draft situational analysis for ethiopia’s iushs · 2020-03-16 · draft situational analysis for...

nexure

Developing an Integrated Urban

Sanitation & Hygiene Strategy and Strategic

Action Plan for Ethiopia

Draft Situational Analysis for Ethiopia’s

IUSHS

Draft Situational Analysis for Ethiopia’s Integrated Urban Sanitation and Hygiene Strategy

WSUP Advisory Page2

Contents

CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................2

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS...............................................................................................................6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................8

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 14

2 BACKGROUND OF GEOGRAPHY, CLIMATE, ADMINISTRATIVE SETUP AND GOVERNANCE ............... 17

2.1 REGIONAL ADMINISTRATION DURING THE DERG SOCIALIST REGIME ........................................................... 17

2.2 REGIONAL ADMINISTRATION SINCE 1991 ............................................................................................. 18

2.3 GOVERNANCE ............................................................................................................................... 21

2.4 GEOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW OF ETHIOPIA’S URBANIZATION AND INDUSTRIALIZATION .......................................... 22

2.5 ADDIS ABABA AND SECONDARY CITIES ................................................................................................. 26

2.6 SMALL TOWNS............................................................................................................................... 28

3 NATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................... 29

3.1 DEFINITION................................................................................................................................... 29

3.2 INSTITUTIONAL MANDATES ............................................................................................................... 29

3.3 POLICIES AND STRATEGIES RELEVANT TO URBAN SANITATION ..................................................................... 32

3.4 IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR ONE WASH ............................................................................. 36

3.5 TOWN LEVEL INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ....................................................................................... 38

3.6 KNOWLEDGE SHARING NETWORKS...................................................................................................... 40

3.7 PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION ........................................................................................................ 40

3.8 REGULATION ................................................................................................................................. 41

3.9 EVALUATION AND PERFORMANCE MONITORING .................................................................................... 44

3.10 HOW INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS ARE AFFECTING URBAN SANITATION ...................................................... 44

4 SANITATION AND WATER SERVICE ACCESS AND IMPACTS ............................................................ 45

4.1 SHARED/COMMUNAL/PUBLIC/HOSPITALS/SCHOOLS/COMMERCIAL/GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS WASH SERVICES

.................................................................................................................................................. 45

4.2 WATER SUPPLY ACCESS IN ETHIOPIA ................................................................................................... 47

4.2.1 DEFINITIONS USED IN NATIONAL WATER DOCUMENTS ................................................................................. 47

4.2.2 DRINKING WATER ACCESS AS PER MINI DEMOGRAPHIC HEALTH STATISTICS OF ETHIOPIA (MINI DHS) 2014 ........ 48

4.3 HOUSEHOLD SANITATION FACILITIES ACCESS IN ETHIOPIA ......................................................................... 50

4.3.1 DEFINITIONS USED IN NATIONAL SANITATION DOCUMENTS ........................................................................ 50

4.3.2 HOUSEHOLD SANITATION FACILITIES ACCESS AS PER MINI DEMOGRAPHIC HEALTH STATISTICS OF ETHIOPIA (MINI

DHS) 2014 ................................................................................................................................................. 51

4.4 OPEN DEFECATION AND UNIMPROVED PIT LATRINES IN TOWNS .................................................................. 53

4.5 HEALTH STATISTICS ......................................................................................................................... 53

5 SANITATION SERVICE DELIVERY ................................................................................................... 56

5.1 OFF-SITE SANITATION SITUATION AND DELIVERY .................................................................................... 56


WSUP Advisory Page3

5.2 SOLID WASTE SITUATION AND DELIVERY ............................................................................................... 58

5.3 DEMAND CREATION, PROMOTION, MARKETING, BEHAVIOUR CHANGE ......................................................... 59

5.4 SERVICE PROVIDERS (INCLUDING PRIVATE SECTOR) AND PROMOTERS .......................................................... 59

5.4.1 MICROENTERPRISES ............................................................................................................................. 59

5.4.2 HEALTH DEVELOPMENT ARMY ............................................................................................................... 60

5.5 VALUE CHAIN, INCLUDING REUSE ........................................................................................................ 61

5.6 TECHNICAL OPTIONS ....................................................................................................................... 61

5.7 LAND – TOWN PLANNING AND AVAILABILITY ......................................................................................... 63

5.8 INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL (MEDICAL) WASTE – SOLID AND LIQUID ..................................................... 63

5.9 THE RATIONAL FOR DRAFTING THE STRATEGY ........................................................................................ 64

6 CURRENT PRICES AND WILLINGNESS TO PAY ................................................................................ 66

7 FINANCE...................................................................................................................................... 70

7.1 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 70

7.2 SUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS .................................................................................................................... 71

7.3 SOURCES OF FINANCE ...................................................................................................................... 72

7.4 FLOW OF FINANCE TO WOREDAS/TOWNS ............................................................................................ 73

7.5 ONE WASH NATIONAL PROGRAM (OWNP) ......................................................................................... 74

8 HUMAN CAPACITY ....................................................................................................................... 77

8.1 SKILLS BASE .................................................................................................................................. 77

8.2 DISCIPLINARY AND PROFESSIONAL MIX ................................................................................................ 78

9 SOCIAL INCLUSIVITY .................................................................................................................... 80

9.1 GENDER ....................................................................................................................................... 80

9.2 SOCIAL INCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 80

9.3 PASTORALISTS ............................................................................................................................... 81

10 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 83


WSUP Advisory Page4

List of Tables (to be updated, corrected)

Table 1: Number of Zones, Woredas and Kebeles in Ethiopia as per Central Statistical Agency (Note:

Towns are not indicated in this table)....................................................................................................... 20

Table 2: 970 Towns grouped into 5 population range categories in Ethiopia ........................................... 22

Table 7: Implementation arrangements for One Wash program .............................................................. 36

Table 14: CAPEX and OPEX requirements to meet UAP ............................................................................ 70

Table 15: Donor funding sources (WSP, 2011) .......................................................................................... 72

Table 16: Funding Sources for Phase 1, OWNP (FDR Ethiopia, 2013) ....................................................... 74

Table 17: Funding Commitments for Phase 1, OWNP (FDR Ethiopia, 2013) ............................................. 75

List of Figures (to be updated, corrected)

Figure 1: Former Map of Ethiopia ............................................................................................................. 17

Figure 2: Map of Ethiopia .......................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 3: Executive Branches of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia ......................................... 19

Figure 4: Administrative Structure of Ethiopia .......................................................................................... 20

Figure 5: The urban population by town Sizes ......................................................................................... 23

Figure 6: Regional distribution of urban population ................................................................................. 23

Figure 7: Growth of Informal Jobs in Addis Ababa .................................................................................... 25

Figure 8: Decline of formal sector jobs in Addis Ababa ............................................................................. 25

Figure 9: Rapid demographic growth of Ethiopian cities (1994-2014) ...................................................... 27

Figure 10: Arrangement for sanitation promotion, sewerage, faecal sludge, solid waste management and

regulation in Addis Ababa ......................................................................................................................... 40

Figure 13: Water Supply Access Growth Trend by Wealth Quintile (2000-2012) ..................................... 50

Figure 15: Top Ten Cases of Morbidity 2012/13 ....................................................................................... 53

Figure 16: Top 10 Causes of Morbidity for Children under 5 years 2012/13 ............................................ 54

Figure 17: Risky use of Effluent from Mickey Leyland condominium Village Waste Treatments Units..... 57

Figure 18: Technology options .................................................................................................................. 63

Figure 19: Overcoming Sanitation Challenges .......................................................................................... 65

Figure 20: Grant funding structure of the One WASH National Programme ............................................ 74

Figure 21 Typical Municipality Organogram Showing Sanitation Sections ................................................ 77


WSUP Advisory Page5

List of Annexures (to be updated)

Annexure 1: Comparison of Water supply Access (NWI 2011 versus UAP 2011) ...................................... 92

Annexure 2: Comparison of Sanitation Access (NWI 2011 versus health development indicators report

2011) ......................................................................................................................................................... 93

Annexure 3: Technical Features of JWBO Constructed Wetland .............................................................. 94

Annexure 4: WaSH Statistics of Five Northern cities ................................................................................. 96

Annexure 5: Five Southern Cities and Addis Ababa .................................................................................. 99

Annexure 6: Sanitation SWOT Analysis ................................................................................................... 101

Notes on Visited Cities (Submitted separately)

Annexure 7: Adama Annexure 8: Addis Annexure 9 : Awassa Annexure 10: Bahir Dar Annexure 11: Bishoufta Annexure 12: Gewane Annexure 13 Gondar Annexure 14: Halaba Annexure 15: Maksegnit Annexure 16: Mekele Annexure 17: Wukro


WSUP Advisory Page6

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AAWSA Addis Ababa Water Supply and Sewerage Agency

CBO Community Based Organisation

Charries An Ethiopian Acronym meaning sorters of recyclables

CLTSH Community Led Total sanitation and Hygiene

CSA Central Statistical Agency

CSO Civil Society Organisation

CSS Citywide Sanitation Strategy

DFAT Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)

DFID British Department for International Development

DHS Demographic Health Statistics

DMM Delegated Management Model

FCA Freetown City Council

FSM Faecal Sludge Management

GTP Growth and Transformation Plan

GTP II Growth and Transformation Plan II

HDA Health Development Army

HCE Household Consumer Expenditure

HEW Health Extension Workers

IUSHS Integrated Urban Sanitation and Hygiene Strategy

IUSHSAP Integrated Urban Sanitation and Hygiene Strategic Action Plan

IWA International Water Association

JMP Joint Monitoring Program

Korealias An Ethiopian Acronym that means house to house buyers and sellers of recyclables

LIC Low Income Consumer

LSP Local Service Provider

LWSC Lusaka Water & Sewerage Company

M&E Monitoring & Evaluation

MDG Millennium Development Goals

MoEPFD Ministry of Environmental Protection and Forestry Development

MoH Ministry of Health

MoU Memorandum of Understanding


WSUP Advisory Page7

MoUDHC Ministry of Urban Development, Housing and Construction

MoWIE Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy

MV Medium variant

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

NWI National WaSH Inventory

O&M Operation and Maintenance

ONWP ONE WASH Project

PLC Public Limited Company

RFP Request For Proposal

RRR Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

SAP Strategic Action Plan

SLTSH School Led Total Sanitation and Hygiene

SME Small and Medium Enterprises

TWG Technical Working Group

UAP Universal Access Pan

UN United Nations

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

U-WASH Urban Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

VAT Value Added Tax

WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

WASH-BAT

WATSAN

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Bottleneck Analysis Tool

Water Supply and Sanitation

WHO World Health Organization

WSUP Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor

WSSC Water Supply & Sanitation Collaborative Council

WTP Willingness to Pay


WSUP Advisory Page8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Government of Ethiopia, through the Growth and Transformation Plan (2011-2015), set out

ambitious intentions to transition the country from a rural economy, led by the agricultural

sector, to an urban economy, led by industrialization. In tandem with this development path, the

GoE formally adopted a long-term development agenda for achieving a middle-income status by

2025. Meeting this objective depends in turn on the ability of Ethiopia’s cities and towns in

becoming competitive to attract business, productive to attract skills and well-functioning to

meet the liveability standards desired by its residents. Sanitation and hygiene are vital

components to provision of adequate urban living standards.

However, understanding of the need for provision and funding of sanitation, from basic latrine

to final waste disposal, appears to be low in the minds of both policy makers and primary

consumers of services. The symptoms of this include: waste streams from unplanned

industrialization; polluted land, air and surface and ground waters; inadequate and

unsustainable refuse and liquid waste collection and disposal systems.

This has resulted in serious environmental, health, financial and vulnerable person impacts.

Available health and quality of life indicators reveal that in most major cities in Ethiopia,

waterborne diseases resulting from poor sanitation conditions are causing serious threats to life,

particularly diarrhoea. It is estimated that the benefit cost ratio of investments in water supply

and sanitation for Ethiopia, taking into consideration health improvements and time savings, are

estimated to be 1.7 times the costs for water supply and 3.0 times the costs for sanitation.

Given the importance of sanitation in supporting sustainable growth, the Ministry of Health has

commissioned an international team to compile a situational analysis of urban sanitation in

Ethiopia. This Situational Analysis document is a precursor to the drafting of the Integrated

Urban Sanitation and Hygiene Strategy. It is based on an extensive literature review, the

extensive experience from Ethiopian and International members of the team as well as rapid

assessments conducted in December 2014 by the team of 11 towns across 6 regions in Ethiopia.

This Situation Analysis paints a stark picture of current urban sanitation provision in Ethiopia, but

at the same time provides the essential groundwork upon which to design a Strategy to address

the urgent needs and to draft a realistic and sustainable Action Plan that takes account of all

stakeholders from the most vulnerable beneficiary to the industrial and commercial developers

wishing to take their place in urban society.

Following Section 1 (Introduction), Section 2 includes a brief background on history, geography,

climate, administration, governance, urbanisation and industrialisation.

The country’s demographics are shifting in anticipation of Ethiopia’s industrialization being

predominantly located in urban centres. The urbanization accompanying the country’s


WSUP Advisory Page9

industrialization is already revealing worrying shifts in the formal economy and its ability to

create jobs. The bulk of the job-growth occurring in Addis and Ethiopia’s main secondary cities,

for instance is happening through the informal economy rather than through the formal one.

This is relevant to the UISHS primarily since the growing informalisation of the economy is

contributing to increasing variation in access to water and sanitation services, widening

inequality between poor and non-poor households.

From a planning perspective, the Addis Ababa, Oromya and Amhara regions have shown the

highest concentration of population growth between 2011 and 2015 and are projected to

continue capturing the bulk of this demographic growth over the next 15 years. This Situational

Analysis reveals a daunting picture whereby the country’s current quantum leaps in building

construction and urbanization is nearly devoid of effective institutional structures or regulatory

systems for managing the streams of waste that comes with such growth.

How land is managed is a vital variable that can either support the sustainable growth of

Ethiopia’s urban centres or seriously undermine it. For instance, the widespread vision of “Clean

and Green” cities for Ethiopia’s urban centres, when related to Addis Ababa reveals

contradictions between the municipal authorities’ vision and what is happening in practice.

Current city plans include 30% land area for green areas (parks, gardens and decentralised waste

water treatment facilities) while a lot of this designated land has already been built on.

Section 3 describes the current, somewhat complex and overlapping, institutional framework

around sanitation provisions and hygiene promotion. Included in this section are descriptions

and discussion of mandates, policies, strategies, town level arrangements, knowledge sharing,

regulation, evaluation and performance monitoring and current WaSH funding approaches.

The original institutional mandates seem to be relatively clear and simple, and this provides a

strong foundation for the development of an effective urban sanitation strategy. The

effectiveness of their implementation in practice has been complicated by four main factors: a) a

series of policies, proclamations and strategies which introduce more joint/shared accountability

b) the One WASH implementation structure which introduces additional layers of collective

oversight and management c) an incomplete definition of urban sanitation and how it differs

from rural sanitation and d) the assumption that MOH, with its strong track record in rural

sanitation, should take responsibility for urban sanitation, when it is not well equipped to do so.

These factors represent important institutional barriers to accelerating progress in urban

sanitation.

