed new project). The preparation of Phase IV
should be commenced in due time, before the end of 2005.
The Finnish sector support could also include, if resources allow, support to urban water
supply and sanitation, e.g., to Addis Ababa Water Supply & Sewerage Authority. Such sup-
port could comprise investment support in the form of soft loans and capacity building by
grant financing.

1
Mid-term Review
1. Scope and Context of Rural Water Supply and Environ-

mental Programme
1.1 Background and History of Programme
The population of Amhara Region accounts for roughly one quarter of the total population of
Ethiopia. If the current trend in population growth continues, the region’s population will
double in less than 30 years. However, the population is not equally distributed in the region.
Generally speaking, the highlands are more densely populated than the lowlands. The life ex-
pectancy at the birth is estimated to be near 51 years; however, the officials are concerned for
the effect of HIV/AIDS on the population. There are no estimates available on this.
An administrative map of Amhara Region is shown in Figure 1. Agriculture is the dominant

economic sector in Amhara Region, it accounts for about half of the regional Gross Domestic
Product (GDP); the rest is divided between industries (32%) and services (17%) respectively.
Agriculture is the main source of income to more than two-thirds of population. The estimated
per capita income in the region is ETB 795, which is below the national estimate. Poverty is
dominant in the region, it is estimated that some 12% of the households have less than ETB
2,000 annual income; some 84% of the households have annual income between ETB 2,000
and ETB 12,599. (ETB 2,000 is equivalent to about EUR 178 at February 2005 exchange
rates).
Figure 1 Administrative map of Amhara Region
The Rural Water Supply and Environment Programme (RWSEP) in Amhara Region is a
regional programme that has been supported by the Government of Finland (GOF) since
1994. Phase I was launched in July 1994 and it covered a period of four years until June
1998. Phase I focused on capacity building at the regional level. Phase II (from July 1998 until

2
Mid-term Review
December 2002) shifted the capacity building focus to the zonal level. In terms of physical
outputs the number of constructed water points during Phase I and Phase II were 534 and
900, totalling 1434. At the end of Phase II, 96 % of these water points were reported to be
functional.
By the end of Phase II, RWSEP had expanded to 18 out of the total 116 woredas of Amhara
Region, namely Hulet Iju Enessie, Goncha Siso Enessie, Enebsie Sar Midr, Enarg Enagwa,
Enemay, Dejen, Shebel and Bibugn in East Gojjam Zone; Dera, Fogera, Farta and Estie in
South Gondar Zone; Bahir Dar Zuria, Yilmana Densa, Quarit and Dagadamot in West Gojjam
Zone; and Ankesha and Guangua in Awi Zone.
1.2 Phase III

Phase III of RWSEP introduced some significant changes. In line with the Government policy
on decentralisation, Phase III aims at effectively transferring responsibility and decision
making power over the long term sustainability of rural water supply and environmental efforts
to the communities. The changes include the establishment of a Community Development
Fund (CDF) to facilitate efficient financial management and the development of financial
mechanisms that allow the communities to assume the responsibility for re-investment in the
The overall (long term) objective of the Programme was defined in Phase III Programme
Document as follows: “Communities have the capacity to define, manage and implement their
own plans for sustainable development”. The purpose of the Programme, as defined for
Phase III, is that communities have strengthened capacity to initiate, plan, implement and
manage water supply and sanitation, environmental and related schemes and processes.
The Programme results, according to Programme Document, are:
❑ Result 1: Sustainable community schemes financed from CDF;

❑ Result 2: Enabling environment for community based management in all (Pro-
gramme) Woredas;
o Result 2.1: Adequate support to implementation, operation and maintenance
management carried out by communities;
o Result 2.2: Community Development Fund established and operational;
o Result 2.3: Adequate and appropriate sanitation and hygiene education pro-
vided;
o Result 2.4: Community development plans contribute to woreda development
planning;
o Result 2.5: Gender is mainstreamed in planning, implementation, monitoring
and evaluation of all activities;
o Result 2.6: Increased participation and understanding of Programme pur-
pose through IEC;
o Result 2.7: Enhanced environmental sustainability;
o Result 2.8: Access to and utilisation of micro-credits; and
❑ Result 3: Competent, efficient and responsive technical assistance provided to
strengthening Government capacity.
The indicators for the verification of the achievement of Phase III purpose and results are
listed in the Logical Framework in Annex 4. It is fundamental to the sustainability of the
schemes that they are genuinely demand driven. This means that the number of water points
constructed as such is not an appropriate and adequate indicator without indicators that en-
sure the ownership and understanding of the users’ responsibilities. It was estimated, how-
ever, that at least 1,600 water points could be implemented during Phase III, meaning that the
water point implementation pace could virtually be doubled compared to Phase II.

3
Mid-term Review
Phase III emphasises the community’s role and responsibility for the initial investment and its
management. Initially, the community contribution was to be at least 15%, mainly in kind but
at least some of it in cash, but it is expected to increase to at least 20% by the end of Phase
III, based on the experience and gained and modalities to be developed in the course of
Phase III.
The total budget for Phase III is EUR 11.1 million. The contribution of the Government of
Finland is EUR 8.1 million (73%) and the contribution of the Government of Ethiopia (ANRS)
is equivalent to EUR 2.4 million (21.5%). The communities are expected to contribute to their
schemes equivalent to EUR 0.6 million, 5.5% of the total project budget in cash and kind. The
Finnish contribution is on a grant basis.
2. Background and Scope of Review

The Mid-term Review is part of the project cycle of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland
(MFA) as well as a monitoring element agreed in the Programme Document. The purpose of
the Mid-term Review, as defined in the Terms of Reference (TOR) attached as Annex 1, was
to provide MFA and Amhara Region with the analysis of the strengths/weaknesses/limitations/
opportunities of the RWSEP. The review was to measure the extent to which the objectives
set for Phase III have been met and to assess the sustainability of achievements made. The
review was also to assess and provide guidelines and recommendations for the remaining
period of the Programme, including both substance and financial aspects. The review was
also to study the demand for possible continuation or withdrawal after Phase Ill. The scope
and methodology of the review have been defined in the TOR (Annex 1).
The review was to address the general Programme progress, the organisational and institu-
tional set up of the Programme and practical Programme management by its stakeholders.
The Mission was to concentrate on assessing the rationale and effectiveness, efficiency and
sustainability of the Programme. The specific subjects to be addressed in the review, ac-
cording to the TOR, were:
❑ Community Development Fund approach, implementation and its role in future

rural water supply construction in general; possible financial risks entailed in the
approach; fund management mechanism and its replicability;
❑ to provide with guidelines how the remaining period of the programme imple-
mentation should be redirected or if there is a need and possibility to extend the
Phase in order to meet the set objectives of the programme. As program redi-
recting or extension would require the decision of competent authorities that are
in charge of the programme, recommendations and guidelines have to be jus-
tified, sound, clear and convincing;
❑ to assess the possible extension of Phase III until the end of June 2007 with
existing Phase III budget and to give justified recommendations;
❑ to assess the Ethiopian Government contribution (Matching Fund) effectiveness;
❑ performance of the Bahir Dar Zuria Woreda and recommended actions; and
❑ to assess and recommend the Programme withdrawal or continuation after the
Phase III and provide recommendation if the water sector support from Finland to
Ethiopia should continue and in what form (bi-lateral projects or sector budget
support).

4
Mid-term Review
3. Review Findings
3.1 Rationale
3.1.1 Overall Policy Framework
The present decentralisation policy of the Ethiopian Government has defined the roles and
responsibilities of the Federal, regional and woreda level governments. The economic man-
agement and administrative structures have been decentralised to create an enabling envir-
onment for people’s participation in economic, political and social development and greater
independence of the regions to administer their development.
The overall aim of the national policy of decentralisation is to stimulate and facilitate bottom-
up initiatives in development planning and implementation. The policy of Amhara National
Regional State (ANRS), therefore, is to create an enabling environment for participatory de-
velopment. Participation, as it is used in the ANRS, means that people are closely involved in
the economic, social, cultural and political processes that affect their lives. The essence of
participation is empowerment, i.e., people have constant access to decision making and
power.
There are elected councils at Regional, woreda and kebele levels. However, the whole de-
centralisation and devolution is in process and will take time to fully mature. Regional councils
are still dependent on central Government for their capital and recurrent budgets as well as
negotiations for international development assistance, limiting their decision-making powers.
Woreda and kebele councils at present have only little management experience and limited
human and financial resources, which result in slowed down decentralisation. The process of
decentralisation, especially the degree of independence at the woreda level needs continued
strengthening. The national and regional policies and strategies emphasise popular com-
munity participation in all aspects of development efforts. All concerned sectoral policies pro-
mote decentralisation, bottom-up planning, integration and multi-sectorality. The policy envir-
onment in this respect has been essential and supportive for the implementation of RWSEP
and RWSEP has also contributed to the policy development and implementation.
The rural development policy in its preamble makes it clear that the country is in a state of
low economic and social development. The economic base is primitive agriculture, subsist-
ence farming being the norm. The policy defines that wrong economic policy is to blame for
the low economic and social development. This new policy places importance on decentral-
isation of decision making to the lowest government units. According to this policy, the lowest
possible government units should carry out planning and implementation, including budgeting,
mostly by the Woreda Council. Hence, like all other development activities, the planning, im-
plementation, monitoring and evaluation for water supply, environmental protection, sanita-
tion, hygiene education, etc. at woreda and community levels is the mandate of the Woreda
Council.
3.1.2 Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Program

Ethiopia is one of the poorest countries in the world; the GDP per capita is only USD 100 and
also the food insecurity is a serious problem in the country. Some indicators for Ethiopia,
Amhara Region and Sub-Saharan Africa are presented in Table 1.

5
Mid-term Review
Table 1 Social indicators for Ethiopia, Amhara Regional and Sub-Saharan Africa
1 Population Rural Life GNI/
2002 population expectancy Capita
(Million) (%) (USD)
Sub-Saharan Africa 688 67 46 USD 450
Ethiopia 67.3 84 42 USD 100
Amhara Region 18.2 89 50.8
For overall development purposes the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia (FDRE) has established an umbrella development programme named Sustainable
Development and Poverty Reduction Programme (SDPRP), in which development needs and
strategies for various sectors and cross-cutting issues are dealt within. The Federal
ownership for SDPRP is strong; the programme has been linked closely with the achievement
of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), Ethiopia being one of the six of the United
Nations’ (UN) MDG pilot countries. It has been counted that a real growth of 5.7% per annum
until 2015 is required in Ethiopia to reduce poverty by half from its current level. The broad
thrust of the Government’s strategy remains on rural growth, accelerating private sector
growth in the modern economy to create employment and incomes, and strengthening of
public institutions. The real GDP growth has varied remarkably during the past years, e.g.,
from negative 3.9% in 2002/2003 it surged to 11.6% in 2003/2004. Occasional droughts have
been dominant factors for poor performance.
In the Government’s budget the spending on agriculture and food security, education, roads,
water and health are counted for poverty-targeted spending. The poverty-targeted spending
was some 43% of the total public expenditure in 2002/2003, taking into account the capital
spending as well as recurrent spending. The respective share was 55% in 2003/2004. The
annual expenditure on water has been a little over 4%.
The poverty reduction activities are widely discussed in Ethiopia; the donor community is
active in this respect, as is also the Federal Government, the Ministry of Finance and
Economic Development (MoFED) being in charge of the Federal level co-ordination. The
Bureau of Finance and Economic Development (BoFED), the regional counterpart of MoFED,
conducts the co-ordination of economic development at the regional level. The civil society is
enhanced to voice its concerns through the Poverty Action Network (PAN). At this point of
time, Ethiopia is about to finalise its second progress report on the SDPRP. The report is
being made public in a donor conference in February. The on-going SDPRP includes a policy
matrix as an annex to it; this matrix is important in the assessment of the targets and needs of
Ethiopia.
As it is important to monitor the developments of the SDPRP in practice, Ethiopia – as many

other developing countries – has a lot to be strengthened in its monitoring mechanisms. The
Donor Assistance Group (DAG) is active in organising assistance for MoFED in collecting,
analysing and disseminating economic development and poverty reduction related data. The
monitoring efforts are appreciated especially by the donors who are active with the budget
support. At the regional level BoFED is responsible to collect, collate, analyse and dissemi-
nate regional socio-economic data for planning and decision making.
3.1.3 Environmental and Health Policies and Strategies

The Environmental Protection Authority of FDRE in collaboration with MoFED issued the En-
vironmental Policy in 1997. The policy, approved by the Council of Ministers, broadly de-
1 Information gathered from the World Bank statistics, Development Indicators of Amhara Region (Year 2004)

6
Mid-term Review
scribes the country's resource base and how it should be conserved, policy goals, objectives
and guiding principles and sector-by-sector environmental issues. Policy issues concerning
water supply and sanitation programmes are also provided. With respect to the water sector,
the policy mentions that all water conservation, development and management projects are to
be subjected to environmental impact assessment process. With respect to sanitation, the
policy states that improved environmental sanitation conditions are placed highest on the
Federal and regional agendas for achieving sustainable development. It also mentions that an
integrated approach involving all stakeholders would be recommended to deal with adopted
interventions.
The draft Environmental Health Policy of the Ministry of Health recognises lack of safe and
adequate water and poor sanitation as the major health problems of the nation. The docu-
ment lists about fourteen different disciplines as the components of environmental health pro-
gramme. Safe water supply, excreta disposal and hygiene education are contained in the list.
With respect to sanitation the policy’s objective states that promotion of affordable, acceptable
and sustainable latrine technologies and increase in coverage from its current low level shall
be the core activity. The policy articulates that sanitation and hygiene education be accorded
the first priority. Thus, this clear and comprehensive policy should be ratified in order to
strengthen and expand nation wide sanitation and hygiene education interventions.
3.1.4 Gender Policy