There is some confusion of lines of accountability for urban sanitation at both local level and at

the national level amongst ministries. The Ministry of Water, Irrigation & Energy (MOWIE) is

responsible for water borne sewerage, which at present is relevant for Addis only. It is also

responsible for liquid waste services more widely. The responsibility for faecal sludge

management for non-sewered households, however, is not explicitly assigned to any Ministry


WSUP Advisory Page10

and presents a significant gap given the limited proportion of urban residents that are connected

to water borne sanitation.

Whilst the Ministry of Urban Development and Construction (FMoUDC) Urban Development

Policy (1991) indicates some responsibility for liquid waste services, particularly in low income

urban areas and in the outsourcing to private sector providers, in reality it only takes

responsibility for solid waste management. It has no budget for liquid waste management and

sees this as the responsibility of the MOWEI. It does, nevertheless have a crucial role in setting

land use and building regulations, which are critical for urban sanitation.

The case of solid waste management is equally fraught in terms of institutional arrangements.

The state has decentralized the provision of solid waste management and liquid waste in the

case of smaller towns to private sector operators without a clear institutional framework in

place as to what the roles and responsibilities are between the operator and the local authority

it must account to. This appears to be a critical gap, as the delegated management of sanitation

services commonly forms an essential part of a national urban sanitation system.

Section 4 describes sanitation and water service access levels and impacts. The section includes

types of sanitation facilities and services (shared, communal, public, hospitals, schools,

commercial, government, etc.), water access, sanitation access and health statistics.

Although not specifically required by the ToR, it was clear from the start of the assignment that

it would not be possible to adequately address sanitation provision without addressing water

supply. The reason, rather obviously, is that many sanitation issues are directly related to water

availability, for instance, in terms of water washed diseases and use of water as a conveyance

for faecal waste.

There are many examples to illustrate the uncertainties around ability to pay and general

unaffordability of current sanitation services. The fact that most cesspits are built, in

contravention to building regulations, with a bottom drain so as to avoid paying for full liquid

transportation and disposal, and even then customers still finding it difficult to afford, or are

unwilling to pay, the emptying fees, is one example. Another example is the complete lack of

low cost pit latrine emptying services. Both of these examples demonstrate severe impacts on

the environment, on health, on the economy and on access for the vulnerable.

At the national scale, the condition of the few communal and public toilets in medium, large and

mega towns indicate inadequate design and poor management. In many cases public toilets are

being currently managed by an enterprise formed by the differently-abled while, at the same

time, almost all existing communal and public toilets do not have provisions for the differently-

abled.



Facilities in health centres and schools have been seen, in many cases, to be extremely poor.

Inadequate sanitation for the sick and elderly and lack of MHM facilities in secondary schools

results in significant impacts on health, economic and education.

Nationally, the proportion of Ethiopian households with access to an improved source of

drinking water has increased only marginally in the last three years from 54 percent in 2011 to

55 percent in 2014, in contrast to the marked increase in the six years from 2005 to 2011. Close

to half of the households in Ethiopia (45 percent) have access to non-improved source of

drinking water, with a much lower proportion among urban households (4.1 percent) than

among rural households (44.7 percent). This urban statistic hides the reality in the majority of

towns where rationing of supply to just 2 or 3 days per week means that consumers, particularly

the low income consumers who do have not water storage facilities, will resort to non-improved

sources such as rivers and streams.

In a similar manner to water supply, sanitation access figures vary depending on definitions.

Particular attention is given to definitions of improved sanitation since, among other valid

reasons, it is important for reporting MDG numbers. Significant numbers of households in the

urban setting possess and use pit latrines, most of which are unimproved. Although this may

seem better than OD, using unimproved toilets does not necessarily help in curbing the chain of

disease transmission.

At the bottom end of the Sanitation Ladder are households that relieve themselves in the open.

Open Defecation is practiced by a considerable number of people among the urban dwellers

particularly those residing in the periphery of towns. According to some surveys, the proportion

of the population practicing Open Defecation in towns is around 20%.

The facts that URI, Diarrheal diseases and Malaria are the most prevalent causes of death and

that Diarrheal disease is the most common cause on morbidity in under 5’s clearly show that

solid and liquid waste management, along with water safety, are not given adequate attention.

High prioritization including adequate financial resource allocation, human resources

development, and appropriate strategic actions coupled with effective regulation of water safety

and waste management is critical to mitigate the problem.

Section 5 is devoted to sanitation service delivery, including; off-site systems, demand creation

and promotion of services, behaviour change, service provision (including micro-enterprises),

value chain (including reuse), technical options, land availability and town planning, industrial

and institutional.

The scope for conventional sewerage is limited due to high cost, lack of sufficient flushing water

and the large land area required for effective low energy treatment systems. There have been

some successes with decentralised waste water treatment plants, but there is a long way to go



in terms of development and ability to use the solid, liquid and gas products within the urban

environment.

Very few towns have sanitary landfill sites and cost recovery is only a fraction of that required to

pay for solid waste collection and disposal. The physical composition of urban solid waste is

mainly organic: The potential to process and reuse this waste is high. As a result, proper and

knowledgeable waste management can contribute its share in the poverty reduction since it is

the low income people that work in the current informal waste recycling business.

The success achieved in rural areas through the Health Extension Programme has been highly

impressive. It has not only created demand for sanitation facilities, but has also facilitated the

promotion of hygiene and sanitation in an accelerated manner. The success in urban areas is not

so impressive, possibly with the exception of some towns, since it requires addressing numerous

issues that do not exist in rural areas.

The idea of using microenterprises is spreading in most of the medium and large towns. In Addis

Ababa and other large cities, the microenterprises take part in the primary collection of garbage

from households to containers placed at different parts of the towns. The secondary transport

from containers to the dumping sites is being undertaken by the municipalities or bigger private

enterprises. In some small and medium size towns the micro enterprises collect and transport

garbage up to the dumping site.

Section 6 deals with pricing, affordability and willingness to pay and Section 7 concentrates on

funding issues, including; sufficiency of funds, flow of funds and One WASH programme strategy.

One of the underpinning causes of some of the institutional and limited service delivery

efficiencies in urban sanitation stem from the fact that the Ethiopian WASH sector has been

underfunded. Unless this trend is reversed, the country will be limited in its ability to deliver an

adequate level of sanitation services. However, perhaps a more significant factor is the failure of

both policy makers and urban dwellers to understand the benefits of adequate sanitation (in

terms of health, environment, economy and access for the vulnerable) and also to

understanding the need for investment (at all levels, from household to government) and the

need to pay the operational costs involved.

Section 8 looks at human capacity in terms of skills and professional mix.

In terms of human resources, there is a need to strengthen the disciplines of solid and liquid

waste management in higher educational systems while simultaneously consolidating the

professional bodies that foster knowledge sharing and innovation around these two disciplines.

A sustainable strategy framework requires a full range of professional and artisan disciplines if

effective and efficient sanitation systems are to be put in place.



Section 9 deals with social inclusivity; gender, differently abled and the specific needs of

pastoralists, while Section 10 is a comprehensive list of references considered as possibly

relevant to the IUSHS.

In conclusion, Ethiopia’s urban sanitation challenges are acute and, if not addressed, carry major

consequences for the country and its people. The way forward is to devise a strategy that will

move the country away from the current poor and inadequate sanitation scene. This may well

have to be based on a new and possibly radical approach, while at the same time building on

existing good practices.



“Every citizen has the right to live in a clean and unpolluted environment” Article 44, EFDR Constitution, 1994

1 INTRODUCTION

The government of Ethiopia, through the Growth and Transformation Plan (2011-2015) set out ambitious intentions to transition the country from a rural economy, led by the agricultural sector, to an urban economy, led by industrialization. The central pillars of this five year macro-economic development plan included promoting industrialization, encouraging social development, investing in agriculture and infrastructure, strengthening governance and the role of youth and women. In essence, the government accorded top priority to create jobs by lifting workers from low productivity agriculture and informal sectors into higher productivity activities. This vision put the urban agenda centre stage, especially the role of cities in promoting industrialization, capital accumulation and stronger integration into global markets. The outcomes of the GTP have begun to put solid foundations in place for growth. The evidence is found through achievements recorded in the first four years of the GTP, where, as a result of government investment in infrastructure, the construction of hydroelectric power plants, road and communication networks have all been completed. This has helped to ease the problem of logistics with regard to trade with the outside world and has also reduced the cost of doing business. The results have poised Ethiopia with an annual average GDP growth rate of 11%, the highest per annum growth in GDP on the African continent, between 2008 and 2013. Ethiopia is today one of the top ten destinations for foreign direct investment in the world. In tandem with this development path, the Government of Ethiopia formally adopted a long-term development agenda for achieving a middle-income status by 2025. Meeting this objective is contingent in Ethiopia’s cities and towns becoming competitive to attract business, productive to attract skills and well-functioning to meet the liveability standards desired by its residents. In line with the “Climate Resilient and Green Economy Strategy” (CRGE), attracting this investment and skills will require an integrated approach to service delivery that twins modernization/industrialization with the sustainable development principles that takes into consideration the beautification of Ethiopia’s urban centres. Unless carefully planned and regulated, these development milestones can be contradictory since the process of unplanned industrialization, without attention to its waste streams, can pollute surface waters, leave a train of litter and put the public health of these rapidly growing areas at risk.

Refuse and liquid waste disposal sites in major cities in Ethiopia are often inappropriate and unorganized. This means waste in many cities and towns is not properly stored, collected, transported, disposed of, re-used and recycled, but may accumulate on open lands and open drainage ditches, thus providing breeding areas for disease vectors and creating a poor aesthetic view of cities. The effect on the ecosystems, agriculture and the health of downstream and downwind populations resulting from mismanagement of domestic and industrial wastes, may be very significant.



The high prevalence of intestinal parasites among the population, especially children, is the direct result of faecal contamination of food and water. Available health and quality of life indicators reveal that in most major cities in Ethiopia, waterborne diseases caused by poor sanitation conditions are causing serious threats to life, particularly diarrhoea. In fact, according to the latest health estimates from Tear fund, for children under five, diarrhoea is the leading cause of mortality in Ethiopia (2014).

The case for paying attention to liquid and solid waste management is central to the health and productivity of the 15.1 million Ethiopians currently living in urban areas (CSA 2013). It is also fundamental to enabling the environment to support the GTP in realizing its goals in making urban centres liveable by being the fountain of economic, cultural and social well-being. A visit to most of the large urban centres illustrates how growth, without urban planning, can create destinations far from the “clean” and “green” aspirations of Ethiopia’s urban planners.

In terms of the social, economic and health benefits associated with improved sanitation, the World Health Organisation has reported on the following outcomes:

Improved sanitation reduces diarrhoea death rates by a third.

Improved school sanitation encourages children, particularly girls, to stay in school.

Improved sanitation has significant economic benefits – every $1 invested in improved sanitation translates into a return of up to $9.

Hygiene education and promotion of hand washing are simple, cost-effective measures that can reduce diarrhoea cases by up to 45%.

In relation to Ethiopia, a new global study estimates that the benefit cost ratio of investments in water supply and sanitation for Ethiopia, which took into consideration health improvements and time savings are estimated to be 1.7 times the costs for water supply and 3.0 times the costs for sanitation (SWA 2014)1. Given the importance of sanitation in supporting sustainable growth, the Ministry of Health has commissioned an international team to compile a situational analysis of urban sanitation in Ethiopia. This document is a precursor to the drafting of the Integrated Urban Sanitation and Hygiene Strategy (IUSHS) and Strategic Action Plan (SAP). The Situational Analysis is based on an extensive literature review, decades of experience from Ethiopian and International members of the team as well as a rapid assessment conducted in December 2014 by the team, of 11 towns across 6 regions.

The site visits (see notes included as Annexures 7 to 17) help to fill the significant gaps in areas of the literature that were missing regarding the current challenges facing small to large towns in addressing liquid and solid waste management. However, the site visits were made to only 11 out of a total of over 900 towns and cities. It is considered that it will be beneficial to make

1While the WHO cost-benefit analysis of sanitation is three times that of the specific findings from Ethiopia, this discrepancy is largely due to averaging out of country figures in the WHO research.



similar visits to more towns as part of the Strategic Action Plan in order to give greater confidence to the scope of required activities and the associated costs.



2 BACKGROUND OF GEOGRAPHY, CLIMATE, ADMINISTRATIVE SETUP AND GOVERNANCE

2.1 Regional Administration during the Derg Socialist Regime2

Ethiopia had been under imperial form of government for many years. Emperor Haile Selassie, the last crowned king was overthrown by the military government (Derg) which assumed power in 1974. The Derg only slightly reordered the imperial regime's pattern of administrative organization at the national level. By contrast, the new regime saw the existing local administration as anathema to the objectives of socialist construction. Immediately after assuming power, the Derg reorganized Ethiopia's fourteen provincial administrations including the later on independent Eritrea as shown in figure below, and replaced all serving governors of the imperial government.

Figure 1: Former Map of Ethiopia

The fourteen provinces (TeklayGhizats) were relabelled as regions (KifleHagers) and were divided into 102 sub regions (Awrajas) and 556 districts (Woredas). By 1981, the number of administrative divisions had increased to sixteen with the addition of Addis Ababa and Aseb. The restructuring was a major step toward dismantling feudal privilege. Moreover, all new appointees were either military men or university-educated individuals who were considered progressives.

2Read more at http://www.mongabay.com/history/ethiopia/ethiopia-regional_administration_regional_and_local_government.html#3A04AWGiiOM2RDbL.99



2.2 Regional administration since 1991

In July 1991, the centralized socialist Derg Regime was replaced by the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), which is still ruling the country and has introduced a federal decentralized form of government. Eritrea separated from Ethiopia following the fall of the Derg in 1991, after a long war for independence. Ethiopia is now the tenth largest country in Africa, covering over one million square kilometres land area and including a large area of surface water and is the major constituent of the landmass known as the Horn of Africa.

Figure 2: Map of Ethiopia

It is bordered on the north and northeast by Eritrea, on the east by Djibouti and Somalia, on the south by Kenya, and on the west and southwest by Sudan. Ethiopia is a country of great geographical diversity and its topography shows a variety of contrasts ranging from high peaks of 4,550m above sea level to a low depression of 110m below sea level. More than half of the country lies above 1,500 meters. The predominant climate type is tropical monsoon, with temperate climate on the plateau and hot in the lowlands. There are topographic-induced climatic variations broadly categorized into three: the “Kolla”, or hot lowlands, below approximately 1,500 meters, the “Wayna Degas” at 1,500-2,400 meters and the “Dega” or cool temperate highlands above 2,400 meters (CSA 2011).

Ethiopia is a Federal Democratic Republic under the 1994 constitution. It has three executive branches of governance and administration as shown in the following figure.



Figure 3: Executive Branches of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia is composed of nine Regional States: Tigray, Afar, Amhara, Oromia, Somali, Southern Nationalities and Peoples Region (SNNPR), Benshangul-Gumuz, Gambella and Harari. There are also two administrative councils, which are Dire Dawa and Addis Ababa. The Regional States and City Administrations are further divided into 69 Zones and 957 Woredas (districts). A Woreda/District is the basic decentralized administrative unit and has an administrative council composed of elected members. Most Woreda Capitals / Towns have City Councils which are elected. Cities in the category of Large and above may have City Administrations with a Mayor Heading the Office. Municipalities have City Councils. The Woredas are further divided into about 16,541 Kebeles, the smallest administrative unit in the governance. The Kebele, with an estimated population of 5,000 or about 1,000 households on average, is the smallest administrative unit at the bottom end of the overall administrative structure shown in figure below. There are also two Zones and seven Woredas designated as "special". These are medium sized towns or traditional sites of various nations. Small towns, where independent utilities are more scarce, may fall under a Woreda that administers both rural and urban areas under its jurisdiction. In some Woredas there may be one small town which could be the Woreda capital. In some cases there may be more than one town in a Woreda. Based on the classification of towns, Small to Medium Towns may have a Woreda status in which case they would have Kebeles depending on the size of Regions. Large towns may consist of Sub-Cities in which case they are further sub-divided into Kebeles. In each Woreda, there is a town from which the Woreda is administered. Figure 4 and Table 1 respectively illustrate and quantify the administrative structure of Ethiopia.

Prime Minister's Office

Council of Ministers

Council of States



Figure 4: Administrative Structure of Ethiopia

Table 1: Number of Zones, Woredas and Kebeles in Ethiopia as per Central Statistical Agency (Note: Towns are not indicated in this table)

.No Region No of

zones

No of

Rural

Woreda

No. of

Urban

Woreda

Total

Woredas

No. of

Rural

Kebeles

No. of

Urban

Kebeles

Total No.

of

Kebeles

Tigray 7 18 34 52 769 95 864

Afar 5 2 32 34 368 36 404

Amhara 10 38 129 167 3,131 323 3,454

Oromia 18 43 267 310 6,531 490 7,021

Somali 9 11 57 68 1062 37 37

Ben Gum 3 1 20 21 441 34 475

SNNPR 14 22 135 157 3,602 32.4 3,926

Gambella 3 1 13 14 233 27 260

Harari NA 6 3 9 17 36 53

Addis

Ababa

NA 116 NA 116 NA NA NA

Federal Republic of Ethiopia

Regional States

Zones

medium/large towns

Woredas

Small towns

Urban Kebeles

Rural settlemnts

Rural Kebeles

City Administration

Councils

Subcities

Urban Kebeles

Addis Ababa City Administration

Subcities

Woreda



.No Region No of

zones

No of

Rural

Woreda

No. of

Urban

Woreda

Total

Woredas

No. of

Rural

Kebeles

No. of

Urban

Kebeles

Total No.

of

Kebeles

Dire dawa NA 6 3 9 38 9 47

National 69 264 693 957 16,192 1,411 17,603

2.3 Governance

The Government of Ethiopia and multiple donors recently commissioned a study on corruption in Ethiopia, based on 350 random sample interviews of executives of foreign companies which were active in all regional states of the country and all economic sectors. The study highlighted that, except for the traffic police, that reported incidences of actual corruption, in 14 key service delivery government agencies are mentioned by less than 6% of respondents (0.6% to 5.1%). The agencies/areas where more than 3% of the respondents reported bribes include the Electric Power Company (5.1%), Customs (4.9%), Federal/Local police (4%) and Construction Permits (3.4%) (Federal Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission 2014). This is relevant to the IUSHS and SAP regarding constraints in engaging with the Electric Power Company, such as getting new water supplies connected, getting daily share of limited available power in any particular small town and in getting decentralised waste water treatment plants connected and operational. Scarcity of resources such as power and water (often dependant on power) will always increase potential for corruption. The other area of corruption that may directly affect the IUSHS and SAP is in the granting of Construction Permits. The Addis Ababa municipal authorities pointed out to the team that, although city plans include 30% land area for green areas (parks, gardens and importantly decentralised waste water treatment facilities), a lot of this designated land has been built on. In many rapidly developing cities, finding land for sanitation facilities can be a major issue, so it is essential to identify the problems and possible solutions early on, or to accept that some technical innovations will, in fact, not be possible to implement. The key battleground against corruption in many countries is government procurement. The appreciation of this fact led the Ethiopian Government to issue several proclamations in recent years, an indication that it takes corruption prevention seriously. Nevertheless, public perceptions about problems in procurement do remain. When asked to respond to the statement: "Contracts relating to government procurement are generated in a clear and efficient manner", only 7.4% believed this statement to be true while 21% believed it is not true at all. Despite the fact that the latter figure is relatively low, the great majority of those who responded (80%) believed that government contracts involve unofficial payments in 2 to 50% of cases.



2.4 Geographic overview of Ethiopia’s urbanization and industrialization

To situate urban sanitation and waste management as a pillar of urban development requires first understanding how Ethiopia’s towns are classified, interlinked and how the country’s industrialization is shaping particular patterns of urbanization. The overall urban population is increasing as the number of towns in country has grown to 970 in 2012 from 794 in 2007 and 534 in 1994. As noted in Table 2, the category of “urban” spans a large demographic range beginning with 866 small towns ranging between 2000 and 20 000 people. These make up nearly 80% of the total number of towns, yet only accounts for 33% of the urban population. The medium-sized towns range between 20 000 and 50 000, and hold 25% of the urban population and have remained relatively stable. Large-sized towns range between 50 000 and 100 000 people. Finally, 13 mega towns host between 100 000 and 500 000 people each. Addis Ababa is the only city in the country with a population of over 500,000, with about 3.5 million residents as per the extrapolation done by the municipality based on 2007 CSA census updated in 2011.

Table 2: 970 Towns grouped into 5 population range categories in Ethiopia

Category Town Size Population Range No of towns

5 Small towns Less than 20,000 866

4 medium towns 20,000 to 50,000 69

3 large towns 50,000 to 100,000 21

2 mega towns 100,000 to 500,000 13

1 Metropolitan City Addis Ababa, National administrative capital

Greater than 500,000 1

Total 970

With a population of 86.6 million, of which only 17.4% are living in urban areas, Ethiopia is by international comparison not a highly urbanized country yet. The average urbanisation rates are 52% globally, and 37% in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) (World Bank, 2014: 9). What is noteworthy, however, is the pace of urbanization that is taking place. Ethiopia’s urban population has doubled over the past 35 years from 8.5% to 17.4% in 2012. With an approximate 4.7% per annum urbanization growth rate, approximately 30% of Ethiopians will live in urban areas by 2030, as noted in Figure 5. The methodology for deriving these figures is indicated in footnote 3.

3 Regional distribution of urban population based on CSA 2007and its 2011 update is determined using the following

arithmetic progression formula. Pn=Po(1+r)n where Pn=Population after a certain period of time ’n’

P0=the base population

r=the growth rate in %

n=the time elapsed between Pnand P0



The figures and tables below show the distribution of the Ethiopian urban population according to their size and regional location, based on CSA 2007 population data updated in 2011.

Figure 5: The urban population by town Sizes

Figure 6: Regional distribution of urban population

The medium variant (MV) is used for population projection to avoid over or under estimation of the future population as shown in figure below.Estimates by the World Bank and other international organizations are higher since they use higher population growth and migration rate. On the other hand, the CSA argues that the country is in a situation where both growth rate and migration are in a declining trend due to enhanced family planning and accelerated rural development.

-

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

Smalltowns

Mediumtowns

LargeTowns

MegaTowns

Administrative capital

Total

2011 5.15 2.04 1.41 2.14 2.98 13.72

2015 6.06 2.40 1.66 2.52 3.51 16.14

2020 7.36 2.91 2.01 3.06 4.26 19.60

2025 8.87 3.51 2.43 3.68 5.13 23.62

2030 10.69 4.22 2.93 4.44 6.18 28.46

Po

p in

Mill

ion

s



-

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

TigrayGamb

ela

Bensh

angulGumuz

Direda

wa

HareriSomali Amhar

a

AfarSNNPR Oromi

ya

AddisAbaba

Total

2011 1.02 0.11 0.15 0.26 0.11 0.71 2.31 0.24 1.91 3.93 2.98 13.72

2015 1.20 0.13 0.18 0.30 0.13 0.83 2.72 0.28 2.24 4.62 3.51 16.14

2020 1.46 0.16 0.21 0.37 0.15 1.01 3.31 0.34 2.73 5.61 4.26 19.60

2025 1.76 0.19 0.26 0.44 0.19 1.21 3.98 0.42 3.28 6.76 5.13 23.62

2030 2.12 0.23 0.31 0.53 0.22 1.46 4.80 0.50 3.96 8.15 6.18 28.46

Urb

an p

op

ula

tio

nin

mill

ion

s

From a planning perspective, the Addis Ababa, Oromya and Amhara regions have shown the highest population growth between 2011 and 2015 and are projected to continue capturing the bulk of the demographic growth over the next 15 years. This has significant implications for the government to support the economic geography of industrial clustering, taking advantage of how various industries operating within specific regions can be clustered together to minimize transport costs. This also has implications for service delivery planning in terms of the water infrastructure that will be required to service this projected economic and geographical growth. Service delivery planning must also take into consideration the liquid and solid waste management investments that will be required to manage the increased waste streams associated with this growth.

The doubling of Ethiopia’s urban population over the past 35 years is largely driven by migrants moving to towns and cities in the pursuit of employment opportunities. This migration has been concentrated in Addis Ababa and increasingly to secondary cities. Employment in cities is beginning to lag behind in-migration, leading to growing informalisation. Job growth is occurring through existing enterprises but not enough from new enterprises. The lack of formal employment opportunities in Addis (figures below) and secondary cities forces migrants into the informal sector and further into poverty. In 2011, 37% of those employed in Ethiopian cities were in the informal sector – and women (48%) were more likely than men (28%) to be working in informal jobs (ibid, 14). According to the World Bank, Ethiopia’s urban informal economy is one of the largest in Africa, and includes approximately 60% of the total urban labour force. This trend is not likely to diminish any time soon.



Figure 7: Growth of Informal Jobs in Addis Ababa

Figure 8: Decline of formal sector jobs in Addis Ababa

Source: UBEUS, CSA

This is relevant to the UISHS on two fronts: the growing informalisation of the economy is contributing to increasing variation in access to water and sanitation services, widening inequality between poor and non-poor households. Second, the widening informal employment in urban areas needs to be taken into consideration when thinking of pricing strategies for sanitation tariffs targeted at households whose earnings are erratic.

Another driver of urbanization is the formation of Regional Governments, which has spurred investments and created networks of cities as different autonomous units, with their own capitals at different levels (Woreda, Zone and Region).

The nature of Ethiopia’s urban growth has been one of fast expansion of built-up areas, without simultaneous increases in densification, leading to urban sprawl. This creates particular challenges for achieving infrastructure and service delivery efficiencies. Low-density urban expansion increases pressure on infrastructure and service delivery, leading to variable coverage rates across sectors like water, transport and solid waste. This trend is currently being addressed through the removal of slum areas, or what have traditionally been low-rise settlements with single-house dwellings. These legal and old settled areas are being replaced in-situ with condominiums for middle to upper-income households while low-income to lower-middle class households that had been living in these areas are being removed to four and five-storey walk-up condominiums on the fringes of the city.

This trend is symptomatic of how urban planners in some cities, such as Hawassa, have tried to mitigate the challenges associated with urban sprawl by advocating policies that put a moratorium on horizontal expansion in lieu of vertical expansion. This housing-focused reengineering of the physical and social landscape of residential neighbourhoods in Ethiopia’s big cities has occurred without the simultaneous introduction of social planning to accommodate this relocation of the urban poor. As such, there are numerous social challenges

1,471

1,569

1,614 1,620

1,350

1,400

1,450

1,500

1,550

1,600

1,650

2003 2006 2009 2012

Nu

mb

er o

f jo

bs

('0

00

)



that have arisen as a consequence of this displacement. First, in terms of the social capital that enabled low-income households to cope with poverty. Second, the breakdown of communities has diminished the levels of social responsibility that are central to making neighbourhoods safe and vibrant. Third, it has taken away the economic benefits of the job-earners in these areas having been centrally-located. The displacement of vast proportions of the inner-city dwellers to the fringes of mega and large towns may have particular significance with respect to willingness to pay for WASH services and may also affect ability to implement an effective Urban Health Extension Programme (UHEP).

The nature of this growth is particularly challenging in trying to ensure the poor are prioritized in service delivery plans. This is attributed to Ethiopian cities differing from other African cities in that they do not have clearly defined slum areas that can be geographically targeted with pro-poor interventions. Urban settlement in Ethiopia has been driven by a combination of archaic land tenure systems that have hindered a large part of the population from legally acquiring land for housing, and the absence of colonial urban planning structures that have prevented slums from being concentrated in certain areas. As a result, informal housing surrounds formal areas throughout urban centres in the country. With 70-90% of the urban population living in sub-standard housing, and growing by 4% per year, the housing challenge is massive (UN-Habitat 2008).

2.5 Addis Ababa and secondary cities

Addis Ababa, the primary city, stands in stark contrast with other urban areas; alone it accounts for as much as 16% of the urban population as of 2015 (figure 6 above). Addis has almost doubled in urban form over the past 20 years from 180km2 in 1995 to 340km2 in 2014 (World Bank 2014). As a result of slum clearance, there has been de-densification in the city centre and increases in density on the periphery of the city, largely through a combination of condominium high-rises and informal development. This is predominantly due to the land where slum clearance occurs being replaced with condominial high-rises with more affluent households that have lower household sizes. Economically, while Addis is continuing to grow, it is declining in its primacy in terms of economic activity as its rate of economic growth has slowed in absolute terms over the last decade.

Secondary cities in Ethiopia are now growing faster and becoming increasingly attractive. In contrast, nearly 866 small towns with less than 20,000 people, make up nearly 80% of the total number of towns but only account for 33% of the urban population. The evolution of the town distribution shows that megatowns, or secondary cities, have experienced a dramatic increase both in number and share of urban population. Towns which belong to this category are regional towns such as Hadassah, Bahir Dar, Adama, Mekelle, which are becoming increasingly attractive and even serve as counter magnets to migrants heading to Addis Ababa (World Bank 2014). The geographical concentration of where this rapid growth is occurring is captured in Figure 9 below. It should be noted that there are some settements with populations of less than 2000 that are considered as a towns by the CSA, while other surveys have used the cut-off limit of 2000. which makes the total number of small towns to be included in the Strategy unclear.



Figure 9: Rapid demographic growth of Ethiopian cities (1994-2014)

Source: World Bank, 2014, Ethiopia Urbanization Review: Making Cities Efficient and Sustainable, p. 9 (calculations based on data from Citypolation.de)

The average nominal density of the 7 largest cities, with population ranging from 130,000 to 3 million, is 3,500 people per km2. Addis Ababa has the highest nominal density4 (5,800 people per km2), followed by Hawassa (4,900 people per km2) and Bahir Dar (3,900 per km2) (Ibid, p.2). In fact, partly due to slum clearance, some parts of the urban core have seen slight decrease in density from 2007 to 2012, while the major increase in density, around 12-%, took place in all of the periphery sub-cities. This pattern of expansion follows the norm; when household sizes decrease and incomes rise, densities decline as smaller households are able to afford more space. This effect is reinforced by the desire of some residents to buy houses in the suburbs where prices are cheaper.

4 The Nominal population density is produced by dividing the city’s total population by its gross built-up area at district level for Addis and at city level for other cities.