The Government of Ethiopia (GoE) has provided due attention on the gender issue and strat-
egy from the development perspectives of the development planning and programming points
of views at the country level. It is based on the existing priority gender issues and profiles,
which identifies new opportunities and approaches for gender sensitive programming.
The National Policy on Women, formulated in 1993, aimed to create appropriate structures
within Government offices and institutions to establish equitable and gender-sensitive public
policies. GoE in 1995, under its new constitution, renewed its commitment towards this policy.
The objectives of this policy are to:
❑ facilitate conditions conducive to the speeding up of equality between men and

women so that women can participate in the political, social, and economic life on
equal terms with men, ensuring that their right to own property as well as their
other human rights are respected and that they are not excluded from the enjoy-
ment of the fruits of their labour or from performing public functions and being
decision makers;
❑ facilitate the necessary condition whereby rural women can have access to basic
social services and to ways and means of lightening their workload; and
❑ eliminate, step by step, prejudices as well as customary and other practices, that
are based on the idea of male supremacy and to enable women to hold public
office and to participate in the decision making process at all levels.
Gender is extremely important in affecting poverty status in Ethiopia. Rights such as access
to land, credit, and other productive resources are difficult for women to attain. They also ex-
perience multiple forms of other deprivations, such as longer working days, women-specific ill
health, and low levels of education relative to men. Furthermore violence and discrimination
against women is still widespread in the country. The SDPRP places a strong emphasis on
the importance of gender equality for development and poverty reduction. The government
has moved decisively to advance the agenda on gender dimensions of poverty in the past
year, and a significant number of initiatives are underway, including preparation of the
National Action Plan on Gender. This plan intends to provide an implementation instrument to
mainstream gender into policies and programs for more gender equitable poverty reduction
outcomes. Its specific elements include to:

7
Mid-term Review
❑ mainstream and articulate gender concerns on broad policy processes including

the SDPRP, MDGs, and budget processes;
❑ strengthen gender analysis and overall gender sensitivity of the SDPRP moni-
toring and evaluation system (including the core indicators and data collection
systems); and
❑ assess the capacity of the WAO institutional structures and functioning, and
identify entry points /activities for enhancing gender mainstreaming across gov-
ernment policies and programs.
3.1.5 Water Sector Policies and Strategies

The overall goal of the Water Resources Management Policy (1999) is to enhance and
promote all national efforts towards the efficient, equitable and optimum utilisation of the
available water resources for socio-economic development on a sustainable basis. The policy
highlights that water is a natural resource that has economic value, and for which user fees
are to be paid. The policy is based on the following key principles:
❑ water is a natural endowment commonly owned by all people;

❑ as far as conditions permits, every citizen has the right to access to sufficient
water to satisfy basic human needs;
❑ water is recognised as an economic and social good;
❑ water resource development adopts rural-centred, decentralised management,
participatory approaches under an integrated framework;
❑ ensuring social equity, economic efficiency, reliability of systems and sustainabil-
ity in water resource management; and
❑ promotion of participation of all stakeholders, user communities, particularly of
women in water resources management.
This policy, which was issued in 1999, recognises that the provision of water and sanitation
services is inseparable and must be integrated at all levels through sustainable and coherent
framework. It also recognises that water supply and sanitation systems are carried out at de-
centralised levels and by appropriate bodies. The policy states that collaborative and co-
operative framework is necessary for the development of sanitation systems through defini-
tion of the responsibilities of the different governmental bodies and other major stakeholders
at all levels.
The Ministry of Water Resources has also developed Ethiopian Water Sector Strategy
(2001) that is an elaboration of the Water Resources Management Policy and aims to provide
direction and implementation strategies for the development of the water and sanitation sec-
tor. As regards drinking water supply and sanitation, the strategy indicates that sanitation and
hygiene education should be integrated in all planning to be undertaken by the drinking water
supply sub-sector. The water supply and sanitation strategy (section) includes directions for
cost sharing and it recommends, inter alia, to
❑ subsidise the capital costs only for communities that are unable to cover the cost
of the basic services as to ensure social equity; establish financial resource al-
location criteria to access these subsidies based on local socio-economic factors,
and implement phasing out mechanisms of such programs to promote self-reli-
ance;
❑ establish and implement cost-sharing arrangements to share the capital,
operation and maintenance (O&M) and capacity building costs between govern-
ment, local communities, consumers, external support agencies and non-govern-
mental organisations;
❑ promote the “user pays” principle in accordance with the user willingness and
ability to pay for the service, based on costs of services vis-à-vis given socio-
economic conditions of the beneficiaries/users;

8
Mid-term Review
❑ promote the development of site specific water tariffs based on financial, econ-
omic, and social equality considerations; involve local communities in price
setting to ensure that tariff structures are compatible with consumers’ ability to
pay, with a view of providing sustainable services at affordable prices and based
on equitable and practical guidelines and cost-sharing criteria; and
❑ set tariffs in rural areas with the aim of recovering O&M costs.
Some of the above points seem slightly inconsistent but the main message is clear: also rural
communities should increasingly cover costs of water supply; extending from O&M to also
capital costs.
Subsequent to the development of Water Resources Management Policy of Ethiopia, the

Ministry of Water Resources has embarked in formulation of a National Water Sector Devel-
opment Program. The most relevant principles and strategies to RWSEP proposed in the
draft are:
The Water Sector Development Program (WSDP) covers the period from 2002 to 2016.
The WSDP was prepared by the Ministry of Water Resources. The United Nations Develop-
ment Programme (UNDP) provided the financial assistance, while technical assistance was
extended by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). The
WSDP was, inter alia, to:
❑ be consistent with the national water management policy and the national water
strategy;
❑ be in line with the national economic development strategy, and relevant to the
socio-economic development of Ethiopia;
❑ promote sustainable development and management of water resources;
❑ incorporate linkages with the on-going and planned projects; and
❑ support the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) related to water that have
bearing on the achievement of overarching MDGs such as poverty alleviation and
food security.
The Water Supply and Sewerage Development Program (WSSDP) targets for water supply in
urban and rural areas over different planning horizons are presented in Table 2. According to
the WSSDP, the water supply coverage will grow from the current 23 per cent of the rural
population to 71 per cent by the completion of WSSDP. This would entail the construction of
following waterworks: (i) 4,255 deep wells; (ii) 9,329 shallow wells; (iii) 27,338 hand-dug wells;
(iv) 18,908 springs (developed); and (v) 222 subsurface dams, surface-water harvesting
projects, river intakes, and related works. Also, 2,857 works will be rehabilitated.
The total investment required for the WSDP is nearly USD 7,500 million of which the share of
the water supply and sewerage sub-sector is almost USD 3,000 million.

9
Mid-term Review
Table 2 Targets of the Water Supply and Sewerage Development Program

Existing Situation End of 2006 End of 2011 End of 2016
Region
Population to be served 000

Total Population 000

Coverage %
Coverage %
Coverage %
Coverage %
Addis Ababa 2,570 70 1,799 2,973 95 2,824 3,418 100 3,418 3,883 100 3,883
Afar 1,243 16.5 205 1,389 32.6 453 1,540 48.8 752 1,695 65.1 1,103
Amhara 16,748 30.7 5,136 19,120 43.2 8,266 27,175 55.5 12,045 24,484 67.3 16,476
Benishangul Gumuz 551 20.3 112 625 40.5 253 706 52.5 371 791 64.5 510
Dire Dawa 330 59.5 196 398 70.6 281 474 92 436 555 97.8 543
Gambella 216 17.6 38 247 28 69 279 44.2 123 311 53 165
Harari 166 22.7 38 196 29.5 58 228 78.7 179 265 90.6 240
Oromiya 23,023 31.2 7,175 26,553 47.6 12,632 30,410 65.8 20,019 34,476 83.2 28,685
Somali 3,797 13 464 4,329 23.6 1,023 4,919 40.8 2,006 5,537 56.9 3,151
South 12,903 28.6 3,691 14,902 38.3 5,709 17,035 50.2 8,548 19,247 71.3 13,725
Tigray 3,797 34.1 1,296 4,335 52.9 2,293 4,923 72.2 3,557 5,551 92.3 5,122
National 65,344 30.9 20,180 75,067 45.1 33,862 85,647 60.1 51,453 96,795 76 73,604
3.1.6 Finnish Development Policies

The GoF made a resolution on Finnish development policies in February 2004. Development
co-operation is a key instrument of development policy whose main principles include commit-
ment to the values and goals of the UN Millennium Declaration, principle of sustainable devel-
opment, partnerships for development, respect of the integrity and responsibility for the devel-
oping countries and their people, as well as long-term commitments and transparency. In the
UN Millennium Declaration, Finland among other nations has committed to:
❑ development and the eradication of poverty;

❑ protection of the environment;
❑ human rights, democracy and good governance;
❑ protection of the vulnerable; and
❑ meeting the special needs of Africa.
The MDGs and targets form the basis of the Finnish development policies.
Ethiopia is one of the Finnish long-term partner countries. The co-operation is based on
Ethiopia’s national poverty reduction strategy SDPRP. Finland, like other donors, is keen to
see improvements taking place as planned in SDPRP. At this point of time, Finland is active
in Ethiopia mainly by supporting water sector development, RWSEP being the main vehicle.
The main thrust of the RWSEP concept is enhancing provision of potable water for com-
munities in selected woredas. The poverty in Amhara is dominant, all woredas as well as
communities consist mainly of poor people. Consequently, RWSEP operating in the region
with local participation contributes to the fulfilment of Finnish policies. The local communities
have their say in water point establishment; they contribute to the financing of the water points

10
Mid-term Review
in the CDF approach and manage the water point construction and, later, manage their water
points. The ownership of the communities is established strongly.
The promotion of the rights and status of women and girls and promotion of gender and social
equality are adapted fully in the Programme implementation. The committees established
because of and for the Programme have been organised in a manner, which ensures that
both men and women are represented. RWSEP aims at taking into consideration the special
needs and considerations of women. The siting and design of water points are important for
women, since traditionally girls and women fetch water to households. The closer the water
point is to the household the less they have to spend time for fetching water and, thus, may
use the saved time for other activities, for example, education.
Poverty reduction is high in the development agenda of all RWSEP stakeholders. Providing
clean water to all community members as close to their habitation as possible in an econ-
omically sustainable manner is likely to contribute to the social stability in the area. The more
stable living conditions help people to plan their lives with a longer planning horizon as well as
plan for affordable investments for their own well-being and productive activities. For actual
poverty reduction it is important that people dare to make plans and are encouraged and
empowered to reach their accomplishment.
The promotion of human rights and democracy is an integral part of the decentralisation and
empowerment of the lower administrative levels and communities, strongly emphasised by
both the Government of Ethiopia and RWSEP. The decentralisation process aims at im-
proving participatory democracy and ensuring sustainable development through a localised
development planning and empowerment of woredas and kebeles in development and econ-
omic planning. Water, due to its utmost importance and high priority in many woredas, can
play a concrete key role in the promotion of democracy, possibly more effectively than
through more abstract subjects or processes. The management of (rural) water supply at the
lowest appropriate level is one of the Dublin principles agreed to and adopted by the inter-
national community, including Finland.
In order to protect the environment, RWSEP contributes to more sustainable use of water by
incorporating caretaking and erosion control of water point surroundings, including plantation
of trees. The Programme also encourages the utilisation of every drop of spill water for
gardening and promotes economising of water use, e.g., through emphasising the economic
value of water, another Dublin principle. RWSEP could do even more by expanding the envir-
onmental concern from the immediate well surroundings to wider catchment issues and inte-
grating such environmental examination into the field appraisal of applications for CDF
financing.
3.2 Effectiveness
3.2.1 Achievement of Purpose and Main Results
The term “effectiveness” measures the extent that the project purpose has been achieved and
the extent that this achievement results from the project. The assessment of the mid-term
achievements against the purpose and its indicators is presented in Table 3.
It is not possible to fully separate the impact of RWSEP in the achievement of Programme
purpose and the Programme’s results. It is obvious, however, that it is substantial. RWSEP
strongly supports decentralisation and empowerment of communities and is well ahead of the
Government and other external supporters in this respect. The Mission also assessed the
status of the achievement of the main three results of Phase III. The status of the achieve-
ment is shown in Table 4.

11
Mid-term Review
Table 3 Achievement of Programme purpose

Indicators Status
• Communities are able to prepare participatory, o Communities have prepared plans in a partici-
gender sensitive development plans patory and gender sensitive manner
• Communities are able to implement and man- o Communities’ ability to implement schemes has
age schemes, and assume responsibility for been very good, re-investment concept has
future re-investment been adopted; success will be seen
• Gender equitable participation in fulfilling the o RWSEP is very strong in gender mainstreaming
Programme purpose and involvement of women (quotas)
• Communities are able to use and manage their o Initial experiences re very promising, the sus-
financial and other resources through sustain- tainability of systems and structures will be seen
able systems and structures in the future
▪ Communities are able to identify and mobilise o Resource mobilisation and contributions have
alternative sources of financing exceeded expectations; on the other hand com-
munities have also been requested to contribute
to other sectors, e.g., schools. This may consti-
tute a risk for affordability to cross-subsidise.
The CDF approach, which started at the beginning of the Ethiopian fiscal year (EFY) 1996 in
two RWSEP woredas (Yilmana Densa and Guangua) with a CDF advisor in both, is deemed
to be successful in its endeavours. The CDF stakeholders were involved in the practical de-
velopment of the scheme. In EFY 1997, three new woredas were included into the scheme
and an additional adviser was contracted. The RWSEP plan is to introduce the CDF in the re-
maining seven programme woredas in EFY 1998. Based on interviews of various CDF stake-
holders, the following was discovered during the Mission:
❑ CDF approach has increased the ownership of the water points among the user
groups.
❑ The promotion of the CDF approach conducted by the kebele development of-
ficers is crucial for the understanding of the approach by communities.
❑ CDF training of Water and Sanitation Committees (WATSANCOs) before water
point establishment is necessary.
❑ Communities have become more accustomed to deal with a bank.
❑ The woreda water desks play important role in the CDF implementation.
❑ The paper work for CDF expected from water desks is vast.
❑ The CDF advisors’ presence in the establishment phase has been important.
❑ The practices to run CDF water points vary, i.e., the water point operation times,
the guarding arrangements, the sizes of user contributions.
❑ The communities have been able to identify the poorest of the poor among them-
selves and apparently they are not excluded from water supply. They are given a
possibility to pay by providing labour contribution instead of cash or, in some
cases, to fetch water free of charge.
❑ The number of the poorest of the poor recognised by the communities appears to
be somewhere between 5 to 15 % of the water point households (mainly disabled
or elderly people).
❑ The need for O&M budgeting has been understood by the user groups.
❑ Communities have been able to manage the implementation cost-efficiently, re-
ducing the cost of construction of the previous approach; community initiation and
management is strong.
❑ Phase III Programme Document sets the minimum level of community contri-
bution initially as 15% of investment (cash and kind) and this level to be raised up
to 20 % by the end of Phase. Some communities have already contributed 40-
50%.