2.6 Small towns

Contrary to medium and large urban centres in Ethiopia, the 866 small towns in Ethiopia show encouraging characteristics in how they are currently managing their waste streams despite high levels of poverty and moderate demographic growth. The challenge with achieving universal coverage in small towns is their size and transience. These towns often do not yet enjoy the economy of scale or the opportunities for cross-subsidisation. They are already too big for rural solutions (in terms of technical, financial and management aspects), and too small for conventional urban solutions. Smaller towns may not yet suffer from the large-scale problems of unplanned settlements and the subsequent challenges. This can provide opportunities to invest early in innovative and sustainable urban development planning for more effective management of growth (WaterAid, 2011)

Appropriate solutions for small towns might not mean large piped water or sewerage schemes, nor are they likely to be adapted to rural technologies, but there may well be adaptive modular/decentralised systems that function together to provide a complete service. For instance, a clustering of small towns could develop centres of capability within the sanitation chain that can be shared amongst the towns within the cluster through service delivery agreements. The intention should always be that these systems evolve into a larger-scale least cost service but that initially requires innovative and long-term financing options when the town is still small. The opportunity in small towns is that sufficient land may still be available to earmark for key infrastructure or environmental protection components such as drainage channels, river protection zones, landfill sites, water and wastewater treatment plants and storage reservoirs (ibid, p. 20).



3 NATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 Definition A description of current institutional arrangements requires a clear definition of what we mean by sanitation. The following definitions are taken from sector leading organisations. “Sanitation generally refers to the provision of facilities and services for the safe disposal of human urine and faeces” (WHO). “An improved sanitation facility is defined as one that hygienically separates human excreta from human contact” (UNICEF). “Urban sanitation is the collection, storage / treatment, transportation, re-use or disposal of excreta in ways to improve or sustain human health and decrease negative impacts on human environment” (JSI). “Sanitation is integrated and sustainable waste management” (Getachew Abdi et al). “Sanitation is safe management and disposal of human excreta” (WSP). In some cases, as in this Terms of Reference of the IUSHS, sanitation also encompasses solid waste. OECD offers the following definition: “Solid waste management refers to the supervised handling of waste material from generation at the source through the recovery processes to disposal.”

In an urban context, demand for sanitation services refers to consumers’ level of interest in purchasing a new toilet, upgrading their existing one and/or paying for de-sludging services. Supply of sanitation services is distinct and refers to the provision of the full sanitation service chain: containment, collection, transport, treatment, reuse and disposal. This means that the IUSHS needs to clearly address both demand and supply.

3.2 Institutional mandates

The mandated responsibilities of the Ministries in relation to urban sanitation are as follows: Table 3: Institutional Mandates of various ministries for urban sanitation



The Ministry of Water, Irrigation & Energy (MOWIE) is responsible for water borne sewerage, which at present is relevant for Addis only. It is also responsible for liquid waste services more widely and is delivering these services effectively in places. Whilst it is assumed this refers to water borne septage management and water based on-site sanitation systems (as opposed to dry systems like VIP pit latrines), this is not an officially endorsed distinction. In principle, the mandate of the MOW covers all liquid waste management. In practice, utilities report only on sewerage, septic tank emptying and drying bed operations. The responsibility for faecal sludge management for non-sewered households is not explicitly assigned to any Ministry.

There is an overlap of responsibilities between the Ministry of Environment & Forestry and the Ministry of Water in relation to the control of solid and liquid waste being discharged into water bodies, especially by industries and hospitals. This may partly account for the relatively ineffective enforcement being applied in this area. There is no independent regulator for WASH. Regulation is the responsibility of the various Ministries and is applied via regional health and water bureaus. The overlaps were further illustrated when the topic of clarifying institutional mandates was raised with the TWG on December 16th and is captured in the table below.



Table 4: Different elements of the sanitation package that are covered by various ministries (this is not aspirational but a perception of actual practice).

Elements of

Urban

Sanitation

FMOH

(Federal

Ministry

of

Health)

MOWIE

(Ministry

of Water,

Irrigation

and

Energy)

MOUDCH

(Ministry of

Urban

Development,

Construction

and Housing)

MOEF

(Ministry of

Environment

and Forestry)

MoE

(Ministry

of

Education

)

MoT

(Ministry

of

Transport

- roads)

MoI

(Ministry

of

Industry)

Municip

ality

Private

sector

Consumer NGOs

Solid Waste Management

X X X X X

Liquid Waste X X X X X X X X

Menstrual Hygeine

Management

X X X X X X X X

Behaviour change &

promotion

X X X X X X

Faecal Sludge Management

X X X X X X X X X

Industrial Waste

Management

X X X X X X X

Water quality X X X X X X X X

Health Care Waste

Managament

X X X X

Electronic Waste

Management

X X X X X X

Storm Water

X X X X X X X



3.3 Policies and Strategies relevant to urban sanitation

While the institutional mandates appear to be relatively clear, how those mandates have been implemented in practice has been influenced by a series of policies, proclamations and strategies relating to urban sanitation, which have been issued by the Government of Ethiopia since 1991. While none of these have been created specifically to address the challenge of urban sanitation, they all include specific aspects which are relevant in some way to the urban sanitation system. The table below lists these policies, the lead Ministry for each one, how the policies relate to the urban sanitation system, and how effective they have been to date.



Table 5: Policies and Strategies Relating to Urban Sanitation

Policy Sanitation Aspects Comments

Ministry of Health

Health Policy 1993

Inter-sectoral collaboration emphasizing safe disposal of human and household wastes. Rural, on-site sanitation systems, non-water based systems.

The Health policy provides an overall statement of intent for environmental health that includes waste management. No specific references to urban waste management or waste discharged from commercial area and institutions.

Food, Medicine and Health Care Administration and Control Regulation Number 299/2013

Prohibition of burning, disposing, recycling of poisonous or contagious waste, discharging untreated waste prior to treatment in accordance with the set standards. Requiring household and public toilets to fulfill the national standards.

No specific reference to urban sanitation, solid and liquid waste management.

National Sanitation and Hygiene Strategic Action plan (2011 – 2015)

Promotion of rural, small town and peri-urban on site sanitations.

The strategy focuses only on rural and peri-urban, not small, medium and large towns. Not yet communicated to regions and remains unfunded. Application of the Rural & Peri-Urban SAP is awaiting the implementation of ONE WASH National Program.

Health Sector development program IV (HSDP IV) 2010/11 – 2014/15

Strategy to improve accessibility of health service and increase utilization; focus on mothers, children.

Urban sanitation not explicitly covered. The understanding of the MoH is to explicitly cover details on Urban San in subsequent Strategic Action Plan Documents.

Food, Medicine and Health Care Administration and Control proclamation 661/2009 (FMHCAC) - 2010

Collection & disposal of liquid waste from health & research institutions, discharge of grey and black water into water bodies. Promotes availability of public toilets

No explicit mention of urban sanitation. No clear regulatory regime for the management of urban sanitation. FMHACAC operates mostly in the Urban setting where problems



related to waste emanating from Food and Medicine are major threats.

Ministry of Water Irrigation and Energy

Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy Water Supply and sanitation policy 2001

Strategy for urban sanitation, minimum service levels, regulations, guidelines, managing waste water treatment, water borne on-site sanitation systems.

Quite clear responsibilities for urban sanitation (sewerage and desludging) but implication that waterless on-site systems are not covered (which implies this is under the MOH). Outcomes in urban sanitation have not been as expected.

Urban Sanitation Universal Access plan [part IV] 2011

Plan to achieve 100% latrine and desludging, solid waste and drainage coverage. On-site and off-site plan.

The required funding was not mobilized. Lack of trained staff, poor sector coordination and inadequate institutional framework cited as reasons for lack of progress

Ministry of Urban Development and Construction

Ministry of Urban Development and Construction (FMoUDC) Urban Development Policy 1991

Urban solid and liquid waste management in informal and slum settlements, health promotion. Demand generation and Public Private Partnerships (PPP) for solid and liquid waste management. Recently the Liquid Waste mandate has moved to the Water Sector.

The National policy on waste management is not translated into action at local level.

Urban Waste Management and Green and Beautification Draft Strategy 1991

Solid and liquid waste management strategy Limited participation of stakeholders in the strategy development process has led to limited ownership. Now being seen as being super-ceded by new sanitation and hygiene strategy

Solid Waste Management Proclamation No. 513/2013 in 2007

Encouraging private sector engagement in solid waste management and recycling, and setting licensing rules

Overlaps with Food, Medicine and Health Care Administration and Control Regulation Number 299/2013. Generally lacking a liquid waste strategy; there is one for Addis, but this is poorly enforced. The proclamation on solid waste could be taken as supplementary



to the FMHACA Regulation.

Ministry of

Environment and

Forestry

Ministry of Environment and Forestry - Environmental Policy of Ethiopia 1997

Promotes environmental sanitation as a key aspect of urban development; access to latrines and regular de-sludging, sewerage, drainage

This is a policy for promotion and advocacy, not delivery. Contains little explicit regulation for liquid waste. Implementation is through other departments: MOH, MOUD and MoWIE.

Proclamation 300/2002, Environmental Pollution Control

Collection, transportation, recycling, treatment and safe disposal of municipal waste through integrated waste management system. Monitoring compliance. Formulation of environmental standards, industrial and sewerage effluent discharge quality.

A promotion oriented proclamation. Enforcement is through Ministry of Industry and MOUD. Complements the FMHACA proclamation 661/2009 and MOEF 513/2013.

Solid Waste Management Proclamation No. 513/2013 in 2007

Encouraging private sector engagement in solid waste management, recycling and setting licensing rules

Overlaps the Food, Medicine and Health Care Administration and Control Regulation Number 299/2013. There is a solid waste management strategy for Addis, but this is poorly enforced.



The Ministry of Health led policies include a broad range of requirements to safely treat solid, liquid and industrial waste in order to safeguard the health of the population and of the environment. The responsibilities are predominantly around the provision of health-related training, monitoring and enforcement. The policy most directly relevant to urban sanitation is the National Sanitation and Hygiene Strategic Action plan (2011 – 2015), which sets out the requirement to promote hygiene and sanitation in rural areas and small towns. Urban sanitation is not addressed specifically.

The two policies which provide the clearest plan for urban sanitation are: the MOWIE’s Water Supply and Sanitation Policy (2001) and the Urban Sanitation Universal Access plan [part IV] 2011. The fact that these two policies have not yielded the results anticipated (e.g. it is estimated that only 10% of households in Addis receive a pit emptying service) can perhaps be attributed to two critical factors:

a) water utilities only extend their liquid waste services to large water customers with septic

tanks, rather than to everyone in the town/city and

b) all other aspects of urban sanitation have been assumed to be the responsibility of the MOH

which does not have the appropriate technical capacity to take responsibility for the

provision of on-site sanitation services.

Whilst the Ministry of Urban Development and Construction’s (FMoUDC) Urban Development Policy (1991) indicates some responsibility for liquid waste services, particularly in low income urban areas and in the outsourcing to private sector providers, in reality it only takes responsibility for solid waste management. It has no budget for liquid waste management and sees this as the responsibility of the MOW. It does, nevertheless have a crucial role in setting land use and building regulations which are critical for urban sanitation.

3.4 Implementation arrangements for One WASH

Table 3: Implementation arrangements for One Wash program



Table above includes lots of acronyms which are not explained – we should make their meaning explicit plus some words are cut in half – difficult and unattractive to read. To be revised.

The table above shows the agreed implementation arrangements for the One WASH programme. There are cross-sectoral committees at four different levels of management and at five different levels of geographic unit size. Roles and responsibilities for each group at each level are set out in the Programme Operational Manual for the Consolidated WASH Account (Sept 2014). As would be expected for such a multi-layered structure, there is significant overlap of roles and responsibilities between the different committees. This structure clearly reflects a desire to ensure a high level of consultation and collaboration (“integration”) between Ministries and their representative local bodies. The structure is indeed well suited to achieve this objective. On the other hand, the structure is not so well suited for efficient and effective implementation, due to the absence of a single, accountable entity for each main part of the programme and to the overlapping responsibilities.

A number of interviewees pointed to inadequate clarity in institutional roles and responsibilities regarding urban sanitation and suggestions were made around how to clarify these and achieve greater accountability and leadership in one entity. Given the time taken to establish the one WASH implementation structure, recommending a different structure for IUSHS is unlikely to be



fruitful. However, the IUSHS is likely to need a different arrangement for implementation, which is compatible with the One WASH structure but more fit-for-purpose.

3.5 Town level institutional arrangements

The institutional arrangements for WASH in Ethiopia’s towns, as envisaged under One WASH, are as follows:

The Town Cabinet of the Town Council functions as the Town WASH Steering Committee and

reviews and recommends WASH plans and budgets, reporting to the Town Council. The

Cabinet provides oversight of the Town WASH technical Committee and Water Board.

The Town WASH Technical Committee is made up of representatives of Kebele

administration and the offices of Water, Health, Education and Finance and Economic

Development, Women’s Affairs and NGOs.

The Town Water Board plans and manages the overall WASH activities in the town. The

Board is composed of representatives of the community, and Heads of the offices of Water,

Health, Finance and Economic Development and Women’s Affairs.

The Water Supply and Sewerage Authority is responsible for providing water supply and

sanitation for residents, institutions and commercial centres.

This town level structure means that the water utility (Water Supply and Sewerage Authority), which has the core function of providing services to the consumers, is accountable to four layers of cross sector committees. Whilst ensuring a high level of collaboration between stakeholders, this structure mitigates against the utilities having a clear accountability for service provision.

As indicated in Section 2, small towns, where independent utilities are more scarce, may fall under a Woreda that administers both rural and urban areas under its jurisdiction. In some Woredas there may be one small town which could be the Woreda capital. In some cases there may be more than one town in a Woreda. Based on the classification of towns, Small to Medium Towns may have a Woreda status in which case they would have Kebeles depending on the size of Regions. Large towns may consist of Sub-Cities in which case they are further sub-divided into Kebeles. In each Woreda, there is a town from which the Woreda is administered. The key institutional fabric in small towns in relation to sanitation and hygiene is the Health Extension program (HEP). The Government of Ethiopia initiated the HEP as the main strategy for reaching people in the rural areas of Ethiopia In 2004. Health Extension Workers (HEWs) carry out promotional activities at Kebele level by implementing 16 clearly defined Health Extension Program Packages and working closely with households and the Women/Health Development Army. The early successes of the HEP led to expansion from rural agrarian communities into pastoral and agro-pastoral communities in 2006 and into urban communities in 2010. The HEP built upon the Primary Health Care Unit (PHCU) structure, which is quite different between rural and urban areas. Rural PHCUs comprise of Health Posts (HPs), Health Centers (HCs), and, eventually, a primary hospital planned to serve 100,000 people. Urban PHCUs consist of HCs and



urban health extension professionals (UHEPs), and serve 40,000 people (HEPCAPS1 Series Paper #1, September 2012). In recognition of Ethiopia’s demographic differences, the FMOH developed 3 distinct models of the HEP (urban, agrarian and pastoral) to better suit the needs of these communities. While these different HEP models reflect the diverse environmental, social, and cultural contexts, all 3 of them face challenges in meeting the perceived needs and demands of the populations they serve. This is especially the case for the more recently developed pastoral and urban models. The agrarian model is the gold standard for the HEP and has achieved much success in meeting many of the health prevention needs of the communities. Overall, there has been a very positive and impressive increase in access to health promotion, prevention and curative services through the HEP. Over the last 8 years, rapid expansion of critical health infrastructure, human resources and health worker capacity has resulted in dramatic improvements in performance indicators including under-five mortality.

The arrangements in Addis Ababa are distinct form other towns (Figure 10 below) whereby sub-Cities are divided into Woredas, which have replaced the role that Kebeles would normally perform in other sized-towns. In Addis, the water utility is accountable to the city administration.



Figure 10: Arrangement for sanitation promotion, sewerage, faecal sludge, solid waste management and regulation in Addis Ababa

Note: Fornat to be improved

3.6 Knowledge sharing networks

Over and above the One WASH committees, there are a number of other sector networks offering additional mechanisms for dialogue, including: WASH Ethiopia Movement, National Hygiene & Sanitation Taskforce, Joint Technical Review, WASH Media Forum, Annual Multi-Stakeholder Forum, Forum for Learning on Water & Sanitation plus regional networks such as the Somali Sanitation & Hygiene Technical Working Group and Water Engineers Forum. Many utilities belong to a “Water Utilities Association”, meeting regionally twice per year and nationally once per year. For example, in Tigray, water utilities collaborate technically at sub-regional level in Mekele, Axum and Alamata. The utilities also have customer forums. With this range of mechanisms, it seems that Ethiopia is well catered for in terms of cross sector communication.

3.7 Private sector participation

Included in MOWIE’s mandate is the setting up of contracting arrangements with private operators to enhance urban water distribution and liquid waste removal and transport for large customers with accessible septic tanks. The Ministry of Urban Development & Construction is striving to put strong systems in place for managing solid waste through the involvement of the public and private sector at all levels by preparing SWM standards in two volumes in English and a national Solid Waste Management Strategy in Amharic. The strategic action plan is not yet prepared. No reference was found on which agency is responsible for setting up contracts with



sanitation service providers, such as de-sludging companies, to reach lower income consumers. The state (local authorities with the seeming blessing of national departments such as the MoUDCH and MoWIE) has delegated the provision of solid waste management and liquid waste in the case of smaller towns to private sector operators without a clear institutional framework in place as to what the roles and responsibilities are between the operator and the local authority it must account to. This appears to be a critical gap, as the delegated management of sanitation services commonly forms an essential part of a national urban sanitation system. The IUSHS and Strategic Action Plan needs to address the stepping stones for framing private sector provision within a delegated management framework that ensures the public is protected by set norms and standards, that workers are protected from the harsh conditions they work in and private operators are able to run viable businesses within an enabling regulatory framework.

3.8 Regulation

At present, the bulk of activity in relation to regulation is happening at the household level through the Urban Health Extension Program (UHEP), which has been in operation since 2010. The UHEP has an essential health services package grouped into four core preventative health services. These are:

1. Environmental Sanitation & Hygiene

Solid and Liquid Waste Management

Personal and Compound Hygiene including Healthy Housing

Food Hygiene and Water Safety/Quality

Latrine Construction, Operation and Use

2. Family Health

Maternal & Child Health

Immunization/EPI (?)

Adolescent and Youth Family Planning

Reproductive Health

Nutrition

3. Disease Prevention & Control

Malaria Control & Prevention

Tuberculosis & Leprosy Control & Prevention

HIV/AIDS

Non-Communicable Diseases Control & Prevention

Mental Health

4. Violence, Accident and First Aid



These four areas make up 15 different packages, 7 of which deal directly with urban sanitation. The promotional activities of UHEWs aim to create a healthy environment as well as healthful living by improving access and equity to basic preventative health services at kebele and household level. This is done by sustaining preventative practices, increasing health awareness and bringing about behaviour changes.

The Urban Health Extension Program Professionals are Diploma Nurses with additional training related to UHEP. They are selected and assigned from the Kebele they come from akin to the Rural HEP. The UHEPs

are expected to work closely with Health Development Armies and households. Each UHEW in an urban area is expected to serve 500 households. Households are graduated as model households when they implement 75% of the package after 96 hours of theoretical and practical training for 4 months (JSI, 2014: 1). An assessment conducted by Harvard School of Public Health and Yale Global Health Leadership Institute (2012) identified a few challenges facing full implementation and roll out of UHEP:

Lack of active community participation in UHEP

Lack of time for families to participate in the UHEP

Lack of land/space to construct latrines/seepage pits

Unclear governance structure for the UHEP

Lack of Regular follow up and reporting mechanisms

High turnover of UHEWs due to low acceptance by Communities (Global Health Leadership

Institute: 2012)

Despite the challenges mentioned above, regulation, modelled on the rural sanitation 1 in 5 approaches, also relies on development armies, which are formed at the household level. There is one cabinet member responsible for health issues in each Kebele that receives information about health gaps through UHEWs. The UHEWs have their own chain of command which report household level problems. Communities are divided into segments of 300 households and are overseen by group leaders, each of which is responsible for 30 households each. These group leaders will report sanitation gaps observed in their vicinity to the UHEW who will then report to the zonal leader.

At the zonal level, there are 10 leaders. Their primary role is to provide education, but if they come across households where there is non-compliant behaviour, the zonal leader will take the relevant individual to the Kebele to engage with the chairperson. If this individual does not respond, s/he will be taken to the court. Regardless of how long the court takes to respond, if the perpetrator is seen as guilty, s/he will be left out of the Kebele and not receive any of its services. This form of punishment applies both for private institutions and households. The risk of this degree of ostracism is often, in rural areas, sufficient to correct delinquent behaviour.

These structures offer strong levels of accountability through the public health system in rural areas. In urban areas, however, this form of peer pressure is inevitably constrained by thinner levels of social cohesion and has not proven to be as effective. This is perhaps because household compliance on the 7 of the 15 packages that make up the Urban Health Program, is



insufficient given the need for simultaneous regulation of the waste streams beyond the household.

Despite the considerable human resources deployed through the Ministry of Health to regulate household behaviour in relation to urban sanitation, there remain large institutional gaps beyond the household with regard to how waste streams are created, transported and disposed of in urban centres. Many of these regulatory changes have to do with numerous responsibilities in the regulation of urban sanitation being spread out across multiple institutions with often incomplete mandates and/or duplication of responsibilities. The result is incoherence when trying to enforce existing laws and policies.

The two key regulatory bodies that the Ministry of Health has relied for support in the enforcement of national legislation in relation to urban sanitation are the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which now falls under the Ministry of Environment and Forestry Environmental Protection Agency and the Food, Medicine and Health Care Administration and Control Drug and Administration agency (FMHCAC), which is independent but accounts to the Ministry of Health.

Even though good regulation of urban sanitation requires enforcement capacity across the Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Environment (liquid waste) as well as the Ministry of Urban, Development, Construction and Housing (solid waste), the two mandated entities mentioned above hold the authority to enforce, yet remain considerably limited in their ability to do so. Part of this reason is the lack of policy coherence with respect to urban sanitation and the resulting poorly constructed regulations to actually enforce punitive measures for non-compliance in how waste streams are managed.

For instance, two specific regulations relating to urban sanitation are rarely enforced. Regulation Number 299/2013 promulgated on the 24th of January, 2014 by the FMHCAC is meant to regulate any matters which harm the general population arising from food, medicine and mal-health care administration. The challenge with this regulation is that it does not clearly indicate the management of urban sanitation. For instance, there is no penalty for failure to comply on Article 39 regarding waste handling and Article 42 regarding a public facility. The lack of emphasis on urban sanitation has diminished the attention given to urban/city administrations as they are not allocated budget, human resources nor equipment to manage this waste stream. The Agency itself has low awareness of and capacity to enforce regulation in the area of urban sanitation.

In relation to the policy environment under the EPA, the overall environmental policy objective is to improve and enhance the health and quality of life of all national, to promote sustainable social and economic development and to mitigate the pollution of land, air, water in the most cost-effective way. There has, however, been no overall comprehensive policy formulation to address the cross-sectoral and sectoral issues that concern urban sanitation. Even though there are very few points stressed about liquid waste in the environmental policy, there is no as such urban liquid waste management strategy, proclamation, regulation, guidelines, manuals, and standards. There is therefore limited public awareness and commitments on the Policy



implementation and low commitment of regional and local environmental affiliated government agencies like health and urban development and construction (JSI, 2014). Despite the fact that manufacturing industries across the country are found to be the major problems associated with environmental pollution issues, there is an hesitation on behalf of the government to enforce existing regulation for fear of negative economic effects of shutting down the vast numbers of industry that are and have been non-compliant for quite some time.

3.9 Evaluation and performance monitoring

In the absence of an independent regulator, monitoring is carried out mainly by Ministries themselves and by regional water and health bureaus. Certain key indicators are reported. However, the scarcity of data makes it difficult for the bureaus to carry out the performance monitoring role effectively. Significantly, the new indicators proposed in the GTPII (listed below) cover water supply and sewerage, but do not contain indicators for on-site sanitation or faecal sludge management services, which is how the majority of the urban population receive sanitation.

We now have GTPII in English and this section may be modified and expanded.

Number of cities for which a water sewage management system study has been conducted

Number of cities for which a water sewage disposal facility has been constructed

Reduced GHG emissions from solid waste via use of landfill gas management technologies (MT)

Reduced methane production from liquid waste via using appropriate liquid waste management technologies (MT)

This is fertile ground for Water and Sanitation Sector institutional reform whereby commercial publicly owned clustered utilities would operate under strict Service Management Contracts with clear Key Performance Indicators and monitored by a new National Regulator. There are many worldwide models that could be adapted for this purpose.

3.10 How institutional factors are affecting urban sanitation

In summary, the original institutional mandates seem to be relatively clear and simple, and this provides a strong foundation for the development of an effective urban sanitation strategy. The effectiveness of their implementation in practice has been complicated by four main factors:

a) a series of policies, proclamations and strategies which introduce more joint/shared accountability

b) the One WASH implementation structure which introduces additional layers of collective oversight and management

c) an incomplete definition of urban sanitation and how it differs from rural sanitation and



d) the assumption that MOH, with its strong track record in rural sanitation, should take responsibility for urban sanitation, when it is not well equipped to do so.

These factors represent important institutional barriers to accelerating progress in urban sanitation.

4 Sanitation and water service access and impacts

4.1 Shared/Communal/public/hospitals/schools/commercial/government institutions WaSH Services

There are public toilets in most of the visited towns (3 in Wukro, 1 in Maksegnit, 8 in Gondar, 15 in Bishoftu, 20 in Adama etc.) The towns also have large numbers of communal (i.e. shared) toilets whose condition varies from bad to fair. Sanitation facilities for differently-abled users are almost non-existent in the visited towns.

At the national scale, the few communal and public toilets in medium, large and mega towns could be reasonably concluded to be poorly managed. Usually, the management limitations arise due to inefficient forms of collective responsibilities. In Addis Ababa, about 22 public toilets are being currently managed by an enterprise formed by the differently-abled. However, almost all existing communal and public toilets do not have provisions for the differently-abled. Fortunately, Addis Ababa water supply and sewerage Authority is in the process of securing plots for constructing about 1000 public latrines with child, gender and differently-abled friendly features. This will provide opportunity to share experiences to other towns.

In Adama, a public toilet at Meskel square was observed to be managed by a differently abled enterprise. Most public toilets charge 50 cents for urine and 1 Birr for defecation, which is too low for sustainable livelihood. Public toilets in other towns visited, such as Mekele, Bahir Dar, erc., had similar pricing structures and rough calculations while talking to the operators clearly indicated a poor business case (See Towns Notes included as Annexure A-K for more details). Some towns like Adishahu in the Tigray region have opted to outsource the management to individual girls who have completed high school. Taking such a step has helped to considerably improve income and condition of the public toilets.

Most institutions in towns are expected to have at least basic water supply and sanitation facilities, but these need to be significantly improved to meet standards.

According to the National WaSH Inventory (NWI) 2011, the improved school sanitation access rate is around 33% while the water supply access rate is limited to 31% as shown in figure below.

Figure 11: School WaSH (NWI 2011)



Similarly, health institutions (i.e. health centres) have very low access to WASH facilities (especially access to water supply), which does not enable staff and patients to practice hand washing at critical times and climb up the sanitation ladder as indicated in figure below.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Access toLatrine

Facilities

Access toImproved

LatrineFacilities

Access toWater Supply

National level 80.58 32.74 31.39

% A

cce

ss



Figure 12: Health Institutions WASH (NWI 2011)

Most commercial and Government institutions are expected to have some form water supply and sanitation facilities. Exact access figures are not available at national level so far.

4.2 Water supply access in Ethiopia

4.2.1 Definitions used in national water documents

Water supply access figures vary depending on definitions. Administrative figures which usually consider facilities irrespective of their functionality and non-functionality are higher. The National WaSH inventory-NWI (2011) figures lie between the Demographic Health Statistics (DHS) and Administrative figures, such as data from health development indicator documents issued by the Federal Ministry of Health. The NWI data that has taken functionality and non-functionality into consideration could have been taken as reliable had annual updates been undertaken during the past three years’ time.

Comparisons between NWI and government administrative data from UAP 2012 (MoWEI) in the case of water supply, and between NWI and health development indicators (FMoH) in the case of sanitation are presented in Annexure 1 & 2 to highlight the differences.

DHS figures (2014), which are based on surveys, are lower. The reason is that they also consider the functionality and non-functionality of schemes, as a result of which they are the basis for Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) figures. The section below shows the DHS version of water supply access in Ethiopia.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Access to LatrineFacilities

Access to WaterSupply

National level 84.53 31.86

% A

cess



Though access in towns is officially high (95%), in

many regions, particularly the pastoral regions, it is much lower. Almost all

towns are water stressed and are not in a position to allow a move towards large

scale water carriage sanitation facilities.

4.2.2 Drinking water access as per Mini Demographic Health Statistics of Ethiopia (Mini DHS) 2014

According to the Mini Demographic Health Statistics of Ethiopia (Mini DHS) 2014, access to improved drinking water is divided into two categories of sources, which are used as indicators of whether the source is suitable for drinking or not:

Improved Sources

Sources that are likely to provide water suitable for

drinking are identified as improved sources. These

include a piped source within the dwelling, yard, or plot;

a public tap/standpipe; borehole; a protected well; a

protected spring; and safe rain water catchment5 (WHO

and UNICEF, 2010). Table 9 below presents information

on households’ access to drinking water. More than half

of the households in Ethiopia (55%) have access to an

improved source of drinking water, with a much higher

proportion among urban households (95%) than among rural households (46%). The most

common source of improved drinking water in urban households is piped water, used by

88% of urban households. In contrast, only 16% of rural households have access to piped

water. 16% of rural households have access to drinking water from a protected well, and

12% have access to drinking water from a protected spring.

Nationally, the proportion of Ethiopian households with access to an improved source of

drinking water has increased only marginally in the last three years from 54% in 2011 to

55% in 2014, in contrast to the marked increase in the six years from 2005 to 2011. Access

to piped water increased from 24% in 2005 to 34% in 2011 but declined to 29% in 2014.