12
Mid-term Review
❑ Consequently, the CDF approach suggests that by decentralisation of the re-

sponsibility to the community, higher output can be achieved with the same
budget from the Government and/or donor.
Table 4 Achievement of results of RWSEP Phase III
Result Objectively verifiable indicators Assessment
1. Sustainable com- • Sustainability of schemes; i.e., o Remains to bee seen; too

munity schemes o schemes are functional throughout early to really assess, looks
financed from CDF their designed lifetime promising
o schemes benefit all community o Yes, in most cases all water
members point members
o schemes affect positively environ- o To limited extent, improvement
mental stability from Phase II
o communities have capacity and o Experience from pilot woredas
means to manage their schemes is very promising
and have access to support ser-
vices, including spare part supply
and financing facilities
o communities are able to finance o Financing of O&M seems to be
O&M and re-investment in place; re-investment re-
mains to be seen
• Number of community investment o Due to start-up delays, mid-
schemes completed annually increased term achievement lags behind;
from Phase II substantial increase expected
during the second half of
Phase III
2. Enabling environment • Woredas are able to support commun- o Experience from pilot woredas
for community based ities to initiate, plan, implement and man- is very promising, exceeding
management in all age their schemes and processes expectations
(Programme) woredas • Programme woredas are able to maintain o This is a real challenge, so far
the support to communities after Pro- woredas are dependent on
gramme support withdrawal major RWSEP support
3. Competent, efficient • Relevant regional bureaus and woreda o No dissatisfaction discovered,

and responsive tech- offices satisfied with TA O&M Management Advisor
nical assistance pro- assigned based on need
vided to strengthening • Regional and woreda level institutions o No sign of CDF replicability
government capacity are capable of replicating Programme yet, initial capacity building in
activities and processes in non-pro- woredas is huge; some con-
gramme woredas without TA cepts adopted for replication in
programme woredas without
RWSEP; the regional latrine
programme of aims at scaling
up implementation pace dra-
matically
Other major findings of the Mid-term Review Mission include:

13
Mid-term Review
❑ The concept of the users’ responsibility for financing rehabilitation and major
overhaul (re-investment) has been widely accepted, but further clarification of this
principle and its implications is still needed.
❑ RWSEP has trained artisans, developing their technical skills and entrepreneur-
ship, to help communities in water point construction and maintenance. This
creates jobs in rural areas.
❑ RWSEP is in the forefront of gender mainstreaming, community ownership and
utilisation of a plethora of media in Information, Education and Communication
(IEC), e.g., user friendly environmental manuals for thematic groups (gender,
school, WATSANCOs, etc).
❑ Rural women’s involvement (quota mechanism applied) in different committees
(WATSANCO, Kebele Gender Group, contact women, etc.) enhances their
participation in decision making. Yet, it seems that their voice in practice still re-
mains quite weak.
❑ RWSEP has achieved considerable success in awareness creation, promotion of
suitable technology such as MIRT stoves, establishment of school nurseries,
maintenance of hygienic environment at all water points and schools, promotion
of household hygiene and sanitation, water point catchment management, ero-
sion control, forestry, and control of deforestation.
❑ RWSEP has generally encouraged inter-sectoral collaboration of sector partners
and managed to integrate messages delivered by health, water, education, rural
development and agriculture desks, yet, there is still room for improvement.
❑ The commitment and outputs of the PFO are impressive. The PFO staff has
carried out substantial development effort for CDF and other new aspects, and
they have extended their role to fill gaps left by other stakeholders.
❑ The Programme’s effort to orderly withdraw from certain woredas in East Gojjam
Zone is also appreciated. It seems, however, that the capacity of the woreda
water desk to follow-up existing schemes is limited. There is also a concern that
the revenues collected for O&M (the lowest observed by the Mission being ETB 3
per household per year) do not cover the O&M cost, not to speak of financing of
re-investment.
3.3 Efficiency
The term “efficiency” concerns the relation between the results and means, i.e., whether the
process of transforming the means into results has been cost-effective. The starting point for
the assessment is the use of programme resources. The efficiency of RWSEP is analysed
below using an average hand pump well with a diameter of 1.5 metres and a depth of 15
metres as an example. The figures were provided by the PFO.
The direct construction costs of the sample well, including materials, pump and labour is
about ETB 20,800. The cost of the facilitation by woreda (recurrent expenditure) totals about
ETB 2,400 per well. This cost is composed of:
❑ salaries (ETB 127);

❑ allowances of staff (ETB 328);
❑ travel costs – mainly fuel (ETB 141);
❑ allowances of trainees and trainers (ETB 1,276);
❑ training and IEC materials (ETB 116);
❑ stationery (ETB 230); and
❑ others (ETB 205).
Assuming that a new woreda is capable of facilitating 20 water points in the first year when it
applies the CDF approach, 40 water points in the second year and 50 water points during the

14
Mid-term Review
third and fourth year, the average cost of the initial woreda capacity building per water point is
about ETB 4,500. This cost (totalling ETB 725,000) is composed of:
❑ training of CDF Board members (ETB 4,563);

❑ training of woreda experts and Kebele Programme Coordinators (ETB 5,626);
❑ cylinder moulds, pipe wrenches, pipe traders, mason tools, etc. (ETB 140,000);
❑ office equipment (51,500);
❑ car (ETB 400,000);
❑ motorcycles (ETB 60,000);
❑ training of artisans (ETB 48,572); and
❑ Amhara Credit and Saving Institute (ACSI) sub-branch office upgrading
(ETB 15,000).
The output estimate is based on the experience gained during Phase III. It can also be esti-
mated that the life time of much of the capacity building investment of ETB 725,000 is in the
range of four years. The economic life time of vehicles and office equipment is hardly longer
and the high staff turnover rate suggests that human capacity building needs to be replicated
at the same interval.
The shares of direct and indirect costs of the hand pump well are illustrated in Figure 2.
Woreda capacity
building
16 %
Facilitation
9%
Direct cost
75 %
Figure 2 Shares of direct and indirect costs of a hand pump well
The total cost of the sample hand pump well is ETB 27,700 and the direct costs represent
75% of the total cost. This is quite cost-efficient in spite of massive capacity building. It has to
be noted that the development work undertaken by RWSEP is excluded from the above cal-
culation. If, however, the output in terms of water points remains low, say only 80 water points
in four years in the supported woreda, the initial capacity building cost would be ETB 9,000
per well, resulting in the total cost of the sample well of ETB 32,200 and the capacity building
cost representing 28% of the total cost. This could no more be regarded as cost-efficient.

15
Mid-term Review
Therefore, it seems highly important to ensure the commitment of each woreda prior to its
inclusion in the Programme.
If the capacity building cost were reduced by ETB 400,000 (the cost of the vehicle), the
capacity building per 160 wells would be ETB 2,000, representing only 8% of the total cost.
This option would make the approach very cost-efficient and it would probably ensure
sustainability better than the present approach.
3.4 Sustainability
3.4.1 Policy Environment
Phase III of RWSEP is well placed in the context of Ethiopian policy environment. RWSEP
has not only adopted and integrated relevant government policies into its operation; it has
been very active in adapting these policies into action, being a showcase for the Regional
Government as well as other external supporters in the region and in the country. RWSEP
has been particularly active and strong in supporting decentralisation to the lowest appropri-
ate level, community empowerment, gender mainstreaming, environmental awareness raising
and the use of a variety of information, education and communication methods. All these
strengths are likely to make the achievements sustainable.
The ANRS Government has set a far more ambitious target for household latrine construction
than has been set at the Federal level. ANRS aims at 100% coverage by 2007 (EFY 2000)
from the level of about 11% latrine coverage in the RSEP woredas in 2004, ten years after the
launch of RWSEP. The massive and fast sanitation coverage increase has got full political
support from the ANRS Government, which is a very positively sign. However, so ambitious
targets may set the demand driven approach, quality assurance and sustainability at risk.
3.4.2 Economic and Financial Feasibility

The Programme woredas – like other woredas in the Amhara region – are poor. For the econ-
omic and financial sustainability of RWSEP activities, it is crucial to understand how the
woredas allocate their spending and how the relevant communities are motivated to invest in
their water supply. It came across very strongly during the review that if the communities are
prepared to invest in their water supply, they feel strong ownership over their water schemes.
Furthermore, if the communities are well trained in the financial management of the water
schemes, they have more understanding about the sustainable operation and maintenance
arrangements. It was noted during the Mission interviews that amounts collected for the O&M
from the households using water schemes varied widely. Among the schemes visited the
typical amount collected for O&M was one birr per household per month. This amount is
expected to be enough for O&M activities excluding re-investment. Whether the guard is paid
in kind or by cash has an effect for the monthly allocation. When asked, in most communities
the cross-subsidisation was taking place. The communities have been capable to identify the
most vulnerable amongst them and to give them possibility to fetch water free of charge or to
contribute in kind.
The re-investment fund arrangement was not organised by RWSEP yet. There were only draft
TOR prepared and first enquiries about consultancy arrangements made by the time of the
review. The Mission was informed that the organisation of the re-investment fund will be on
the top of the Programme’s agenda in the near future. However, the arrangements con-
cerning the re-investment fund need to be looked at closely in connection with the financial
regulations and reforms taking place.

16
Mid-term Review
3.4.3 Institutional Capacity

RWSEP has addressed the institutional capacity from its beginning with substantial capacity
building at the regional, zonal, woreda and community levels. The main responsibility for the
Programme is rested with the Water Resources Development Bureau at the regional level
and Water Desk Offices at the woreda level. The latter are responsible for facilitating the com-
munities to develop, implement and manage water points as well as co-ordinating the Pro-
gramme activities in their respective woredas.
In spite of extensive capacity building, especially human resources development, the institu-
tional sustainability remains a concern. This is mainly a result from very high turnover of staff
and the lack of mechanisms to institutionalise the capacity of trained individuals even by
modest overlap time of the predecessor and successor. This is a serious problem, not for
RWSEP alone but for efficient administration in general. This results in repeated investment in
capacity building, delayed progress, inconsistency, inefficiency, etc. Another problem is low
commitment of some other offices and bureaux to RWSEP. They seem to regard RWSEP as
additional workload to their line duties. Improvement is expected because Programme related
duties are increasingly incorporated into the job descriptions and performance evaluation of
the involved civil servants.
The ongoing decentralisation and civil service reform activities also affect Programme imple-
mentation. The latest case was the establishment of the financing pools at the woreda level.
That incidence seriously slowed down woreda disbursements during the first months of EFY
1997.
Another concern for the institutional sustainability is the set-up of RWSEP. Activities, super-
vision and accountability are built on a number of committees and groups specific to the Pro-
gramme. This may partly explain sometimes low commitment as the responsibilities are
largely collective instead of individual. Committees and groups are also temporary by nature,
not integral part of the government structure.
The capacity building of woredas has included also substantial hardware support, most
notably in terms of a car and motorcycles. Often the provided car is the only vehicle for official
use in the whole woreda administration. The dependence of transportation provided by
RWSEP does not indicate long-term sustainability.
3.4.4 Socio-cultural Aspects

At the early entry point of RWSEP, a socio-economic baseline survey explicitly illustrated the
socio-cultural aspects to be addressed by the Programme. Accordingly, the sustainability of
RWSEP largely depends on the extent that the Programme manages to deal with the social
and cultural factors. In this regard, the level of community participation, which is the lowest
stage of community management, and the promoted community management, i.e., the pres-
ent developed stage of sense of ownership, gender balanced involvement and leadership
capacity of the local groups, are the determining factors of the socio-cultural aspects of the
Programme. Hence the design of RWSEP III is deeply based on the understanding of the
existing socio-cultural factors and experiences of Phase I and Phase II.
Peer IEC educators, gender groups, contact women, school children and opinion leaders are
actively involved as main actors in encouraging and promoting attitudinal changes regarding
hygiene practices, women’s early night and dark evening open field defecation as well as
early marriage cultural perceptions and women’s involvement in the public gatherings and
meetings. The intervention of Phase III has played a crucial role that laid fundamental bases
to ensured sustainability, effective utility and replicability of the efforts of RWSEP through its
institutionalisation at various levels (regional, zonal, woreda, kebele, sub-kebele and local-
ities).