Non Improved Sources

Close to half of the households in Ethiopia (45%) have access to Non improved source of

drinking water, with a much lower proportion among urban households (4.1%) than among

rural households (44.7%). This urban statistic hides the reality in the majority of towns5

where rationing of supply to just 2 or 3 days per week means that consumers, particularly

the low income consumers who do have not water storage facilities, will resort to non-

improved sources such as rivers and streams.

Other sources

5 Italics added to reflect the intended WHO and UNICEF 2010 definition



Close to 1% of the households in Ethiopia (0.8%) have access to other source of drinking

water like water trucking during emergencies, with 0.9% of urban households and 0.7% of

rural households. The mini DHS water supply access figures for the year 2014 in terms of

the above indicated source categories are depicted in table below.

Table 6: Household Drinking Water

Percent distribution of households and de jure population by source of drinking water according to residence, Ethiopia 2014

Households Population

Characteristic Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total

Source of drinking water

Improved source 95.16 45.8 54.5 93.2 43.8 50.3

Piped into dwelling 3.2 0.0 0.6 3.4 0.0 0.5

Piped to yard/plot 55.2 0.7 10.4 50.9 0.6 7.2

Public tap/standpipe 29.9 15.6 18.1 31.3 15.7 17.7

Borehole 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.3

Protected well 3.6 16.0 13.8 4.1 14.6 13.2

Protected spring 2.2 12.4 10.6 2.8 11.7 10.6

Rain water 0.2 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.7

Bottled water 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1

Non-improved source 4.1 53.5 44.7 6.0 55.5 49.0

Unprotected well 1.3 5.7 5.0 2.2 6.3 5.7

Unprotected spring 0.9 31.4 26.0 1.0 32.4 28.2

Tanker truck/cart with small tank 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4

Surface water 1.4 16.0 13.4 2.3 16.4 14.6

Other Source 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Percentage using any improved source of drinking water

95.1 45.8 54.5 93.2 43.8 50.3

Weighted number 1,508 6,967 8,475 5,359 35,435 40,794

Unweighted number 2,559 5,916 8,475 9,535 30,464 39,999

The 2000-12 water supply access growth trend by wealth quintile is shown in the figure below.

6The 95.1% access in urban areas does not take into account water stress, leading to water rationing in almost all towns due to frequent power interruption and water shortage caused by inadequate system capacity. It is highly recommended to consider such drawbacks in the complete DHS 2014, expected to be issued in the near future.



Figure 11: Water Supply Access Growth Trend by Wealth Quintile (2000-2012)

Source: UNICEF Ethiopia (2013)

4.3 Household sanitation facilities access in Ethiopia

4.3.1 Definitions Used in National Sanitation Documents

In a similar manner with water supply, sanitation access figures vary depending on definitions. Administrative figures, which usually consider facilities irrespective of their condition and functionality, are higher. The definitions referred to in this situation analysis report and depicted below emanate from the WHO and UNICEF 2010 definition. Basic / unimproved sanitation Facility: A fixed point of defecation system that does not fully satisfy any of the indicators for improved sanitation facility (SAP 2013).

Improved Sanitation Facility: A sanitation system that is safe and cleanable, sealed (with an appropriate lid and vent pipe) to discourage exposure to the flies, other animals and the environment as well as promote dignity and privacy7 (SAP 2013).

Improved disposal of human waste protects the quality of drinking water8, enhances safety of women and children and promotes dignity and self-esteem (Source SAP 2013).

Onsite Sanitation. A sanitation system where human waste is contained either in a pit, chamber, vault or septic tank (Source SAP 2013).

7 It is highly recommended that the minimum requirements for improved sanitation facilities should be cleanable with a sealed floor (not necessarily concrete floor or tiles in the Ethiopian context)with no cracks or openings and with tight squatting hole cover to discourage access to flies (entry/exit) to the pit, provides comfort and privacy and is equipped with hand washing facilities (Muchie Kidanu, 2013). 8 Improved disposal reduces pollution of dug wells, springs etc.



Offsite Sanitation. A water-borne sanitation system linked to a sewer whereby excreta are pumped or otherwise transferred to a treatment system at a different location (Source SAP 2013).

4.3.2 Household Sanitation Facilities Access as per Mini Demographic Health Statistics of Ethiopia (Mini DHS) 2014

Toilets are classified as improved9, shared and non-improved in line with WHO and UNICEF definition.

Improved Facilities: Table 10 below shows that only 4% of households in Ethiopia use

improved toilet facilities that are not shared with other households, 14% in urban areas and

2% in rural areas.

Shared Facilities: 7% of households (33% in urban areas and 1% in rural areas) use shared

toilet facilities.

None improved Facilities: The vast majority of households, 89%, use non-improved toilet

facilities (96% in rural areas and 53% in urban areas). The most common type of non-

improved toilet facility in Ethiopia that does not meet the standard of improved latrines as

per WHO and UNICEF 2010 definition is an open pit latrine or pit latrine without slabs, used

by 57% of households in rural areas and 43% of households in urban areas.

The mini DHS water supply access figures for the year 2014 in terms of the above indicated source categories are depicted in table below.

Table 7: Household Sanitation Facilities

Percent distribution of households and de jure population by type of toilet/latrine facilities, according to residence, Ethiopia 2014


Type of toilet/latrine facility Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total

Improved, not shared facility 13.9 2.3 4.4 17.5 2.5 4.5

Flush/pour flush to piped sewer system

1.9 0.0 0.3 2.4 0.0 0.3

Flush/pour flush to septic tank 1.4 0.0 0.2 1.7 0.0 0.2

Flush/pour flush to pit latrine 0.8 0.1 0.2 1.2 0.1 0.3

Ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrine 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.2

Pit latrine with slab 8.8 1.2 2.5 11.0 1.2 2.5

Composting toilet 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.6 1.1 1.0

9At the household level, improved sanitation facilities include an improved toilet and disposal that separates waste from human contact. A household is classified as having an improved toilet if it is used only by members of one household (that is, it is not shared) and if the facility used by the household separates the waste from human contact (WHO and UNICEF, 2010).



Table 7: Household Sanitation Facilities

Percent distribution of households and de jure population by type of toilet/latrine facilities, according to residence, Ethiopia 2014


Type of toilet/latrine facility Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total

Shared facility1 33.3 1.2 6.9 28.0 1.0 4.5

Flush/pour flush to piped sewer system

0.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0

Flush/pour flush to septic tank 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.1

Flush/pour flush to pit latrine 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.1

Ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrine 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.1

Pit latrine with slab 30.2 1.0 6.2 25.2 0.7 3.9

Composting toilet 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.3

Non-improved facility 52.8 96.4 88.7 54.5 96.5 91.0

Flush/pour flush not to sewer/septic tank/pit latrine

0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pit latrine without slab/open pit 42.8 57.3 54.7 43.7 58.5 56.5

Bucket 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Hanging toilet/hanging latrine 2.1 0.0 0.4 1.8 0.0 0.2

No facility/bush/field 7.5 39.0 33.4 8.7 37.9 34.1

Other 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Weighted number 1,508 6,967 8,475 5,359 35,435 40,794

Unweighted number 2,559 5,916 8,475 9,535 30,464 39,99

The 2000-12 Latrine facilities access growth trend by Wealth Quintile in Ethiopia is shown in figure below.

Figure 14: Sanitation Access Growth Trend by Wealth Quintile (2000-2012)

Source: UNICEF Ethiopia (2013)



4.4 Open defecation and unimproved pit latrines in towns

At the bottom end of the Sanitation Ladder are households who relieve themselves in the open. Open Defecation (OD) is practiced by a considerable number of people among the urban dwellers particularly those residing in the periphery of towns. This situation is very common across all levels of towns and is one of the major challenges facing Municipalities, Town Councils and sector offices including Health, Water, and Urban Development.

According to some surveys, the proportion of the population practicing Open Defecation in towns is around 20%. Similarly, significant numbers of households in the urban setting possess and use pit latrines, most of which are unimproved. Although this may seem better than OD, using unimproved toilets does not necessarily help in curbing the chain of disease transmission.

Both conditions mentioned above would therefore require due attention and proper strategic direction in the IUSHS. In places where the provision of water supply is intermittent subjecting households to wait for 3-5 days to get water, opting for water carriage sanitation system in the immediate future may be too ambitious. As this type of facility goes hand-in-hand with availability of water in adequate quantity, it is important that the strategy addresses how such scenarios should be handled in the interim until every household has access to adequate water supply and thereby climb to the next level of the sanitation ladder, which, in the Ethiopian context, means low volume pour flush toilets, often utilising used washing water.

4.5 Health statistics

The top ten causes of morbidity as per Health and Health Related Indicators 2005 EC (2012/2013) Version 2, Oct 2014 by Federal Ministry of Health is shown below.

Figure 12: Top Ten Cases of Morbidity 2012/13



Similarly, the top ten causes of morbidity for children under 5 years of age are depicted below.

Figure 13: Top 10 Causes of Morbidity for Children under 5 years 2012/13

The CDC Ethiopia data (2013) for mortality is as shown below:

Table 8: Top 10 Causes of Death in Ethiopia

1. Lower Respiratory Infections 14% 6. Protein-Energy Malnutrition 5%

2. Cancer 6% 7. Ischemic Heart Disease 4%

3. Diarrheal Diseases 6% 8. Stroke 4%

4. Malaria 6% 9. HIV 3%

5. Tuberculosis 5% 10. Preterm Birth Complications 3%

Source Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Ethiopia Factsheet, August 2013

To summarize, the fact that Respiratory Infections, Diarrheal diseases and Malaria are in the top 5 list clearly shows that solid and liquid waste management, along with water safety, are not given adequate attention. Higher prioritization including adequate financial resource allocation, human resources development, and appropriate strategic actions coupled with effective regulation of water safety and waste management is critical to mitigate the problem.

The top ten diseases data collected during the situation analysis field visit have confirmed the above deduction as can be seen from the Addis Ababa table that shows a fast growth trend of URI and Diarrhoea cases between 2012 and 2014.



Table 9: Growth of URI and Diarrhoea in Addis Adaba (2012-2014)

URI Diarrhea

Year Cases %ge of total top ten cases

Cases %ge of total top ten cases

2014 361,447 29% 112,948 10%

2013 370000 27% 102,373 9.3%

2012 223,365 25% 88,009 9.3%

Source: Addis Ababa Health office



5 Sanitation service delivery

5.1 Off-site sanitation situation and delivery

Addis Ababa’s waste water treatment plant at Kality was commissioned in 1981, but currently serves only the central part of the city (Kiingi 1998) and less than 3% of its population. Access to off-site facilities has now increased to 7% of the residents following the construction of decentralized waste water treatment systems for three condominium villages (Alamayehu 2008, Van Rooijen&Taddesse 2009). According to the Wastewater Masterplan (AAWSA 2002), it comprises about 30 km of trunk sewer and 90 km of secondary sewers, serving about 40,000 people via 1800 connections. AAWSA (2002) reports that “AAWSA is […] slowly expanding the network of secondary sewer lines in order to give more people access to the sewerage system”; There are no indications of any pro-poor provision in terms of sewerage due to presumably the low per capita water consumption that obliges the poor to use dry pit latrines that can’t be connected to a sewer line (See summarized SWOT table in Annex 5).

The Kaliti wastewater treatment plant (stabilization ponds) has a design capacity of 7,600 m3/day, but was recently receiving only about 4,500 m3/day, of which unintentional water ingress to the sewers may account for 3000m3/day (see AAWSA 2002, Alemayehu 2008). The Kaliti and Kotebe sludge drying beds together receive 10% of the fecal sludge in Addis. Most wastewater and sludge is either discharged or seeped into tributaries of the Akaki, flowing eventually to the Awash River (Van Rooijen & Taddesse 2009).

It is difficult for the city to use the treated effluent since pumping the treated water back to the city will be very expensive. There is an option of using the treated and polished effluent for irrigation at downstream locations.

Apart from Addis Ababa, the only city with a conventional offsite sewerage system is Gondar, which has a system for 40,000 population equivalent (Pe). The system is fed by gravity via sewer lines from the remote 3 campuses in Gondar. The problem with scaling up such conventional systems is the very large land requirement and the difficulty associated with the reuse of the treated effluent that requires pumping back to the town areas.

The 2002 Wastewater Master plan for Addis (AAWSA 2002), updated from the 1993 Master plan, integrates both sewerage and fecal sludge management (i.e. collection, treatment and disposal of sludge from latrines and septic tanks); however, onsite sanitation per se is not covered. The planning horizon is 2020, with a target for this date of about 1 million people served by sewers, 1.4 million with septic tanks and 1.4 million with pit latrines. See also WSSCC (2005), which comments on the national “Water supply and sewerage sub-sector development plan”.

An appropriate constructed wetland facility owned by JW branch office (a religious community) in Addis Ababa is treating liquid waste to acceptable standard and is reusing the treated effluent for watering the lawn and ornamental trees. See the technical details in Annexure 3. The facility has served as a pilot for MSc students of Environmental science students in AA university and

http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/WhatIsWastewaterTreatment




http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/SludgeManagement

http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/SludgeManagement

http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/Sanitation

http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/WaterSupply



East African Environmental association based in Nairobi. Military camps, condominium villages, universities, boarding schools etc. can replicate this experience. The waste water effluent flowing out of Kality waste water treatment plant and the decentralized waste water treatment plants like the one at Mickey Leyland condominium village are being directly used for growing vegetables as can be seen from figure 12 below. Though effluents are expected to be much better in quality in decentralized waste water treatment plants as compared to Addis Ababa streams, which are highly overloaded with municipal and industrial waste, it is still risky to grow vegetables without confirming 100% pathogen die off.

Figure 14: Risky use of Effluent from Mickey Leyland condominium Village Waste Treatments Units

1. Mickey Leyland Condominium Village

2. Facultative pond in the series of ponds for treating the domestic wastewater from the village

3. Effluent from the pond system diverted for growing vegetables by nearby traditional growers

4. Effluent being used for growing vegetables

5. Effluent being used for growing vegetables (continued)

6. Excessive effluent ends up in this river where surrounding communities are bathing and washing clothes



5.2 Solid waste situation and delivery

An attempt to address solid waste collection and disposal service issues is getting momentum from the time following the launching of the urban health extension program. Households are collecting and burying solid waste in pits and at times burn garbage in garbage pits within their premises or collective pits in their villages, in small towns and some medium towns. In most of the medium, large, mega size towns and Addis Ababa, garbage is collected from households and dumped at dumping sites by micro enterprises.

What needs further attention is the fact only 4 towns which have appropriate sanitary landfill sites that are equipped with leachate containment or treatment ponds. A few landfill sites that have been constructed earlier are now converted to unsafe dumping sites as shown in the picture on the below.

Solid waste management generally lacks skilled human resources at graduate and technician level in Ethiopia, leading to a situation where the newly completed landfill sites (in Bishoftu for example) couldn’t resume service immediately. The low budget allocation does not allow for the provision of the required machineries and skilled operators. Furthermore, the common practice of disposing liquid waste on or near solid waste site is creating severe health hazard and impossibility to recover sludge for reuse.