17
Mid-term Review
All the aforementioned achievements of RWSEP III are an outcome of the overall socio-
economic baseline survey, which brought about the conducive attitudinal changes and the
aspects of the socio-cultural barriers hampering due to the intervention and the strict practical
application of the of the intervention. However, still there is a lot to be done, since there are so
many remaining socio-cultural barriers to be tackled with, for example, many boys and men
are unwilling to prepare food, carry drinking water, perform sanitary tasks, wash utensils, etc.
Meanwhile girls and women suffer from all these workloads.
3.4.5 Participation and Ownership

Community participation is a tool for the overall development aspects. Its essence is to foster
full and active involvement of the target beneficiaries in their own problem identification and
prioritisation. Also the formulation of alternative solutions, planning, resource mobilisation,
and monitoring and evaluation of self initiated development activities by the community
enhance sustainability, effective utilisation, and replicability of the interventions. The con-
ducted socio-economic baseline survey, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), gender sensi-
tisation and seriously gender balanced training have contributed in encouraging and pro-
moting community participation and management, and developed strong sense of ownership.
With this perception, the active community involvement and sincere direct participation of the
intended target beneficiary community is incredible and genuinely remarkable, since water is
the top priority and highly demand driven issue. From the inception of the scheme, the
community participates at all phases/stages of their projects; hence they have developed their
sense of the ownership of water and sanitation schemes. They have contributed their scarce
resources in cash, material, and labour.
Water user groups have nominated WATSANCOs to manage water supply facilities that are
the outcome result of RWSEP support. RWSEP has also created structural links between
governmental offices and other bodies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), rural entre-
preneurs and local community organisations.
The remaining task to be done is to ensure the legal status and sustainability of the water
user groups. Under the present legislation, this can be done by forming user groups into
service co-operatives under the Co-operative Act. The legal status of water user co-oper-
atives in small-scale irrigation projects in the ANRS are a good example for the currently
prevailing water points, which, without having a legal status, can not accuse and/or be
accused, can not barrow money from a bank and/or use credit facilities.
3.4.6 Gender
Gender issues imply to both women and men and gender in the water and sanitation sector is
a crucially important element, which needs due attention in development aspects. In this
regard, Phase III of RWSEP explicitly incorporates gender balanced active and direct
involvement of men and women into its key strategy. Accordingly, due emphasis has been
given to make the processes and structures gender sensitive. RWSEP has promoted gender
affairs structures from the top at the regional level down to the grass root at kebele and sub-
kebele levels. The Programme has addressed practical gender needs and responsibilities in
the design of water and sanitation facilities and promoting access to social amenities, such as
water, latrines, fuel saving stoves and access to information in the areas of health, sanitation,
hygienic education, nutrition, afforestation and convenient environmental conditions.
Gender balanced capacity building efforts have been made towards government staffs as it
has been done at the community level. Gender networking has been put in place to
strengthen linkages between different professionals. The efforts of RWSEP have contributed
considerably in addressing gender mainstreaming, gender institutionalisation, gender roles

18
Mid-term Review
and equity and traditional harmful practices, e.g., early marriage. The remaining thinks to be
done include effective utilisation and replication of these approaches elsewhere, and reaching
disadvantageous gender groups and unserved areas that the Programme has not yet
reached.
Separate latrines have been constructed for male and female students as well as male and
female teachers at the schools. Domestic household latrines have benefited especially
women. Women benefited themselves from accessing to services of vegetable seeds along
the water points, provision of water supplies, cloth washing basins, garbage collection pits,
and fuel effective and efficient stoves that are compatible with local preferences for cooking.
3.4.7 Environment
Past experiences have shown that programmes and projects undertaken in different sectors,
including the water sector, have caused damage to the environment and to the health of
people. This is due to the fact that programme planning and implementation as well as de-
cisions were mainly based on short-term economic and technical feasibility. The most ef-
fective and economic way of maintaining environmental quality in the development endeavour
is to anticipate, eliminate, or mitigate problems as early as possible. Accordingly, the intro-
duction of environmental protection component into RWSEP as well as Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) as a tool in the planning and decision-making process is of paramount im-
portance. An embryonic environmental assessment is included in the field appraisal of water
points (CDF application) but it could also take into account the catchment of the water point.
RWSEP also addresses environmental problems – in micro scale – and provides assistance
to communities in their environmental schemes, particularly for the reduction and prevention
of further deforestation and erosion, and for maintenance of biodiversity.
Managing water as an economic good is an important way of achieving efficient and equitable
use, and of encouraging conservation and protection of water resources. In this respect,
RWSEP is in the forefront of all rural water supply projects and programmes in Ethiopia, as
the CDF approach extends much of the financial responsibility to the users and helps them to
be cost-conscious.
The abstraction of groundwater from hand pump wells is not likely to affect aquifers. Pro-
tected springs with gravity outlets, if used by larger communities carelessly, without closing
taps and using larger volume of water for irrigation, could result in local over-exploitation of
aquifer. However, the main consequence of over-exploitation would be borne by the users,
especially during the dry season. The most likely environmental problem is erosion due to
spillage. This issue has been seriously addressed in the Programme.
3.4.8 Appropriate Technology

RWSEP has promoted a variety of technologies. In water supply the options have been a
protected spring and a hand pump well with an Afridev pump as a standard. These are
proven technologies and promoted by the government as well. At the end of Phase II, 96 % of
water points were reported to be functional. In water supply, the most critical issue for sustain-
ability is the seasonal variation of the yield of wells. The Mission observed this problem with
rather limited sample of sites visited.
The siting of wells is a compromise between access (most communities as located at higher
elevations) and yield of well. This has resulted in construction of wells on slopes where the
catchment area is limited and wells have seasonal fluctuation of yield. Consequently, users
have been forced to restrict their water use, reportedly below 10 litres per capita per day.
Communities’ understanding on the different aspects related to well siting needs further at-

19
Mid-term Review
tention. Where the risk of seasonal drawdown of the groundwater level is high, well construc-
tion should probably be scheduled to the very end of the dry season.
Questions have been raised if RWSEP should expand to other technologies, e.g., boreholes
and simple piped schemes for small rural towns – applying CDF approach – and providing
dewatering pumps to ease hand digging. The Mission proposes one borehole/piped scheme
to be implemented applying CDF approach as a pilot project during Phase III. The question of
dewatering pumps is more complex. In Fogera woreda, dewatering pumps have been rented
from farmers when needed at a very reasonable cost (ETB 6 per hour plus fuel), but pumps
are not as easily available in other woredas. From the sustainability point of view, dewatering
pumps should be used only when needed and the cost of dewatering should be borne by the
users.
Another question raised is the ability of all communities to contribute to the construction cost
and collect adequate revenues for O&M and re-investment. In terms of technology, this con-
cern could be addressed by innovative use of lower cost technologies. The Programme Docu-
ment suggests that lower cost alternatives may need to be developed in collaboration
between communities and RSWEP in order to decrease cash contribution by more labour-in-
tensive alternatives. For example, well lining with concrete rings could be replaced by stone
lining where stones are available.
In sanitation the RWSEP has promoted pit latrine varying from simple dug pits equipped with
wooden slab and a simple superstructure to permanent ventilated improved pit latrines (VIP)
at schools and clinics. Phase III has also introduced ECOSAN latrines, which represent
higher cost and more advanced technology. The variety of options provides affordable latrines
to be financed and constructed by households. The lowest cost options may not have long life
time; for example termites may attack wooden slabs. The most critical issue is to ensure the
safety of latrines by preventing pit and slab collapses.
3.5 Specific Subjects

3.5.1 Community Development Fund
Through CDF Finland provides the community water points with funding. The CDF is an
established system, in which a community organises itself around a water scheme, forms a
WATSANCO committee, raises its own share of the water scheme finance, and then applies
for funding according to a certain procedure. The key players in the process – in addition to
the communities themselves – are; the kebele/community development officers who under-
take promotion and training; the woreda water desks who process the community applications
and organise the field appraisals, based on which the siting of a well is decided. The water
desks also keep records of all CDF water scheme developments and report on them to
RWSEP.
For the channelling of the Finnish funds, ACSI is used as an intermediary. ACSI charges a
commission fee of two percent. WATSANCOs open two accounts in the woreda ACSI sub-
branch: one account is for the initial investment amount and the other account is opened for
O&M expenses. The Finnish share of the finance is released at least in three lots using the
same ACSI sub-branch as the community WATSANCO uses. The woreda water desks
monitor the financing schedules. In the CDF approach the paper work expected from water
desks is vast with the present requirements.
The CDF approach started at the beginning of EFY 1996 in two of the RWSEP woredas:
Yilmana Densa and Guangua with a CDF advisor in both woredas. The CDF advisors’ pres-
ence during the establishment phase in the woredas has been very important. The CDF
stakeholders were involved in the practical development of the scheme under the RWSEP

20
Mid-term Review
guidance. The CDF guidelines with its numerous forms as annexes present a rather water-
proof system for the money channelling and reporting.
Three new woredas were included into the scheme in EFY 1997, and an additional field
adviser was contracted by RWSEP. The current RWSEP plan is to introduce the CDF to the
remaining seven Programme woredas in EFY 1998. It became obvious to the Mission, that
those woredas, in which CDF is not yet operational, expect it to start enthusiastically.
Based on interviews of various CDF stakeholders, the Mission noted that the CDF approach
has increased the ownership of the water points among the user groups. The promotion of the
CDF approach conducted by the kebele development officers is crucial for understanding of
the approach by communities. Also the CDF training provided to WATSANCOs in connection
of the water point establishment is necessary. For example, it became clear that the need for
O&M budgeting has been understood by the user groups.
Since the communities can decide by themselves how to run their water points, the practices
vary. For example, there exist some variations in the water point operation times, the
guarding arrangements, the sizes of user contributions as well as in the cross-subsidisation. It
seemed that the communities have been able to identify the poorest of the poor among them-
selves and apparently they are not excluded from water supply. They are given a possibility to
pay in kind or, in some cases, they are allowed to fetch water free of charge. The number of
the poorest of the poor recognised by the communities appears to be somewhere between 5
to 15 % of the water point households (mainly disabled or elderly people).
Recommendations for the future orientation of the CDF are provided in Section 5.
3.5.2 Guidelines for the Remaining Period of Phase III

The progress of the Programme has improved since the delayed beginning and the outputs
are expected to be achieved, provided that Phase III is extended by six months. The delays
largely resulted from rather significant changes made for Phase III compared to Phase II. In
order to avoid further confusion and delays, the basic philosophy of the Mission is to minimise
the changes during the remaining period of Phase III except some institutional changes and
timely adaptation to the follow-on phase or programme. The Mission’s recommendations are
presented in Section 5.
3.5.3 Extension of Phase III

The extension of Phase III is considered highly important by the Mission. Firstly, due to the
delayed start, the outputs would otherwise remain below the targets, especially the number of
water points. The proposed extension period is the season for well construction. Secondly,
the disbursement of the budget lags far behind the schedule and without extension the budget
would be under-utilised. Thirdly, the extension until the end of June would reintroduce the
original RWSEP calendar to be in conformity with the Ethiopian fiscal year. Fourthly, the
follow-on phase or programme would have time to introduce possible new approaches well
before the construction season and the delays similar to those encountered at the beginning
of Phase III could probably be avoided.
3.5.4 Matching Fund

Finland is the only bilateral donor, which demands matching funds from woredas. Thus,
the decision to collect matching funds from the woredas provides with a good indication of the
woreda’s prioritisation. The percentage level of the matching funds for the EFY 1997 was de-
cided by the Regional Coordinating Committee (RCC). However, the woredas themselves

21
Mid-term Review
have the power to decide the absolute amount of the RWSEP matching funds. Since there is
a certain amount of autonomy at the woreda level to decide in which activities and sectors the
budget is used, the matching fund allocations can be regarded as a signal of the importance
of the RWSEP activities in the woredas. Table 5 below shows the total EFY 1997 budget of
each Programme woreda; it also tells the amount of foreign grants in each woreda as well as
the amount allocated to RWSEP in each woreda. The information is collected from the
BoFED and RWSEP statistics.
Table 5 Woreda budgets in EFY 1997

Woreda2 Population Total Budget External RWSEP RWSEP
in 2004 (ETB) support matching Matching
(ETB) fund (ETB)r fund of
total (%)
Ankesha 224,089 12,067,614 68,387 0.6%
BHD Zuria 272,080 13,884,090 683,507 68,936 0.5%
Bibugne 110,583 9,035,887 767,131 160,095 1.8%
Dagadamot 175,032 10,490,617 994,750 170,633 1.6%
Dejen 118,188 11,579,722 2,744,568 62,999 0.5%
(Sida)
Dera 250,941 12,305,080 875,899 129,503 1%
Enarg 165,320 15,562,088 2 790 149 36,539 0.2%
(Sida)
Enebsie 148,199 10,427,604 838,540 197,967 0.9%
Enemay 163,290 13,858,655 2,764,812 57,727 0.1%
(Sida)
Estie 336,577 15,175,576 981,926 120,000 0.8%
Farta 260,909 15,119,864 905,752 119,386 0.8%
Fogera 231,347 12,350,275 630,352 116,172 0.9%
Goncha 153,735 13,808,289 2,024,262 56,000 0.4%
(Sida)
Guangua 214,710 11,000,000 129,356 1.2%
Hulet Iju 271,221 15,666,355 2,005,110 45,302 0.3%
(Sida)
Quarit 182,675 10,811,065 651,642 100,000 0.9%
Shebel 101,946 10,332,264 2,264,442 40,000 0.4%
(Sida)
Yilmana 349,522 15,090,337 930,387 144,784 1%
Densa
It becomes very obvious that those woredas where Swedish International Development
Agency (Sida) is active, the foreign grants are remarkably higher than in other woredas. The
Finnish decision to withdraw gradually form the Sida funded woredas is obvious if one studies
the woreda finance figures. The percentage of matching funds allocated from the total woreda
budget can be seen as an indication of the importance of RWSEP in any woreda. The per-
centage is understandably low in the woredas where Sida is active. However, there seem to
be big variations in other woredas’ matching funds. The highest percentages are allocated by
Bibugn (1.8%) and Dagadamot (1.6%). The lowest figure out of the Programme woredas is
the one of Bahir Dar Zuria (0.5%).
The Ethiopian budgeting process has been decentralised; the Federal Government agrees
the annual budget frame for the Federal level from which the block grants or subsidies are
allocated to the regions according to agreed criteria. The regions give their budget frames to
2 BoFED: Ankesha and Guangua have informed their figures orally, their budgets are part of the Awi Zone.

22
Mid-term Review
woredas, which, in turn, use the same method down to the sub-kebele and community level.
This method is to ensure that all relevant bodies have their say on how to prioritise the public
spending. In practice, the Ethiopian budgeting process starts from the Federal level and
reaches the community level and travels back upwards to the Federal level for the approval
and confirmation.
Along with the decentralisation process there is an on-going civil service reform process. One
of the recent changes taken place at the woreda level finance management is the single
treasury system, the financing pool arrangement. In the arrangement all sector offices
manage their finances through the Finance and Economic Development Office instead of
each of them making their own payments or disbursements. The change was launched at the
beginning of EFY 1997. The start of the financing pool arrangement was not smooth; there
were serious delays in the woreda finances in the first part of the EFY 1997. However, now
the woredas seem to be convinced that the financing pool arrangement is fully operational.
The disbursements of the RWSEP EFY 1997 matching funds have been so slow that it
has affected the programme implementation.
Amhara Region, like all regions, is very dependent of the FDRE block grants as well as of the
foreign assistance in implementing its development efforts. The Amhara budget for the
Ethiopian Fiscal Year (EFY) 1997 was METB 1,849,720. The revenues of METB 400,000
were only 21.6% of the total income; the tax collected from the region was only METB 273.
The Federal Government subsidy, block grants were METB 1,242, 380 (67.2% of the total),
foreign loans METB 61,110 (3.3% of the total) and the external grants METB 146,230 (7.9%
of the total).
3.5.4 Bahir Dar Zuria Woreda

The performance of Bahir Dar Zuria has raised concerns and resulted in a request for the
Mission to specifically address the issues of this woreda. The Mission observed at a com-
munity level that the ownership of water users was not at the same level as in other visited
woredas. This can be explained by the vicinity of the regional capital and higher mobility of
people, thus resulting in lower social integrity. Furthermore, the motivation of focal persons
has left room for improvement; RWSEP duties have been considered additional work load.
In terms of completed water points Bahir Dar compares quite well with other woredas but the
household latrine coverage is among the lowest. This indicates problems in the promotion
and motivation because households that are located near the city have been exposed to the
model of urban sanitation, and the affordability is also above the average. The lowest per-
centage of the matching fund out of the total woreda budget suggests that water supply is not
a priority.
One concern about the adoption of the CDF approach in Bahir Dar Zuria has been the
location of the woreda ACSI sub-branch in a corner of the woreda, not easily accessible for
large population of the woreda. This issue does not seem to be a real problem, however. Dis-
cussion with ACSI Headquarters revealed that the residents of Bahir Dar Zuria can make use
of the ACSI sub-branch in the city.
In the discussion with woreda officials, including the Administrator, the Mission was informed
that the RWSEP duties have now (EFY 1997) been included in the job descriptions and per-
formance evaluation of the key civil servants, and that this will have a strong impact on the
performance, as well as will have the recruitment of new water officers in EFY 1998. The
impact will remain to be seen and verified later. The Mission proposes that RCC will monitor
the performance of the woreda against its targets for EFY 1997 and the timely reporting of the
progress and disbursement. The Mission suggests that the CDF approach will not yet be ex-
tended to Bahir Dar Zuria in EFY 1998.