The fees currently collected are not enough to cover expenditure as depicted in Annexure 4: revenue as percentage of expenditure ranges from 3% in Mekele to 54% in Bahir Dar. Similarly, revenue as percentage of expenditure ranges from 10% to 30% in Hawassa, Halaba, Adama, Bishoftu and Addis Ababa, as indicated in Annexure 5. The case with desludging service is also more or less similar with solid waste collection and disposal.

The Annexures 4 and 5 also show that many utilities are not recovering full cost even in the case of water supply service provision raising a concern about sustainability.

The physical composition of the solid waste of the cities is mainly organic (for example, 73.17% organic and 7.32% recyclable waste in Bishoftu ; 60% organic and 15% recyclable in the case of Addis Ababa) which assures adequate resources to generate more income for employment. As a result, proper and knowledgeable waste management can contribute to the poverty reduction and the sustainable development program of the government, along with boosting the capacity to cover operational and maintenance through cost recovery principles.



5.3 Demand creation, promotion, marketing, behaviour change

In Ethiopian towns, demand is being created through the UHEP that is using community led approaches such as community led total sanitation and hygiene (CLTSH) and School led Total sanitation and hygiene (SLTSH). CLTSH uses model families as champions to motivate a group of 5 families within communities and help communities to declare their open defecation free status. A family becomes a model family or a member of the health development army (HDA) if it demonstrates it has successfully implemented the 15 urban extension packages at the household level.

The success achieved in rural areas through using similar approaches has been highly impressive. It has not only created demand for sanitation facilities, but has also facilitated the promotion of hygiene and sanitation in an accelerated manner. The success in urban areas is not so impressive, possibly with the exception of some towns like Gondar; since it requires addressing numerous issues that do not exist in rural areas such as land availability in congested areas, requirements for higher standards, etc. Based on observations made, it is considered that success in smaller towns could be achieved faster as compared to medium and large towns since the culture and psychological make of communities in small towns is not very far from that of rural settlements. The relatively stronger cultural cohesion in smaller towns as compared to medium and large towns helps them to act in unity. Furthermore, in medium and large towns it requires more time and innovative approaches to break the “I know” attitude.

Sanitation marketing, recently launched in some woredas, is at an early stage and has not yet come up with cost effective technologies that could benefit the urban poor.

Changing behavior in urban areas with various residents of different backgrounds has not proved to be easy as compared to rural areas where there is much better cultural cohesion. In this regard, social marketing for improved hygiene behavior has not been properly implemented in Ethiopia. In the National Hygiene and Sanitation Strategy for rural and peri-urban areas (SAP 2013) and in the One WaSH National Program (OWNP 2013), establishment of sani-marts at Woreda level has been considered.

However, to date, adequate finance has not been allocated for such sani-marts as planned and some clear opportunities have been missed. Besides creating awareness regarding the different sanitation options to the community, this step could have created business opportunities to the private sector. Social marketing along with the development of sani-marts could have significantly contributed to bringing about behavioral change.

5.4 Service providers (including private sector) and promoters

5.4.1 Microenterprises

Nowadays, the idea of using microenterprises (with an average of 10 members) for specific aspects of sanitation and solid waste management is spreading in most of the medium and large towns. In Addis Ababa and other large cities, the microenterprises take part in the primary



collection of garbage from households to containers placed at different parts of the towns. The secondary transport from containers to the dumping sites is being undertaken by the municipalities or bigger private enterprises. In some small and medium size towns the micro enterprises collect and transport garbage up to the dumping site.

The use of micro and bigger enterprises in providing collection and disposal of solid waste could be considered as an important step in enhancing livelihood and creating job opportunity. However, leaving the whole process for the enterprises could lead to a situation where properly designed sanitary land fill sites could be converted to unsafe dump sites due to poor operation.

The strategy needs to support the sector to ensure proper operation of landfill sites and to make the services of the enterprises effective.

Desludging service is being provided by municipalities, water utilities and private companies with vacuum trucks. Micro enterprises are involved in providing services (collection of garbage, managing public toilets, etc.). These can be trained in service promotion, safety etc. by consultants or capable NGOs10 that have broad experience in dealing with microenterprises (See summarized SWOT table in Annexure 6).

5.4.2 Health Development Army

Health development army (HDA) are community members which work hand in hand with HEWs in promoting urban health extension program. Discussions done during the field visit has made the use of HDAs as community champions evident. The important promotional and development roles of HDA indicated in table below strongly support the idea. Table 10: Roles of HDA

Promotional roles Development roles 1 They promote safe faecal disposal They construct and arrange their own sanitation

facilities and motivate other families to do the same by forming a group of 1 in 5

2 They promote good hygiene practice including hand washing at critical times

They are at the forefront along with HEWs in leading communities to climb up the sanitation ladder

3 They play a significant role in the promotion of solid waste and liquid waste management

They are agents for translating strategies at household level

4 They promote safe faecal sludge disposal

They are agents for integration, coordination and partnership at the community level

5 They graduate as model families by exercising the requirements of the 15

They bear the responsibility of clean green sustainable city as community champions

10World Vision Ethiopia is scheduled to provide training to artisans, community members, HEWs etc. in the ongoing8 towns’ sanitation master plan project.



Promotional roles Development roles urban extension packages and motivate other families to join the HDA by forming a group of 1 in 5

5.5 Value chain, including reuse

In Bishoftu, sorting of organic waste is being undertaken by a private enterprise in Kebele 6 where pilot composting is being practiced. The private enterprise is paying 35 cents per m3 of garbage to the micro-enterprises. The private enterprise uses this compost for agriculture.

In Bahir Dar, recycling of organic waste in the form of composting is carried out by Micro-Enterprises. It is run by 4 municipal employees who separate out the organic from non-organic by hand at the site (on road to tip and next to abattoir and tannery). The non-organic and meat waste is taken to the tip. The hard shells fruit stones etc. are broken up by hand and the windrows (on concrete slab) are watered and turned by hand for 2 months. Final product is dry and powdery and taken for municipal use, not sold. Workers are paid Birr 1,050/month each. Volume = very approx. 12x1.5x0.5x 2 rows/ 2 months, less 30% wastage say = 6m3/month. So cost = around Birr 700/m3 = $35/m3.

Compost is used for Urban Agriculture and Greenery in the Bahir Dar City. The municipality is planning to initiate the production of “brickets” from organic solid waste to be used as fuel for domestic purposes. Metals, glasses are sorted in the landfill site by 40 informal sorters (“Charries”). Plastic bottles are recycled by a PVC Pipe producing Factory.

In Addis Ababa and other towns, informal sorters (“charries”) are separating plastic bottles and metal parts and sell them to ”Korealias” who in turn sell the sorted materials to small factories and enterprises for reuse.

Micro financing to establish income generating projects for the poor is a common practice in Ethiopia. However micro credit or use of revolving fund for enhancing value chain (i.e. financing sanitation facilities at households’ level or even water schemes at community level or service providers like the “charries” and Korealias) has not yet been well practiced in Ethiopia.

5.6 Technical options

A number of sanitation options both at household and institutional level exist. Commonly used sanitation technologies in Ethiopia include improved or unimproved traditional pit latrines, ventilated pit latrines and flushing toilets with cesspits or septic tanks. Recently developed standards for school sanitation by UNICEF adopted double composting pit latrines. If proved successful, then promoting double pit latrines at household level could be done intensively. Communal biogas generating latrines have been rarely used in Addis Ababa and in the other big towns. Some towns like Adishahu in Tigray have started generating biogas from a mix of cow



dung and latrine sludge at model family level. Scaling up its use to these and other towns, particularly where availability of land is not an issue, is another possible intervention that can bring progress in improving sanitation.

Introducing where it is not known and promoting technology options like biogas and double pit latrines could be one way to address the technical option gaps and in fact could also be useful to help the communities climb up the sanitation ladder. In other words the benefit households could get from biogas as an energy source and the compost as a fertilizer for gardening from the double pit latrines could be incentives to encourage large-scale uptake of households moving from basic to improved latrines. Such a step could improve household sanitation status along with livelihood opportunities. The country requires scaling up sanitation marketing that foresees the use of waste as a resource to compensate for the missed opportunity.

With the above situation analysis in mind and the low sanitation status, it would be worthwhile to consider the possible technology options corresponding to the five town categories in the strategy: To be modified to table format

Small towns with less than 20,000 populations could be feasible for basic and improved VIP latrines, biogas, double pit latrines, on site infectious health institutions waste (placenta pits, incinerators & ash pits), safe solid waste dumping pits and sludge drying beds, etc.

Medium towns between 20,000 and 50,000 population could be feasible for a mix of basic, improved, biogas, double pit, pour flush latrines, on site infectious health institutions waste (placenta pits, incinerators and ash pits), sanitary landfill sites, drying beds, condominium (decentralized) sewerage (in feasible towns where adequate number of hotels, condominium buildings and others exist), etc.

Large towns between 50,000 and 100,000 population could be feasible for a mix of basic, improved, biogas, double pit, pour flush and flush latrines, onsite, offsite infectious health institutions waste (placenta pits, incinerators and ash pits), sanitary landfill sites ,sludge drying beds, condominium (decentralized) sewerage, etc.

Mega towns between 100,000 and 500,000 population could be feasible for a mix of basic, improved, biogas, double pit, pour flush, flush latrines, onsite and offsite infectious health institutions waste(placenta pits, incinerators and ash pits), sanitary landfill sites , sludge drying beds, condominium (decentralized) sewerage, etc.

Addis Ababa could be feasible for a mix of basic, improved, biogas, double pit, pour flush, flush latrines, onsite and offsite infectious health institutions waste (placenta pits, incinerators and ash pits), sanitary landfill sites for municipal and hazardous waste separately, sludge drying beds, condominium (decentralized) sewerage, conventional sewerage, etc.



The technology options corresponding to the five town categories could be summarized as indicated in figure below.

Figure 15: Technology options

5.7 Land – town planning and availability

In Addis Ababa, the city is planning to allocate 30% of its land for greenery & parks, 30% for roads and walkways and 40% for buildings, which in terms of land allocation requires a huge renovation process. So far land is a problem for sanitation facilities, including decentralized waste water treatment units. In big cities like Hawassa, Adama and Bishoftu, land availability is a growing bottleneck for introducing decentralized waste water treatment units unless cost effective and easy to operate compact units are used.

All cities need to update their master plans from the view point of reserving land for sanitation facilities that include decentralized constructed wetland systems. Cities could consider high tech decentralized treatment package units located outside or even within condominium basements in congested areas with little space.

5.8 Industrial and institutional (medical) waste – solid and liquid

Industrial Waste is increasing as the country is moving from an agricultural led to industrial led economy. The case in Addis Ababa and nearby towns is more serious as most of the industries are constructed at the mouths of rivers like Akaki, Dukem and Modjo that ultimately join the Awash River, which is Ethiopia’s main source for irrigation.



Investing in sanitation is highly cost-effective. The World Health Organization notes that improved sanitation delivers in social and economic benefits for every $1 invested because it increases productivity, reduces health care costs, and prevents illness, disability, and early death. Although the sanitation challenges in Ethiopia are particularly complex, several developments in sanitation policy and awareness have recently converged, presenting an opportunity to create large-scale change in the sanitation sector. Addressing the urban sanitation challenge requires strengthening or setting up of effective institutions for promotion, implementation and regulation. Furthermore, it will be important to explicitly connect Ethiopia’s sanitation policies to technological innovations to close the urban sanitation gap.

Infectious health care waste is being kept in placenta pits while other medical waste is being incinerated (the ash being generated is kept in ash pits at the health centres and hospitals in most cases). Under such circumstances, spillage of leachate into nearby streams is a possibility during the rainy season as observed in visited towns including Addis Ababa. Incineration of contaminated or infectious materials being done at low temperature could contribute to air pollution and accompanied health hazard (Ref: RWA-Ethiopia Urban SWM Standards Parts 1&2 Final

20140226).

The possibility of using biogas to fuel high temperature incineration in hospitals could be considered in the strategy. Designated sanitary landfill sites for ash from hospital incinerators and waste from small scale industries 11 that are not able to process and recycle their waste do not exist so far. Addis Ababa is aiming to construct such a sanitary landfill site at Sendafa during the coming two years’ time.

5.9 The rational for drafting the strategy

Summing up, Ethiopia’s urban sanitation challenges are acute and, if not addressed, carry major consequences for the country and its people in terms of morbidity, mortality and hampering economic development. The way forward is to devise a strategy that will take the country out of poor practices and scale up the few good practices in the years to come.

Figures 19 below show how sanitation in Ethiopia might be transformed through the strategy and strategic action plan.

11 Industrial waste should be processed and recycled by industry itself since in general this can be shown to be profitable for the industry and the required processing technology can best be provided by the industry itself. In the case of small industries to be newly established, it will be strategic to group them together in an industry village (as is being done in Addis Ababa and other large cities recently) so that they can jointly process and recycle their waste.



Figure 16: Overcoming Sanitation Challenges

From Poor & Highly Risky Waste Management To Scaling up a few good practices

Adama sludge dumping Well managed landfill site at Kombolcha

Halaba Communal Toilet(poor construction) Composting in Bahir Dar

Typical drainage into streams Waste Water Treatment In Gondar

Hawassa Sludge drying bed on top of Tabor hill Rarely observed clean drainage channel



6 Current prices and willingness to pay

The actual final consumption of a household is the sum of its household consumption expenditure plus the value of consumer goods and services acquired or used through transfers from government, non-profit institutions and other households. This is the most appropriate concept for welfare analysis as it takes into account all consumer goods and services available to a household for the satisfaction of the needs and wants of its members.

However some social transfers, such as free education, health, water supply, sanitation, etc, which are received in the form of services from government and non-profit institutions and in the form of other services from households are extremely difficult to value and have therefore been excluded from all Household Consumer Expenditure (HCE) data in the Ethiopian context.

Having such a drawback in mind, the values of each Country Level household expenditure quintile are presented in table below.

Table 11: Household Expenditure Quintiles at Country Level (Total)

Quintile % of HHs

Annual Household Expenditure in Birr-Country Level

Lower Limit Upper Limit Range

I 20 1,471.48 11,369.98 10,898.50

II 20 11,369.99 15,765.28 4,395.29

II 20 15,765.29 20,657.00 4,891.71

IV 20 20,657.01 28,346.50 7,689.49

V 20 28,346.51 53,572.83 25,226.32

NB: • At 2010/11 National average prices • Prices are not spatially adjusted for regional price differences

Considering the lower limits of the five quintiles, it can be estimated that households could pay progressively between 6 and 283 Birr/month for sanitation and 7 Birr and 354 Birr/month for water supply services (by assuming progressive percentages of their expenditures on sanitation and water supply as shown in table below).

Table 13: Estimated Monthly Ability to Spend on Water Supply and Sanitation using

Progressive Percentages for the Five Expenditure Quintiles



Quintile Estimated ability to pay as %ge of annual expenditure for Sanitation

Estimated ability to pay as %ge of annual expenditure for Water Supply

Annual Household Expenditure(Lower Limit) (Birr)

Estimated monthly ability to spend on Sanitation (Birr)

Estimated monthly ability to spend on Water Supply(Birr)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)=(2)*(4) (6)=(3)*(4)

I 5% 6% 1,471.48 6.13 7.36

II 7% 8% 11,369.99 63.96 78.17

III 9% 11% 15,765.29 111.67 137.95

IV 10% 13% 20,657.01 176.45 219.48

V 12% 15% 28,346.51 283.47 354.33

The percentage estimates of “ability to pay” in the table above are preliminary and need to be refined in the course of the strategic action plan preparation. The estimate is based on the assumption that ability to pay increases with higher income quintile. Figures to be further explained and source referenced

As an example to illustrate the uncertainties around ability to pay and general unaffordability of

current sanitation services, it is instructive to look at cesspit emptying costs. From observations

in Mekele, for instance, the fee for a vacuum truck for one trip is Birr 400 – 600 for 8m3 tanker,

or around Birr 60/m3, and only one septic tank is emptied per trip, since tanks are usually large.