23
Mid-term Review
3.5.4 Finnish Support beyond Phase III

According to the Programme Document for Phase III, the preparation of Phase IV will com-
mence in March 2005. The timing of the preparation is outdated but it is important to
remember that Phase III has not been designed to be the completion phase of RWSEP. It is
easy to see that it would be unfortunate to phase out RWSEP at the end of Phase III.
RWSEP has introduced a new concept – CDF – and its implementation is still at an experi-
mental stage. Procedures are likely to be streamlined based on early lessons from the CDF
woredas. The model has been very positively recognised by communities, authorities at dif-
ferent levels, private entrepreneurs, international financing institutions, bilateral donors, NGOs
etc.
The physical output of water points as an outcome of RWSEP (during the second half of
Phase III) is around 500-600 per annum. That will not increase the regional coverage of rural
water supply in Amhara Region. This amount equals to about 35% of the annual population
growth. The achievement of the MDG 7 – halving the population without access to safe water
supply by 2015 – would call for the construction of about 4,000 water points (on the average)
per year until 2015 in Amhara Region. The experience and outputs of RWSEP need to be
replicated and scaled up. This is a major challenge for the ANRS and RWSEP after Phase III.
Sector support to the water sector does not attract many donors in Ethiopia; however the
tasks ahead to achieve the MDGs related to clean water are huge. The number of donors in
some sectors, e.g., health is high. Therefore, it is important to consider carefully not only the
sectors where Finland is active but also the modes how to channel the limited Finnish funds
effectively. Since water sector support is a valid choice for Finland, the form in which it is
given should be carefully assessed. Based on the Mission’s findings, it is important to con-
tinue with concrete technical assistance and investment support.
The Mission has also discussed possibilities for additional support to the water, sanitation and
environmental sectors in Ethiopia. One idea brought to the attention of the Mission is support
to Addis Ababa Water Supply & Sewerage Authority in terms of investment and capacity
building. Considering the national policy for full cost recovery in urban water supply, the in-
vestment support should be in the form of soft loans, whereas capacity building should be
financed with grants.
The Mission’s recommendations on the Finnish support beyond Phase III are presented in
Section 5.
4. Review Issues
Some woredas (administrators) have set targets for the construction of water points to
amount to 80-90 per annum. These rather ambitious targets may set the demand driven
approach, quality assurance and sustainability at risk. Similarly, the Regional target for
household latrine construction has been set up to 100% coverage by 2007 (EFY 2000). The
latrine coverage in the RWSEP woredas was about 11% in 2004, ten years after the launch of
the Programme. The massive and fast sanitation coverage increase has got full political
support from the ANRS Government, which is a very positively sign.
When CDF approach is expanded to cover new woredas, the relevant local ACSI sub-
branches appear to need strengthening of their capacity. Until now, RWSEP has assisted the
relevant sub-branches in their capacity building. This will limit the speed of replication of the
CDF approach in other woredas in the region. Instead of RWSEP conducting this capacity
strengthening, ACSI itself could undertake it.

24
Mid-term Review
ACSI sub-branches could also absorb more tasks in relation to the CDF approach. One of
those tasks envisaged is the promotion of the CDF among the ACSI clientele. In the future
CDF could also act as a channel for other water sector financiers, i.e., other donors, inter-
national financing institutions and even the Government could inject capital to the CDF. That
could help expanding the CDF approach to woredas where RWSEP is not active.
In the CDF approach water user groups receive capacity building in a form of training. The
possibility to provide the standardised training package for CDF management in connection
with or by a local ACSI sub-branch is one option valid to be further studied by RWSEP.
end of the Phase III.
Currently the ceiling for CDF allocation per project is 45,000 birr. This ceiling does not allow
projects for small rural towns, which can not be properly served by point source supply. The
Mission observed one case, where town population was partly served by two hand pump
wells initiated and owned by respective user groups. These groups allowed their poorest
members to collect water against payment in kind or free of charge. Yet, larger population
was excluded from the service to “members only”. This exclusion was not gender or poverty
specific; all strata of population were equally treated.
The Programme Document defines 200 other projects in addition to water points as physical
outputs of Phase II. So far RWSEP has only concentrated on supporting water points and
there have not been applications for other projects. Sharper focus seems reasonable to the
Mission, considering the pilot phase of the CDF approach. Moreover, appraisal of different
types of projects would require additional guidelines, training and expertise.
RWSEP was reorganised for Phase III and the main responsibility for the Programme was
transferred from BoFED to Water Resources Development Bureau (WRDB). The institu-
tional structure of RWSEP comprises a high number (eight) of committees at various levels
and additional working groups. The abundance of committees and representatives may ex-
plain the diverse ownership and commitment of stakeholders. Although RWSEP was intended
to be integrated into the Government structures for Phase III, programme activities are con-
sidered an additional work load by many participating civil servants. For example, all
Regional Focal Persons have not really managed the activities as they were expected and
PFO has continued to work directly with woredas. The Mission was informed that the in-
clusion of the RWSEP duties into the job descriptions and performance evaluation of focal
persons will mitigate this issue. This remains to be verified later.
The co-ordination of the activities of other donors and NGOs in the geographical area
covered by RWSEP has been unconvincing, resulting in overlapping and confusion. Particu-
larly critical for RWSEP is that some donors/NGOs apply much more generous conditions (no
requirement for matching fund, no cash contribution if any, higher incentives) for communities
and officials, while RSWEP is strictly following the agreed principles. For example, while
RWSEP requires 15-20% of contribution as a minimum, the requirement of the Rural Water
Supply and Sanitation Programme financed by the World Bank is only 10%. RWSEP’s stricter
policy aims at sustainability and replicability that are often ignored by NGOs. The Mission wel-
comes BoFED’s initiative to organise donor co-ordination meeting in Bahir Dar in March 2005.
The Mission has observed that there is lack of self-confidence in withdrawal woredas. They
tend to seek support from RWSEP; especially transportation seems a special issue. The only
vehicle in the woreda is the one provided by RWSEP. It may be questioned if RWSEP has
introduced sustainable and replicable means of transportation instead on relying what is
available and remains to be available after withdrawal and phasing out.

25
Mid-term Review
RWSEP invests substantial amounts in capacity building in woredas. The return for this in-
vestment depends on the performance of each woreda. There seems to be a wide perform-
ance range among woredas. The initial capacity building investment per woreda (including
kebele level capacity building) is about 700,000 birr. This is a considerable amount and its
efficient use should be ensured with measuring the commitment of the woreda with care.
RWSEP has provided capacity building in many ways, including study tours to Ghana and
Uganda with a total of 11 participants (10 visiting Ghana, 9 visiting Uganda, 8 persons visiting
both). The outcome of these study tours is not very encouraging. Only three personal back-to-
office reports were submitted to PFO and the major finding was that RWSEP was ahead of
relevant rural water supply undertakings in the visited countries. Study tours may be efficient
eye-openers and provide ideas and models for adaptation and replication but, in this case, the
benefits seem marginal.
The style of reporting (Progress Reports) of RSEP is rather descriptive; hard data, such as
numeric data is dispersed among text sections and it is particularly difficult to find out trends.
Tables and graphs showing past (even previous phases), recent and projected performance
would make reports much more reader friendly. It is also surprising that there are no reas-
onable maps available to be attached to reports.
The number of various RWSEP related committee activities and their record keeping was
somewhat difficult to follow by the Mission. As an example of the complicated recording of the
decisions made at various levels was the decision about the level of the matching funds. It
was decided in the Board meeting of June 2004 that the RCC will make the decision. Then
the next reference to this topic was in the Board’s September meeting minutes as an in-
formation flow problem. The actual decision and the recorded level of matching funds were
lacking. The matching fund issue is so fundamental that it should have been noted as a
revision in the RWSEP documentation.
The slow release of matching funds has been a serious problem for the implementation of the
Programme. The financing pool reform has been accused, to some extent, for the slow pro-
cess. Another reason is that the first half of EFY (July-December) is a low season in
construction activities. Most of the construction expenditures take place during the latter half
of EFY, from January to June. The Finnish fiscal year is from January to December. The slow
start of the RWSEP in 2003 and the extremely slow release of woreda matching funds in
2004 have created a major problem to the GoF disbursements for RWSEP. Until the end of
2004, the GoF disbursements were only 23.9 % of the total Phase III budget. Therefore, it is
vital for the successful implementation that the EFY 1997 budgeted matching funds are re-
leased by the woredas in full.
5 Recommendations
The Mission welcomes attempts to speed up the construction of water points and latrines but
not at the expense of ownership, building quality, reliability of yield and sustainability. The
past experience years suggests that realistically the woreda water desk can facilitate the con-
struction of 50-60 water points during the relatively short season. If higher output rate is
targeted, water desks are likely to need additional resources.
The Mission considers the CDF approach to provide many advantages: cost savings, owner-
ship, commitment of communities to implementation and O&M as well as rehabilitation of
water point, utilisation of the private sector participation and water point implementation to
substantially increase the coverage of rural water supply. This would call for the adoption of
the approach by the ANRS and mobilisation of additional human and financial resources.

26
Mid-term Review
At present, RWSEP together with ACSI has created a list of relevant capacity needs of ACSI
sub-branches with a price tag. This far RWSEP has done the purchasing of the capacity
upgrading package. The Mission proposes that ACSI would assume the responsibility for the
purchase and the comprehensive price should be included in the CDF management com-
mission. The capacity upgrading of a specific sub-branch would then be audited by RWSEP
advisors.
In Phase III, ACSI is considered to be an intermediating agent, although their management

commission needs to be re-discussed in order to enhance operational sustainability and
operational development of the agency motivation. ACSI could be instrumental in scaling up
and promotion of the CDF, in order to develop CDF approach into a “trade mark” in which
other sources of funding could be integrated as deemed necessary. ACSI sub-branches could
also absorb more tasks in relation to the CDF approach, e.g., to promote the CDF among its
clientele. Also, in the future CDF could act as a channel to other water sector financiers, i.e.,
other donors, international financing institutions and the Government could inject capital to
CDF. That could help expanding the CDF approach to woredas where RWSEP is not active.
In the CDF approach the relevant water user groups receive capacity building in a form of
training. The possibility to provide the standardised training package for CDF management
in connection with or by a local ACSI sub-branch is one option valid to be further studied by
RWSEP.
end of the Phase III. Also the paper work of the implementers needs to be streamlined re-
markably.
The Mission recommends that the CDF approach will be continued in the operational woredas
(excluding withdrawal woredas) since it increases ownership, but at a lower pace than
planned. In EFY 1998 the CDF approach is to be introduced in three new woredas out of
the remaining seven. The selection criteria should include the performance of the woredas in
2004 and 2005. The remaining 3-4 woredas would be included into CDF approach by the end
of Phase III. The inclusion of Bahir Dar Zuria during Phase III should be considered for the
last batch on the basis of the assessment of its performance in EFY 1998.
The Mission recommends that the ceiling of the CDF allocation would be reconsidered and a
pilot project for a small rural town implemented applying CDF approach. Such pilot project
should be carefully prepared and RWSEP should not carry the sole risk of unsuccessful
borehole. Moreover, the beneficiaries should cover the cost of the higher service level than
provided by point source systems.
The woredas should make every effort to ensure that the matching funds will be disbursed
in full during EFY 1997. The woredas should also make a serious effort to provide adequate
amount of matching funds for the remaining programme period.
In terms of the environment, RWSEP could expand the scope from the protection of the
immediate surroundings of water points to cover the catchment. RWSEP could also in-
corporate the assessment of the catchment, and aquifer drawdown in the initial environmental
examination to be undertaken as part of field appraisal of CDF water points. Furthermore, the
awareness creation should include protection of surface and groundwater against pollution
from possibly increasing use of fertilisers.
There are many options for household latrines from very low cost to refined ECOSAN toilets.
The most critical aspect is to ensure that latrines are safe and also convenient. The progress

27
Mid-term Review
in household sanitation could be seriously affected by accidents resulting form collapsing pits
or breaking slabs. Convenience can be improved by odour and insect control.
Health education should cover all aspects of health, such as food and hygiene, vector
control, housing, air pollution control (stoves), prevention of tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, etc.
The Mission recommends that the institutional structure of RWSEP will be streamlined.
One example is to merge Kebele Gender Groups (KGGs) and Gender Sensitisation Groups
(GSGs). The ownership of stakeholders is likely to become stronger when responsibilities are
not as dispersed as they are now. The Mission raises again the question if the PFO should be
more integrated into GoE structures. Definitely, the bureaus and offices should see RWSEP
as a resource to help them to achieve their targets instead of being a burden. On the other
hand, they should not leave activities to be carried out by PFO on their behalf.
The Mission discussed these institutional arrangements and heard a variety of views. The
Mission is not convinced that, as long as RWSEP involves many sectors, albeit some of them
with relatively low budgets and soft components, the mandate of WRDB is strong enough for
inter-sectoral co-ordination. Therefore, when preparing Phase IV, this issue should be seri-
ously addressed. One option is to streamline the scope and set-up of the Programme, e.g., in-
corporating the mainstreamed activities under WRDB.
The Mission has also raised a question if a full-time Programme Director (PD) is needed.
The tasks and responsibilities of the PD are diverse: on the one hand he should take
decisions; on the other hand s/he is responsible for a high number of administrative routines.
The Mission recommends that the job description of the PD is reconsidered and the duties
possibly divided between a high level, part time PD (a line manager of WRDB) and a full time
RWSEP administrator accountable to the PD.
The Mission calls for more efficient donor co-ordination. BoFED is not responsible for NGO
co-ordination. This is a duty of Food Security Programme (FSP) and Disaster Preparedness
and Prevention Committee (DPPC). Therefore, close co-ordination between these two bodies
is necessary. Also the Embassy of Finland could be active and contribute to the harmonising
of the policies and operational principles of donors at the Federal level. This could be one of
the responsibilities of the possible water sector adviser to be assigned to the Embassy.
In order to ensure the sustainability of RWSEP outputs in withdrawal woredas, these

woredas should increasingly decrease their dependence on RWSEP. Experience from the
withdrawal from individual woredas should also provide lessons for the future phasing out of
RWSEP. It is recommended that RWSEP will withdraw from six East Gojjam woredas by the
end of EFY 1997. Yet, occasional support may be provided if needs emerge.
The high initial capacity building investment per woreda is rather high. There is a need for
careful analysis of the return of this investment: RWSEP needs to analyse the cost-
effectiveness and necessity of all this investment. Before extending RWSEP to new woredas
beyond Phase III, the criteria for the selection of woredas need to be revisited.
The Mission recommends that the budget savings will be made available and Phase III
targets achieved by extending the implementation of RWSEP by six months within the same
budget. A lesson from the delay of Phase III start up is learned by the Mission. Therefore, it is
proposed that the six-month extension is not considered merely an extension of Phase III
but a bridging phase of Phase IV (or a renamed new project). The preparation of Phase IV
should be commenced in due time, before the end of 2005. The preparation of a new phase/
programme should be critical and innovative and it should take into account, inter alia, the
following aspects:
❑ lessons learned from Phase III also during the latter half;

28
Mid-term Review
❑ experience from withdrawal from six East Gojjam woredas;

❑ progress made and lessons learned from the household latrine programme of
ANRS;
❑ lessons learned from and potential for co-operation with other rural water supply
and sanitation projects in the region, especially those financed by the World Bank
and African Development Bank;
❑ scaling up and replication of tested and proven approaches and methodologies;
❑ development of CDF into a Community Water Trust Fund that could attract capital
from other sources;
❑ critical assessment of the commitment and inclusion of sectors under the Pro-
gramme (streamlining of the scope and institutional set-up);
❑ possibilities to attract NGOs to continue activities possibly excluded from the new
phase/programme; and
❑ a vision for the point of phasing out Finnish support;
The Finnish sector support could also include, if resources allow, support to urban water
supply and sanitation, e.g., to Addis Ababa Water Supply & Sewerage Authority. Such sup-
port could comprise investment support in the form of soft loans and capacity building by
grant financing.

Annex 2
TERMS OF REFERENCE
FOR
THE MID-TERM-REVIEW
OF THE
RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME,

PHASE III,
IN AMHARA REGION, ETHIOPIA
1. INTRODUCTION
The Rural Water Supply and Environment Programme (RWSEP) in Amhara Region
is a regional programme that has been supported by the Government of Finland since
1994. Phase I (1994-1998) focused on capacity building at the regional level, Phase II
(1998-2002) has shifted this focus to the level of Zones and Woredas, and the Phase
III will support further decentralisation to Community level. In all phases the
programme has had significant community capacity building components.
In Phase III the overall objective is for communities to have the capacity to define,
manage and implement their own plans for sustainable development. Programme
purpose for Phase III is to strengthen community capacity to initiate, plan, implement
and manage water supply and sanitation, environmental and related schemes and
processes.
Phase III is a continuation of the Programme with some significant changes. In line
with the government policy on decentralisation, Phase III is looking to more
effectively transfer responsibility and decision making power over the long term
sustainability of rural water supply and environmental efforts to the communities. The
changes include the establishment of a Community Development Fund to facilitate
and encourage efficient financial management and the development of financial
mechanisms that allow the communities take responsibility for re-investment in the
In Phase III, RWSEP will be integrated more into the government operations,
although a separate Programme Facilitation Office will be retained to accommodate
the core of the Technical Assistance Team. This change will support the government
in its efforts to decentralise decision making, and will assist the relevant sector offices
in adopting modus operandi that are both technically and financially more feasible
and sustainable.
The two governments have approved Finnconsult in association with Soil and Water
Company, both Finnish Consultant Companies to provide technical assistance
services for the RWSEP, Phase III. The Ministry of Finance and Economic
Development (MoFED) on behalf of the Government of Ethiopia (GoE) and the
Embassy of Finland on behalf of the Government of Finland (GoF) signed the
RWSEP, Phase III agreement on December 23, 2002.
2. PURPOSE AND TIMING OF THE MID-TERM-REVIEW

The Government of Finland policy is to assess their programmes' implementation in
the middle of the Phase. It is therefore the responsibility of the Government of Finland
to call a Mid-Term-Review for the Rural Water Supply and Environmental
Programme in Amhara Region, Phase III.
The Phase III of the RWSEP Programme Document defines the Mid-Term-Review as
such “Mid-Term-Review of RWSEP III will be carried out in August-September
2004”. The costs of the Mid-Term-Review are not indicated in the Programme
Document.
Anyhow the importance of the timing is that the results and recommendations of the
Mid-Term-Review should be available for the planning of the 7/2005-6/2006 Fiscal
Year annual action-plan. The planning process starts already in February-March 2005
therefore the results of the Mid-Term-Review should be available during that period.
Therefore the RWSEP, Phase III, Mid-Term-Review should be carried out latest in
January-February 2005. This period is also in the middle of the Phase III
implementation and thus can provide valuable guidelines for the remaining
implementation period.
The purpose of the Mission is to provide Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland and
Amhara Region with the analysis of the
strengths/weaknesses/limitations/opportunities of the RWSEP. It should measure the
extent to which the objectives set for the 3rd Phase of the Programme have been met.
It should assess the sustainability of achievements made. The mission should also
assess and provide guidelines and recommendations for the remaining period of the
Programme and are to include both substance and financial aspects.
The Mission is also to study the demand for the possible continuation or withdrawal
after Phase III.
3. SCOPE OF WORK
The Mission shall analyse the general programme progress, programme organizational
and institutional set-up and practical programme management by its stakeholders. The
specific issue to analyse is the Community Development Fund implementation. Gender
issues, approach and strategy are to be incorporated into all aspects of the analysis.
Mission shall concentrate to the following aspects:
2
3.1 Rationale and effectiveness
• rationale of the objectives and their relevance in relation to the goals and aims of
Finnish development co-operation and the Ethiopian national and regional policies
and development plans especially on how the programme is reducing poverty in the
programme Kebeles and how the RWSEP activities are linked to the Ethiopian
Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Programme and on Millennium
Development Goals on wider level
• extent to which the key-results of the programme have been attained or are likely to
be reached
• applicability and effectiveness of the programme strategy
• Cost effectiveness of the institutional arrangements, organisation and management
of the programme
3.2 Efficiency
• economic relationship between the inputs and the outputs/cost-benefit aspects
• existing project delivery efficiency
3.3 Sustainability
• ownership of the Ethiopian government: financial, technical and strategy aspects
• correspondence of activities, strategies and approaches to the capacity (managerial,
technical) of Ethiopian development partners at all levels
• coordination with other donors
• replicability of the programme
• appropriateness of the planning process
• appropriateness of manuals prepared
• appropriateness of strategy papers prepared
• effectiveness of the trainings provided
• effectiveness of the IEC
• effectiveness of physical capacity building (e.g. vehicles)
• effectiveness of the monitoring and evaluation
• level of community ownership and leadership
• compatibility with socio-cultural environments
• level of gender integration and mainstreaming at all program levels
• community and school sanitation approach sustainability
• availability and capacity of human resources at all levels (specifically focal persons
at regional and woreda level)
• TA needs for the remaining period of Phase III (specifically Operation and
Maintenance Management Adviser and Field Advisers)
• quality of physical construction (water points/schemes)
• affordability in terms of initial costs, operation and maintenance and future re-
investments of the water supplies
• appropriateness of construction methods
• appropriateness of technologies to economic and social conditions
• appropriateness of financial arrangements
• appropriateness of the withdrawal from the East Gojjam Zone woredas
3
• appropriateness of the used expansion strategy
• physical construction capacity at woreda and Kebele levels
• environmental protection approach sustainability
• environmental aspects of the physical construction of water points
• protection of the water sources
3.4 Specific Subjects to be Addressed

When reviewing the program, the Mission shall, in particular, address the following
subjects:
(i) Community Development Fund approach, implementation and its role in future
rural water supply construction in general; possible financial risks entailed in the
approach; fund management mechanism and its replicability
(ii) To provide with guidelines how the remaining period of the programme
implementation should be redirected or if there is a need and possibility to extend
the Phase in order to meet the set objectives of the programme. As program
redirecting or extension would require the decision of competent authorities that
are in charge of the programme, recommendations and guidelines have to be
justified, sound, clear and convincing
(iii) Assess the possible extension of Phase III until the end of Fiscal Year 7/2006-
6/2007 with existing Phase III budget and give justified recommendations
(iv) To assess the Ethiopian Government contribution (Matching fund) effectiveness
(v) Performance of the Bahir Dar Zuria Woreda and recommended actions
(vi) Assess and recommend the programme withdrawal or continuation after the
Phase III and provide recommendation if the water sector support from Finland to
Ethiopia should continue and in what form (bi-lateral projects or sector budget
support)
4. METHODOLOGY
Prior to the field work documentation review is to be undertaken by the selected
Consultant (Team Leader). Documentation is to be submitted to the Consultant at least
two weeks prior to the start up of the mission by Ministry for Foreign Affairs of
Finland and by the Water Resources Development Bureau / Bureau of Finance and
Economic Development at regional level. To facilitate the missions' tasks, the RWSEP
Facilitation Office should be informed prior to its arrival to Bahir Dar. The field work
shall be based on discussions held in Addis Ababa and substantive in-depth interviews
in Amhara Region and programme woredas, kebeles, sub-kebeles and WATSANCOs,
which includes field trips to selected woredas and communities. In-depth discussions,
interviews, workshops, observations and use of participatory methods should be
utilized in the work. At the end of the field mission a wrap-up workshop with major
stakeholders should be organized in Bahir Dar.
5. THE CONSULTANT
The Consultancy team should comprise of two international consultants and two
Ethiopian consultants. The international consultants and the responsible consultant
company/research institute will be selected by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of
Finland and the national consultants and the consultant company/research institute
4
will be selected by the Water Resources Development Bureau (WRDB) in Amhara
Region.
The international and national consultancy works should be tendered and selected
according to the tendering procedures of the countries respectively. The tenders
should be requested from consultant companies or research institutes who bear the
overall responsibility of the work carried out by the individuals. The international
consultant company and especially the Team Leader shall have the overall
responsibility of the total Mid-Term-Review consultancy work and final reporting.
In addition to the consultants the Amhara Region (Bureau of Finance and Economic
Development and Water and Mine Resources Development Bureau) shall assign 2
regional specialists (one from each Bureau) to provide local expertise to the
consultant team. Their specific tasks are to accompany the consultancy team experts
during the field visits, provide required information not available with RWSEP and
ensure that the information given to the consultant team through interviews and
documents is true and reliable. In addition to this they shall organize the field trip
programs, meetings, workshops and wrap-up meeting and act as Amharic and Agonja
interpreters for the international consultants. The regional experts shall be full time for
the use of the consultancy team during the field programme. The regional experts’
expenditures (per diems during the travelling) are paid by RWSEP according to
RWSEP per diem payment guideline.
The national consultant agreement will be done by the Embassy of Finland as selected
by WRDB. The consultants will be paid by the Embassy of Finland according to the
guidelines given by WRDB and the tendering costs shall be paid by RWSEP as
instructed by WRDB.
The team is authorized to use two RWSEP vehicles during their work in Amhara
Region. The vehicle use cost including the drivers shall be paid by RWSEP.
The costs of the seminars and wrap-up workshop shall be paid by RWSEP.
The RWSEP, Phase III, budget shall used for the payment of the consultancy work
including international and national travelling and accommodation.
3.1 Requirements of the consultant team members

5.1.1 International
1. Water Supply and Sanitation Specialist, Team Leader (TL).
Water Supply and Sanitation Specialist/ Team Leader, has the overall
responsibility for the accomplishment of the mission. S/he has the
responsibility for the assessment of the technical and management issues of
the water supply and sanitation implementation including operation and
maintenance management. S/he also deals with planning processes.
Requirements are:
✓ MSc/MA education in a field related to the assignment
✓ 20 years of working experience from which at least 5 years in Africa
not later than 2 years ago
5
✓ Experience from Ethiopia and from rural development field in
Ethiopia
2. Financial Management Specialist (FMS)

Financial Management Specialist has the responsibility for the effectiveness
and efficiency assessments and specifically the Community Development
Fund implementation assessment. In addition to this s/he shall assess the
financial and administration aspects of the program. Requirements are:
✓ MSc/MA education in a field related to the assignment
✓ 20 years of working experience from which at least 5 years in Africa
not later than 2 years ago
✓ Experience from Ethiopia and from rural development field in
Ethiopia
5.1.2 National
3. Sociologist-Community Development Specialist (SCDS)
Sociologist-Community Development Specialist is responsible for
participatory processes, planning processes, development of community
management capacity including human resources, IEC and gender issues.
S/he shall also be responsible for the approach and institutional set-up
assessment. Requirements are:
✓ minimum BSc education in a field related to the assignment
✓ Fluency in English and Amharic and optionally Agonja
✓ 15 years practical experience of rural development projects design
and/or implementation in Ethiopia
4. Environmental Protection Specialist (EPS)

Generally s/he is responsible for assessment of environment related
accomplishments; review of the extent to which environmental issues are
integrated in the program; appropriateness of the environmental related
activities in the program. Requirements are:
✓ minimum BSc/BA education in a field related to the assignment
✓ Fluency in English and Amharic and optionally Agonja
✓ 15 years practical experience of environmental protection planning
and/or implementation in Ethiopia
5.1.3 Regional Experts

5. Socio-Economist
Able to provide latest socio-economic data for the team and good experience
of the Regional baseline data collection and analysis. Requirements are:
✓ Fluency in English (spoken and report writing)
✓ Good communication skills
✓ Ideally to have experience of rural water supply, sanitation and
environmental protection
6. Financial specialist
Able to provide latest information of Woreda budgeting, fund allocation,
financial reporting and auditing. Requirements are:
6
✓ Fluency in English (spoken and report writing)
✓ Good communication skills
✓ Ideally to have experience of rural water supply, sanitation and
environmental protection
6. TIMETABLE AND REPORTING

The duration of the consultancy is five weeks, starting in January 2005 and ending in
February 2005 when the final report shall be ready. The field work in Amhara region
would take place beginning 24th January.
The timetable is the following:
Description Team Time January February March

Information collection and TL 3 days
familiarization to the assignment
in Finland
Interviews in Addis Ababa Whole 3 days
team
Assessment in Amhara Region Whole 16
(field work) Team days
Whole 1 day
Workshop of stakeholders team
Final Report writing TL 1
week
The language of the report is English. The draft report will be submitted to the
relevant authorities for the correction of factual data presented. Since the Mid-Term-
Review is an independent and neutral review of the program, there is no need, at
this stage, for official comments on the report. After the finalisation of the report,
the competent authorities shall organize a separate occasion in which all parties will
discuss the report in view of the planning of the remaining Programme activities and
especially the following fiscal year implementation.
The final report shall be submitted in five printed reports and on CD using latest
Microsoft Office programs to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland. The costs of
the printing shall be paid by the consultant.
After receiving the final report from the Consultant the MFA will send the report to
WRDB and WRDB shall distribute the report to all regional stakeholders.
7. BUDGET
The maximum budget for consultancy fees shall not exceed 12350 euros and 19
consulting days. Reimbursable cost estimated to be 3000 euros (economic class flight
ticket, hotel and other travel expenses as well other possible expenses), shall be
invoiced against approved receipts. Local experts will be hired by the Embassy of
Finland using the rates used in Embassy's previous similar kind of assignments.
7
8. MANDATE
The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland will discuss and approve these Terms of
Reference with the Water Resources Development Bureau and Bureau of Finance and
Economic Development in Amhara Region.
During the Review, the Team is entitled and expected to discuss with the pertinent
persons and organisations any matters related to the assignment. The Team has no
authorisation to make any commitments on behalf of the governments of Ethiopia and
Finland. The competent authorities have the right and responsibility to advise and
comment the work of the team. The (final draft) Review Report prepared by the team
shall be subject to the approval of the competent authorities.
8
Annex 2
Documentation Consulted
RWSEP Documentation
1. Rural Water Supply and Environmental Programme in Amhara Region, Phase III, Pro-
gramme Document January 2003 – December 2006, 15.10.2002
2. Finnconsult & Jaakko Pöyry Infra, Soil and Water Ltd: Rural Water Supply and Environ-
mental Programme in Amhara Region, Technical Tender, December 2002
3. Minutes of the 1st Board meeting of RWSEP, Phase III on March 27,2003 and Annex I
4. Minutes of the 2nd Board meeting of RWSEP, Phase III on May 15,2003
5. Minutes of the 3rd Board meeting of RWSEP, Phase III on February 12, 2004
6. Minutes of the 4th Board meeting of RWSEP, Phase III on June 8, 2004
7. Minutes of the 5th Board meeting of RWSEP, Phase III on September 29, 2004
8. Minutes of the 3rd Board meeting of RWSEP, Phase III on February 12, 2004
9. Minutes of the 24th Regional Focal Persons Committee meeting of RWSEP, Phase III
on January 15, 2005
10. Tasks and Responsibilities in the RWSEP, Phase III, September 2003
11. RWSEP, Phase III Work Plans for May – June 2003 and July 2003 – June 2004
12. RWSEP, Phase III Work Plans for July 2004 – June 2005 (July 1996 – June 1997 E.C.)
13. RWSEP, Phase III Progress Report (Inception Report) January – June 2003
14. RWSEP, Phase III Progress Report, 2nd Quarter, 2004 April – June & Annual progress
report of 1996 Ethiopian fiscal year
15. RWSEP, Phase III Progress Report, 3rd Quarter, 2004 July – September (1st Quarter of
1997 EFY)
16. RWSEP, Phase III Progress Report, 2nd Quarter, 1997 EFY October – December (4th
Quarter of 2004)
17. RWSEP, Phase III Quarterly Financial Report, October 2004 – December 2004 and 2nd
Quarter of 1997 EFY
18. RWSEP, Phase II, Phase II Completion Report, July 1998 – December 2002,
December 2004
19. Draft Final O&M procedure in RWSEP, June 2001
20. Environmental Mainstreaming in RWSEP Phase III, July 2003
21. Overview of the Sanitation Principles in the RWSEP, July 2003
22. An overview of the Gender Mainstreaming in the RWSEP Phase III, August 2003
23. Environment Protection manual for Junior and Secondary School Students, December
2003
24. CDF Guideline, September 2004
25. Gender Balance in Planning and Implementing Water Resources Development,
National Water Forum, September 2004, Ethiopia, Arto Suominen, Meaza Kebede, Anu
Juvonen
26. Community Development Fund Approach in RWS financing – Experience from Rural
Water Supply and Environmental Programme in Amhara Region, 30 th WEDC
International Water Conference, Vientiane, Lao PDR, 2004, Ethiopia, Arto Suominen &
Mesfin Urgessa
27. Aggar Vol. 9 No. 4 July 2004
Documentation about Amhara Region

28. Regulation No 16/2000 – Hygiene and Environmental Health Regulation of the Amhara
National Regional State, The Council of the Amhara National Regional State in the
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
29. Development Indicators of Amhara Region (Year 2004), Bureau of Finance and
Economic Development, August 2004, Bahir Dar
30. Overview of Sanitation and Hygiene Education Activities In Amhara Region Reaching
the MDGs By Eng. Daniel Gelan
31. Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in Amhara National Regional State by Eng. Daniel
Gelan
2
National Level Documentation

32. Ethiopia: Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Program (SDPRP), Annual
Progress Report (2003/04), Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED),
January 2005, Addis Ababa
33. Ethiopia: Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Program (SDPRP), Annual
Progress Report (2002/03), Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED),
October 2003, Addis Ababa
34. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia: Environmental Policy, Environmental
Protection Authority in collaboration with Ministry of Economic Development and
Cooperation, April 1997
35. Comprehensive and Integrated Ethiopian Water Resources Management, Water Re-
sources Management Policy, The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of
Water Resources, 1999
36. Ethiopian Water Sector Strategy, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of
Water Resources, 2001
37. Water Sector Development Program, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry
of Water Resources, October 2002
38. Issue paper on Sanitation and Hygiene Volumes I and II, Ministry of Water Resources,
June 2003
39. National Sanitation Strategy to Enable 100% Adoption of Improved Sanitation and
Hygiene, Sponsored By: Ministry of Health, Ministry of Water Resources, Regional
Health & Water Bureaus, Water & Sanitation Program Africa Region (WSP-AF), Final
Draft, Addis Ababa, October 2004
Other Documentation about Ethiopia

40. Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit in the Amount of SDR (US$l00
Million Equivalent) to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia for Water Supply and
Sanitation Project, April 15, 2004, Water and Urban Unit 1 (AFTU1), Ethiopia Country
Department, Africa Region, The World Bank, Report No. 28604
41. Implementation of institutional capacity building of five towns in Amhara Region,
Ministry of Water Resources, May 2000
42. Amhara Rural Implementation Plan Final, Ministry of Water Resources, 2004
43. Concept Paper on Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Initiative, Final January 30, 2003,
African Development Bank
44. WaSH in Ethiopia – an unpublished draft paper, TearFund
45. www.worldbank.org
Finnish Documentation
46. Decision-in-principle on Finland’s Development Cooperation, The Government
12.9.1996
47. Finland’s Policy on Relations with Developing Countries, The Government October 15,
1998
48. Operationalisation of Development Policy Objectives In Finland’s Development
Cooperation, Government Decision-in-Principle 22 February 2001
49. Development Policy, Government Resolution 5.5.2004
50. Guidelines for Programme Design, Monitoring and Evaluation, Ministry for Foreign
Affairs, Finland, 2000
Annex 3
Persons consulted
Friday 21/01 10.00 Heli Sirve, Director, Unit for Eastern and Western Africa, De-
partment for Africa and the Middle East, Ministry for Foreign Af-
fairs (MFA)
Anu Konttinen, Regional Manager, Unit for Eastern and
Western Africa, Department for Africa and the Middle East, MFA
Eero Kontula, Adviser, Unit for Sectoral Policy, MFA
Janne Oksanen, Programme Officer, Unit for Eastern and
Katri Leino-Nzau, Programme Officer, Unit for Eastern and
Saturday 22/01 21.20 Arrival (Hannu Vikman and Merja Mikkola)
Monday 24/01 09.00 Sileshi Taye, Team Leader, Industrial Hygiene, Hygiene and
Environmental Health Department, Ministry of Health
10.00 Amha Yesus Metaferia, Managing Director, Metaferia Con-

sulting Engineers P.L.C.
11.30 Hiromu Inoue, Assistant Resident Representative, Japan Inter-

national Cooperation Agency
12.30 Kirsti Aarnio, Chargé Affaires, Embassy of Finland

Sari Rautio, Second Secretary – Deputy Head of Mission,
Embassy of Finland
14.00 Gulilat Birhane, Head, Planning & Projects Department, Min-

istry of Water Resources
15.00 Hailemichael Kinfu, Head, Bilateral Cooperation Department,

Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
16.00 Takele Kassa, Programme Engineer, WaterAid
Tuesday 25/01 07.00 Departure for Bahir Dar (Laike Selasse Abebe and Fanta
Fayisa)
08.30 Eskendir Alemseged, Civil Engineer, Ethiopia Country Office,

African Development Bank
Kristin Seljeflot, Economist, United Nations Development
Programme
10.00 Yitbarek Tessema, Senior Operations Officer, Water & Urban 1

(ATU 1), The World Bank Country Office
Lakeew Semma, Manager, Supervision Department, National
Bank of Ethiopia
13.30 Departure for Bahir Dar (Hannu Vikman and Merja Mikkola)
17.00 Arto Suominen, Management Advisor/Team Leader, Rural

Water Supply and Environment Programme Amhara Region
(RWSEP)
Anu Juvonen, Junior Professional Officer, RWSEP
Beyene Melese, Bilateral Co-operation Expert/Regional Focal
Person of RWSEP, Bureau of Finance and Economic Develop-
ment (BoFED) Mission Resource Person
Almaz Bizuneh, Training Expert, Water Resources Develop-
ment Bureau (WRDB)
Wednesday 26/01 10.00 Getachew Seleshi, Acting Head, Women’s Affairs Office
(WAO)
Yeneneh Mengistu, Expert/Regional Focal Person of RWSEP,
WAO
11.30 Fanta Moges, Vice Head, Bureau of Education (BoE)

Bezu Beyene, Ability Measures and Student Expert, Regional
Focal Person of RWSEP, BoE
14.00 Ayichew Kebede, Head (Board Co-chair), BoFED

Amsaya Anteneh, Deputy Head, BoFED
16.00 Bezu Beyene
18.00 Tesfaye Yesigat, Expert, WRDB, Mission Resource Person
18.30 Assefa Demeke, Head, Bureau of Health (BoH)

Endale Engida, Deputy Head, BoH
Daniel Gelane, Sanitary Engineer, Regional Focal Person of
RWSEP, BoH
Thursday 27/01 09.00 Mamush Abebe, Field Adviser (Estie Woreda), RWSEP
14.00 Teshome Maru, Head, WRDB

Alemayehu Mekonnen, Deputy Head, WRDB
Minassie Degif, Regional Focal Person of RWSEP, WRDB
16.15 Daniel Gelane
Friday 28/01 09.20 Yilmana Densa woreda office

Dejanie Shibabaw, Woreda Administrator
Zelalem Eniyew, Head, Rural Development and Agriculture Of-
fice
Tezera Mengesha, Head, Water Desk/Programme Co-ordinator
Mengistu Asrat, Woreda Environmental Focal Person of
RWSEP, Head, Environmental Protection and Land Use Desk
Yibeltai Menga, Water Resources Team Leader, Water Desk
Yohanes Bihonegn, Employee, Water Desk
Yohanes Yingaw, Acting Head, Finance and Economic
Development Office (FEDO)
Atsebeha Tekeste, Treasurer, FEDO
Yenework Asmamawu, Expert, FEDO
Etagegn Desalegn, Head, Women’s Affairs Desk
Amhara Credit and Savings Institute, Yilmana Densa sub-

branch
Mulatu Gobeze, Acting Head/Loan and Savings Head
Gashaw Chekele, Accountant
Debre Mewai hand pump wells

Wubalem Tibebu, WATSANCO member
Nibret Agenegne, WATSANCO member
Getnet Amogne, WATSANCO member
Ariya spring
Alemnesh Nuri, Chairwoman of Contact Women
Debre Mewai School

Tigabu Zewdu, Director
Embibel Bezabeh, Deputy Director
Mulu Tefera, Gender representative
Saturday 29/01 09.30 Debre Gubaae kebele, Hulet Iju Woreda
Kibur Anteneh, Kebele Administrator
Yeshiwas Endalew, Head, Capacity Building
Asefa Alamirew, Development Agent
Liweyew Belaineh, WATSANCO member
Belaynesh Tega, WATSANCO member
Mulualem Anteneh, WATSANCO member
Alehegn Aragaw, WATSANCO member
Ewinetu Anteneh, WATSANCO member
Nibret Belayneh, WATSANCO member
Simegn Ashagre, Artisan
Gengerta Elementary school

Kinde Dagnechew, Director
Hulet Iju Woreda

Bayeh Alene, Head, Water Desk
Yeneneh Sega, Woreda Programme Coordinator
Mengist Alemayeh, Woreda IEC Team Member of RWSEP
Meles Belihu, Woreda IEC Focal Person of RWSEP
Edemaalem Bewuketu, Woreda Environmental Focal Person
for RWSEP, Environmental Protection and Land Use Desk
Monday 31/01 10.00 Robit kebele

Ingide Mekonnen, Contact Woman
Tizita Zelek, Junior Nurse
10.20 Fogera woreda office

Worku Baye, Woreda Administrator
Balemual Adane, Programme Coordinator
Zenebe Alemu, Head, FEDO
Mulu Mengesha, Head, Office of Education
Agegnahu Siraj, Gender Team Leader
Melkamu Gared, Woreda Environmental Focal Person of
RWSEP
14.20 Bahir Dar Zuria woreda office

Abebe Alamrew, Acting Administrator
Shashew Talor, Programme Coordinator
Jembare Warkenhe, Head, FEDO
Habtamu Mubelem, Head, Office of Education
Kindie Bezabeh, Woreda Health Focal Person of RWSEP
Tuesday 01/02 09.00 Menberu Allebachew, General Manager, Environmental Pro-

tection, Land Administration and Use Authority
Tesfay Melaka, Head, Operation Department, Amhara Credit

and Savings Institute (ACSI)
Agashe Getahun, Expert, Finance Department, ACSI
Thursday 03/02 09.00 Debriefing workshop (see Attachment 1)
14.00 Departure for Addis Ababa (Hannu Vikman, Merja Mikkola, Lai-
ke Selasse Abebe and Fanta Fayisa)
Friday 04/02 08.00 Jemal M. Omer, Senior Economist (Poverty Reduction and
Economic Management), The World Bank Country Office
09.45 Keith Etherington, Desk Officer, Eastern and Southern Africa

Team, Tearfund
Mulugeta Dejenu, Regional Advisor, Eastern and Southern
Africa Team, Tearfund
Tadesse Dadi, Programme Support Advisor, Horn of Africa
Office, Tearfund
09.55 Hans Spruijt, Chief, Water & Environmental Sanitation (WES),

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
Tekka Gebru, Project Officer, WES, UNICEF
Haile Gashaw, Assistant Project Officer, WES, UNICEF
16.30 Kirsti Aarnio

Sari Rautio
19.15 Amha Yesus Metaferia
Saturday 05/02 22.50 Departure (Hannu Vikman and Merja Mikkola)

Appendix 1
Participants of the Mid-term Review Debriefing,

February 3, 2005, Ghion Hotel, Bahir Dar
No Name Position Organisation/ Location

1. Mr. Beyene Melese Expert BoFED
2. Mr. Tesfaye Yesigat Expert WRDB
3. Mr. Melaku Worku Field Advisor RWSEP
4. Mr. Haimanot Assefa Field Advisor RWSEP
5. Mr. Tesfaye Melaku Dept. Head ACSI
6. Ms. Anu Juvonen JPO RWSEP
7. Mr. Arto Suominen MATL RWSEP
8. Mr. Abebe Alamrew Administration Bahir Dar Zuria Woreda
9. Mr. Shashew Tafere Water Desk Head Bahir Dar Zuria Woreda
10. Mr. Balemual Adane WPC Fogera Woreda
11. Mr. Worku Baye Administrator Fogera Woreda
12. Ms. Mantegbosh Walelign Acting Head WAO
13. Eng. Daniel Gelan Focal Person BoH
14. Mr. Molla Ejigu Focal Person EPLAUA
15. Mr. Minasie Degif Focal Person WRDB
16. Mr. Sibeltal Menga WDTL Yilmana Densa Woreda
17. Mr. Bayne Alene WWD representative Hulet Ijju Woreda
18. Mr. Amare Workineh WWD representative Ankesha Woreda
19. Ms. Meaza Kebede SCDA RWSEP
20. Mr. Yohannes Melaku WSDA RWSEP
21. Mr. Desalegn Simachew OMMDA RWSEP
22. Mr. Muluneh Genetu CDFFA RWSEP
23. Mr. Tezera Mengesha WPC Yilmana Densa Woreda
24. Mr. Birilie Ferede Rural Dev. Head Ankesha Woreda
25. Mr. Menberu Allbachew General Manager EPLAUA
26. Mr. Teshome Meru Head WRDB
27. Mr. Fanta Fayisa National consultant, MTR Metaferia Consulting Engineers
28. Dr. Laike Selassie Abebe National consultant, MTR Metaferia Consulting Engineers
29. Ms. Merja Mikkola International consultant, MTR EconoMik
30. Mr. Hannu Vikman International consultant, MTR Hannu Vikman Consulting
Annex 4: Logical Framework for RWSEP III
Overall Objective Objectively Verifiable Indicators Sources of Verification
Communities have the capacity to Improved livelihood: ▪ Agricultural survey

define, manage and implement ▪ Increase in income ▪ Statistical Bulletin (CSA)
their own plans for sustainable ▪ Improved health condition ▪ Reports and statistics of BoE
development. ▪ Improved educational level ▪ Reports and statistics of BoH
▪ Improved skills ▪ Reports and statistics of BoFED
▪ Environmental stability
▪ Equitable participation in decision-making
Programme Purpose Objectively Verifiable Sources of Verification Assumptions

Indicators
Communities have strengthened ▪ Communities are able to ▪ TAT progress report ▪ Government policies that enable
capacity to initiate, plan, prepare participatory, gender ▪ Government reports decentralization and government
implement and manage water sensitive development plans ▪ Reviews and evaluations commitment to facilitation of
supply and sanitation, ▪ Communities are able to ▪ Community records decentralization
environmental and related implement and manage ▪ Meeting minutes ▪ Parallel support to income
schemes and processes. schemes, and assume re- generating activities and
sponsibility for future re-in- diversification of sources of
vestment income
▪ Gender equitable participation in ▪ Development of market channels
fulfilling the Programme ▪ Prevailing peace and security
purpose remains unchanged
▪ Communities are able to use
and manage their financial and
other resources through
sustainable systems and
structures
▪ Communities are able to identify
and mobilise alternative sources
of financing
Results Objectively Verifiable Assumptions
Indicators Sources of Verification
1. Sustainable community ▪ Sustainability of schemes; i.e., ▪ Community records and plans ▪ Legal status of user group en-
schemes financed from CDF o schemes are functional ▪ CDF records incl. Existence sured to facilitate borrowing for
throughout their designed of the financing and appraisal re-investment.
lifetime criteria and modalities fro ▪ ANRS will make technical staff
o schemes benefit all com- CDF available for RWSEP III purposes
munity members ▪ Evaluation ▪ User financing at least 15 % of
o schemes affect positively ▪ Interviews with non- the investment costs
environmental stability participating/participating
o communities have capacity community members
and means to manage their ▪ TAT reports
schemes and have access ▪ Mid-term review reports
to support services, in-
cluding spare part supply
and financing facilities
o communities are able to
finance O&M and re-invest-
ment
▪ Number of community invest-
ment schemes completed
annually increased from Phase
II
2. Enabling environment for com- ▪ Woreda quarterly and annual ▪ Enabling environment and desire
▪ Woredas are able to support
munity based management in all reports to enhance capacity exists at
communities to initiate, plan,
(Programme) woredas regional and Woreda levels
implement and manage their ▪ RWSEP reports
▪ Continued government
schemes and processes ▪ WDC minutes commitment to facilitating
▪ Programme Woredas are able
community based management of
to maintain the support to com-
development
munities after Programme sup-
port withdrawal
▪ Adequate number of trained ▪ RWSEP reports ▪ Major role for private sector in
2.1. Adequate support to
artisans undertaking construc- ▪ Woreda reports distribution of fast wearing items
implementation, operation and
tion ▪ Monitoring and evaluation by end of Phase III
maintenance management
▪ Support from woredas in reports ▪ Government puts workshop and
carried out by communities
materials purchase to fill the ▪ WDC minutes spare part supply system in place
gaps left by the private sector ▪ Community reports to fill gaps
▪ Lower cost water point designs ▪ WMEDO reports ▪ Communities’ commitment to
developed ▪ Evaluation reports sustain the scheme
▪ Adequate number of trained at- ▪ mid-term review reports
tendants undertaking pre- ▪ WATSANCO reports
ventative maintenance
▪ Increased access to spare parts,
relying on the role of local shops
and other private entrepreneurs
to the extent possible
▪ Mechanism for contribution by
the community in place
▪ 1600 water points and 200 other
projects
▪ Modalities, and eligibility and ▪ Woreda reports

2.2. Community Development
prioritization criteria established ▪ RWSEP reports
Fund established and
▪ CDF managed efficiently, ef- ▪ RCC minutes
operational
fectively and transparently ▪ CDF reports
▪ A credit system for financing re-
investments established by the
end of 2003
▪ Community contribution (cash
and kind) to initial investment
increased to 20% by the end of
Phase III
▪ Trained human resources avail- ▪ Woreda reports ▪ Personal hygiene and sanitation
2.3. Adequate and appropriate
able ▪ RWSEP reports included in the formal basic
sanitation and hygiene
▪ Culturally appropriate training ▪ WDC minutes education curricula
education provided
materials available ▪ Reports of BoH, DoH and ▪ BoH committed to promotion the
▪ Change away from unhygienic OoH hygiene and environmental health
and unhealthy practices ▪ WMERB/WMERD/WMERO proclamation
▪ Increased latrines in rural com- reports
munities ▪ Monitoring and evaluation
▪ Enhanced use of wash basins reports
▪ Water points clean and well ▪ Mid-term review reports
drained, water contamination
eliminated
▪ Horizontal exchange of ideas
and experiences between
communities
▪ Community development plans ▪ Woreda reports ▪ Relevant policies are conducive

2.4. Community development
are submitted to woredas ▪ WDC minutes to community involvement and
plans contribute to woreda
▪ Equitable inclusion of women ▪ Monitoring and evaluation participation
development planning
and men’s priorities in planning ▪ Mid-term review ▪ Increasing backstopping services
and proposal development for woredas available from
▪ Increased ownership and regional level
sustenance of schemes
▪ Capacity to promote gender ▪ Gender group and GFP ▪ There is willingness to address
2.5. Gender is mainstreamed
issues strengthened reports at all levels resistance
in planning, implementation,
▪ Effective networking exists ▪ RWSEP reports ▪ Government policies and
monitoring and evaluation of
among gender groups ▪ IEC reports commitment support
all activities
▪ Availability of gender sensitive ▪ Workplans mainstreaming of gender
promotional material
▪ Increased female participation in
decision-making
▪ Gender sensitive reporting on all
Programme activities
2.6. Increased ▪ Availability of inclusive pro- ▪ IEC reports ▪ BoE has the capacity and
participation and motional materials on gender, ▪ RWSEP reports commitment to facilitate
understanding of water, environment, health, ▪ WDC minutes multisectoral IEC
Programme purpose sanitation, HIV/AIDS etc ▪ BoH, BoE and WMERB
through IEC ▪ Effective promotional strategy in reports
place
▪ Horizontal exchange of ideas
and experiences between
communities
2.7. Enhanced ▪ Increased environmental ▪ RWSEP reports ▪ BoA and ELA shall provide
environmental ventures undertaken ▪ OoA reports technical backstopping
sustainability ▪ Increased understanding of en- ▪ ELA reports
vironmental issues ▪ Woreda reports
▪ Enhanced skills for environ- ▪ WDC minutes
mental management
▪ Secured soil stability around
water points
▪ Increased indigenous tree
plantation around the water
points
▪ Facilitation and promotion of fuel
saving stoves
▪ Increased income resulting in in- ▪ Agricultural survey (CSA) ▪ Micro-credits transformed into
2.8. Access to and utilization
creased community revenue for ▪ RWSEP reports revolving fund administrated by
of micro-credits
community schemes ▪ Gender group and GFP WAO
▪ Increased access by women to reports ▪ ACSI continues to manage micro-
financial resources ▪ Monitoring and evaluation credit facilities.
reports
3. Competent, efficient and • Relevant regional bureaus and ▪ Interviews with Bureaux staff
responsive technical assistance Woreda offices satisfied with TA ▪ RWSEP reports
provided to strengthening • Regional and woreda level in- ▪ Monitoring and evaluation
government capacity stitutions are capable of rep- reports
licating Programme activities ▪ Mid-term review
and processes in non-pro-
gramme woredas without TA

RWSEP Phase III Mid Term Review Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RWSEP Phase III Mid Term Review Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RWSEP Phase III Mid Term Review Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rural Water Supply and

Final Report February 2005

Hulet Iju Woreda 3

Annex 1 Terms of Reference

Final Report February 2005

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ACSI Amhara Credit and Saving Institute

Final Report February 2005

Final Report February 2005

Final Report February 2005

Other major findings of the Mission include:

❑ Communities have been able to manage the implementation cost-efficiently, re-

Final Report February 2005

In Phase III, ACSI is considered to be an intermediating agent, although their management

Final Report February 2005

In order to ensure the sustainability of RWSEP outputs in withdrawal woredas, these

Final Report February 2005

1. Scope and Context of Rural Water Supply and Environ-

An administrative map of Amhara Region is shown in Figure 1. Agriculture is the dominant

Figure 1 Administrative map of Amhara Region

Final Report February 2005

1.2 Phase III

The Programme results, according to Programme Document, are:

❑ Result 1: Sustainable community schemes financed from CDF;

Final Report February 2005

2. Background and Scope of Review

❑ Community Development Fund approach, implementation and its role in future

Final Report February 2005

3.1.2 Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Program

Final Report February 2005

As it is important to monitor the developments of the SDPRP in practice, Ethiopia – as many

3.1.3 Environmental and Health Policies and Strategies

Final Report February 2005

3.1.4 Gender Policy

❑ facilitate conditions conducive to the speeding up of equality between men and

Final Report February 2005

❑ mainstream and articulate gender concerns on broad policy processes including

3.1.5 Water Sector Policies and Strategies

❑ water is a natural endowment commonly owned by all people;

Final Report February 2005

Subsequent to the development of Water Resources Management Policy of Ethiopia, the

Final Report February 2005

Table 2 Targets of the Water Supply and Sewerage Development Program

Population to be served 000

Population to be served 000

Population to be served 000

Population to be served 000

Total Population 000

Total Population 000

Total Population 000

3.1.6 Finnish Development Policies

❑ development and the eradication of poverty;

Final Report February 2005

Final Report February 2005

Table 3 Achievement of Programme purpose

Final Report February 2005

❑ Consequently, the CDF approach suggests that by decentralisation of the re-

Table 4 Achievement of results of RWSEP Phase III

Result Objectively verifiable indicators Assessment

1. Sustainable com- • Sustainability of schemes; i.e., o Remains to bee seen; too