Leaky cesspits are, in theory, not allowed. People are complaining of high costs. There is

therefore a potential problem here in terms of affordability. If a household generates 200 litres

of wastewater per day, hence generating 6m3/month, this implies a charge of Birr 360/year or

Birr 18/month if the cesspit is sealed. When enquiries were made to investigate whether low to

middle income HHs have the ability to pay, and are willing to pay this sort of charge, the

response was that “HHs are willing to pay as long as they get the service as requested”, but

possibly the question was not well phrased.

The problem of compliance with the requirement that all household cesspits should be sealed

becomes immediately obvious, since not even the highest quintile of consumers could afford to

pay the monthly cost of the service. Based on this example and the figures presented in Table 9

above, the ability to pay by the lower limits of Quintile 5 may be seen to = 79%, Quintile 4 =

49%, Quintile 3 =30%, Quintile 2 = 17% and Quintile 1 = 2%. Expecting the users of pit latrines

(i.e. the majority of urban residents in at least the lower three quintiles) and of a large

proportion of household with poor flush toilets to have sealed cesspits and use mechanised

equipment on a regular basis would appear to be unrealistic.



This is why safe lower cost latrine emptying services and decentralised downstream sludge

treatment and disposal chains are being introduced in other parts of Africa and Asia. WSUP

currently supports such initiatives in Kenya, Zambia, Mozambique and Madagascar.

In accordance to the data collected during the situation analysis field trips, current prices for desludging services vary from 18-120 Birr/m3 in (Addis Ababa) to 60 Birr/m3 in Mekele, 40-60 Birr/m3 in Bahir Dar, 30 Birr/m3 in Gondar, 50 Birr/m3 in Bishoftu, 70 Birr/m3 in Adama and 150 Birr/m3 (Hawassa) for desludging services (See Annex 3 and 4).

It was argued above that a cost of Birr 60/m3 was unaffordable, based on household incomes and if cesspits were sealed. It has also been reported that people are complaining of high cost even though most cesspits are actually leaky to avoid the high cost of transporting liquid as well as sludge. According to a rapid Willingness To Pay (WTP) study for 8 Small/Medium Towns Sanitation Master Plan study under the One WASH Plus initiative, the willingness to pay varies from 300-450 Birr/annum for desludging services. Based on the argument made in 4.1, this payment would only cover one month costs if the cesspits were sealed.

It therefore appears that many consumers are both unable and unwilling to pay for the current

system which relies on mechanised emptying and long distance transport out of town. It also

appears that pit latrines are rarely emptied. As stated before, WSUP currently supports

initiatives that involve safe, lower cost, manual pit latrine and septic tank emptying services and

local decentralised downstream sludge treatment and disposal chains.

A case may also need to be made for cross subsidy from water revenue, where willingness to

pay will generally be higher, and/or subsidy from Regional Government subsidies. However,

there is obviously a clear and urgent case for improvement in service efficiency, lowering of

costs and for aggressive awareness, behaviour change and service promotion campaigns so that

consumers are fully aware of the cost benefits of improved faecal sludge services.

The norm of water sanitation expenditure is 5% of household income (McPhail, 1993) with sludge collection likely to constitute 0.5% of household income (Vodounhessi, 2006). It is anticipated that with provision of high quality service there should be willingness to pay for improved services, however currently the willingness to contribute to costs is low.

Current collection on solid waste management is low. In Bahir Dar each household is required to pay a monthly flat fee of USD 0.59 (ETB 10) to the fee collectors of the private waste company who go from door-to-door to collect it in cash (Lohri et al, 2014). For commercial enterprises and institutions there are no fixed tariffs. The private waste company negotiates individual fees with each commercial and institutional customer based on the waste quantity and frequency of collection. The payment rate is reported as being low: Only about 50% of the households pay the collection fee, whereas roughly 90% of the commercial enterprises and institutions pay the fee regularly (Lohri et al, 2014). Of all revenues from waste collection service payments, 86% come from residential and commercial areas and around 13% from institutions. This challenge will



need to be addressed in order to generate resources to meet the Operational Expenditures (OPEX) costs.

As reported in Annexures 4 and 5 through evidence gathered during the field trip, the revenue collected for solid waste management covers between 3% and 20% (with one case of 54%) of the cost of the service. In Addis Ababa Residential houses pay 20% of their water bills while Commercial houses pay 42.5% 12of their water bills for garbage collection as pointed out in the power point presentation of Addis Ababa beautification and cleansing agency. According to the rapid WTP study for 8 Small/Medium Towns Sanitation Master Plan study under the One WASH Plus initiative, the willingness to pay varies from 15-25 Birr/month for garbage collection and disposal.

It would therefore appear that, as for faecal sludge services, ability and willingness to pay for

SWM fall very much short of actual costs. A case may need to be made for subsidy from Regional

Government subsidies. However, again as for faecal sludge services, there is obviously a clear

and urgent case for improvement in service efficiency, lowering of costs and for aggressive

awareness, behaviour change and service promotion campaigns so that consumers are fully

aware of the cost benefits of improved solid waste management services.

12The percentages are considered to be acceptable by the beautification and cleansing agency since water consumption by most households is about 20 l/c/d in most cases and corresponding water tariff is about 2 Birr/m3 in Addis Ababa.



7 Finance

7.1 Financial overview

The Government of Ethiopia has set out its goals in the Growth and Transformation Plan 2011-2015 (GTP), which identifies water and sanitation as priority areas for achieving sustainable growth and poverty reduction (FDR Ethiopia, 2013). In line with the GTP in 2006, the Ethiopian government developed the Universal Access Plan in order to achieve 100% sanitation coverage and 98% water coverage. However, in 2011, the national access to water supply was 52.1% and to sanitation was 63% which leaves a significant gap between actual coverage and intended coverage of water and sanitation (FDR Ethiopia, 2013). The public investment required was estimated at US $297 million per year for ten years (2006-2015) (WSP, 2011). During the 2005-2006 budget year, only 61% of the available budget was utilised for water and sanitation. Factors contributing to under utilisation include lack of personnel, delay in release of funds, absence of effective mechanisms to manage finances, local contractors with poor technical skills for construction, and lack of materials (Chang, Svoronos & Lesh, 2012). The capacity of local water desks to utilize water budget is limited which results in consistent underutilization of funds. A similar study by CARE (2007) highlight that only 42% of the capital water budget has been utilised in Benishangul-Gumuz region with the unused budget claimed back by Federal Government. Factors contributing to low utilisation of finance in Benshangul-Gumuz region include lack of personnel, delay in the release of funds, absence of effective mechanisms to manage the finance, weak capacity of local contractors, and a lack of spare parts and other materials (CARE, 2007). This possibly explains why the ambitious targets of the UAP have not been met. The Ethiopian WASH sector has been underfunded. In 2001, the sector received US$ 65 million from all sources (Tearfund, 2005). The US$ 65 million is insufficient to address even the anticipated population growth let alone make a dent into the existing gap in provision. Another challenge with the sanitation sector is the assumption that the households can afford and will be willing to invest in capital expenditures (CAPEX) for toilet units. A combination of lack of willingness and affordability would potentially limit the scale up of improved sanitation. There would need to be targeted campaigning and investment to ensure that households are engaged and willing to build toilets. The AMCOW Country Status (CSO) (WSP, 2011) cost estimates highlight the need for strong public and donor investment in the water sector. For the sanitation sector the deficit in funding is higher. Around US$ 18 million per year is budgeted by the Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR), now the Ministry for Water, Irrigation and Energy (MOWIE) for rehabilitation and expansion of the sewerage network in Addis Ababa. However the cost recovery strategy of this funding is not clear. Table 14 below highlights the CAPEX and OPEX required to improve coverage of water and sanitation in order to meet the ambitious targets set out in UAP.

Table 4: CAPEX and OPEX requirements to meet UAP



Capex required

Anticipated Public Capex Assumed HH Capex

Deficit1 OPEX

Total Public Domestic External Total

Rural Water Supply 117 105 46 68 114 13 - 16

Urban Water Supply 143 64 3 46 49 60 34 66

Water Supply Total 260 169 49 114 163 73 24 82

Rural Sanitation 692 0 7 23 30 692 - 68

Urban Sanitation 102 0 19 0 19 102 - 36

Sanitation Total 795 0 26 23 49 795 - 104

1 Deficit = Total Capex required – Total anticipated public Capex – Assumed HH Capex

Source: CSO costings in USD million (WSP, 2011)

The operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for both water and sanitation are relatively high compared to CAPEX. The a risk that if those costs are not recovered from households is that it could place further burden on the public sector and sectoral donors.

7.2 Sufficiency of funds

Field visits to ten towns plus Addis Ababa in Ethiopia highlighted the paucity of funds for the O&M of existing solid waste management systems and water supply systems for towns in the south. The recovery rates for solid waste management systems are particularly low. Field visits and subsequent analysis by the team demonstrate that the current mechanised sludge waste services are unaffordable especially if regulation on sealed cesspits is applied. A study of WASH finance in Ethiopia by Tearfund (2005) highlights the inadequacy of WASH funding. For example, if USD 65 million is invested into WASH to cover a population of over 70 million this implies a spending of USD 1 per capita for the sector. Added to this challenge the rate of recovery is very low with water users paying 0.2% of the CAPEX and widespread subsidies required for the sanitation (Tearfund 2005). With high population growth rates, particularly around Addis Ababa, it would be difficult to keep up with population growth let alone address the gap in provision of WASH services.

The Ethiopian Government take US$ 19 per capita in revenue from taxation and other sources, which does not meet the required investment of providing WASH services for US$ 25–35 per capita in rural areas, US$ 60–80 per capita in urban, on top of all other priorities such as health, education and debt servicing (Tearfund, 2015). Hence it is not possible for the government to fund WASH programmes without donor support. The donor support forms a large proportion of funding but is still significantly lower than support received by countries such as Ghana and



Burkino Faso as a large proportion of donor funding in Ethiopia is diverted to emergency funding and food schemes.

7.3 Sources of finance

A World Bank study (EU, 2006) shows that the sector finance is dominated by donor funding (92% during 2006) with a decline in contribution from public funding. Currently donor and public sector finance are the two key sources of funding for sanitation. Donor funding: The key donors are the World Bank, the African Development Bank and the Department for International Development (DFID). Donor funding to the water and sanitation sector has increased in the recent years due to increased political attention given to the sector. One of the key challenges noted around sanitation financing has been the allocation of funds down to the local governments (EU, 2006) and under utilisation of donor funds thereby increasing the deficit for sanitation financing. Table 5: Donor funding sources (WSP, 2011)

Funds earmarked either for

WASH or projects

World Bank USD 200 million

African Development Bank USD 62.5 million

UNICEF USD 36 million

DFID USD 100 million

European Development Bank Euro 36 million

Government of Finland Euro 15 million

Japan International Cooperation Agency USD 13.8 million

France USD 20 million

The World Bank used to finance urban water supply and sanitation (WSSP) through sectoral projects in Ethiopia, with Mekele as one of the beneficiary secondary cities. Traditionally WSSP projects required 10-15 percent matching fund from the regions which became problematic as the Woredas found it difficult to raise the requisite match funds (Water Aid, 2008). This is no



longer the case as the One Wash National Programme (OWNP) now streamlines funding and eliminates the need for match funds.

Public sector funding: As a result of decentralization of power, block grants from the Federal government come to Woredas/Towns through the regional Bureaus of Finance and Economic Development (BoFEDs) (Water Aid, 2008). The Woredas/Towns then autonomously decide how allocate the grants. These ‘on budget grant amounts are determined by a formula determined by the Federal Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED), BoFEDs and Woreda finance offices. Subsidies for building household latrines are not provided at the woreda level, except in specific situations where village/Kebele leaders identify abject poverty, extreme physical disability or adverse local ground conditions confirmed by health extension workers. For such cases, the woreda council establishes a “discretionary” Improved Hygiene and Sanitation (IHS) fund, with eligibility criteria for receiving subsidies.

7.4 Flow of finance to Woredas/Towns

There are two main channels of financial flows to Woredas/Towns (WaterAid, 2008):

The first channel is ‘on-budget’ and ‘on-treasury’ and is managed by the Federal Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED), Regional Bureau of Finance and Economic Development (BoFEDs) and by Woreda/Town finances offices (ToFED). Allocation to Woredas/Towns by regions are made on the basis of sector unit costs and development indicators including population, mean revenue, school age population, number of teachers, number of health workers, costs of living, number of livestock and farming households, total area and size of urban population. In theory, the Woreda has the power to decide on allocation of funds from the block grant, however, most of the grant is absorbed by OPEX and salaries rather than CAPEX investment.

The second channel of funding is direct and ‘off-budget’ typically through NGO funds. Those funds are usually invested in capital expenditure.

In order to address the gap in CAPEX investment at Woreda level, the ‘Local Investment Grant (LIG)’ has been set up by World Bank and the Government of Ethiopia. The LIG is to be used only for capital investment and is available to any woredas and/or municipal administrations (Thomson, 2007).

Similarly, the Urban Development Fund (UDF), based on an agreement between the Governments of Ethiopia and Germany, is another funding mechanism. The overall goal of the UDF is to contribute to improved service delivery and infrastructure provision. The UDF co-finances improved municipal service delivery (e.g. investment in solid waste management), as well as investment in sanitation, drainage and public water standpipes.



7.5 One Wash National Program (OWNP)

In order to address challenges around financial flows and improve utilisation of budgets the ‘One WASH National Program (OWNP)’ operationalizes the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and the WASH Implementation Framework (WIF) signed by the Ministries of Water and Energy, Health, Education and Finance and Economic Development in 2012. The OWNP is now considered to be the main instrument for achieving the ambitious WASH targets set out in the Universal Access Plan (UAP) (Federal Democratic Republic Ethiopia (FDR), 2013). Under the OWNP the preferred funding flow will be through the Consolidated WASH Account (CWA) which will be administered by Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED). Loans will be provided to Town Water Boards through the Water Resources Development Fund (WRDF) which manages the loan component of donor funding (FDR Ethiopia, 2013).

Grant funding will be transferred to Oromiya Bureau of Finance and Economic Development (BOFED) who in turn will transfer the funding to Zonal, Regional and Town Finance Offices (FDR Ethiopia, 2013).

Figure 17: Grant funding structure of the One WASH National Programme

About 22% of the funding is in the form of loans which can be channelled into intersectoral WASH activities and water supply investment. The allocation of funding will need to align with the City Council’s Annual WASH plan and budget. OWNP has four key components covering rural sanitation, urban sanitation, institutional framework and capacity building aiming to raise 2.41 billion USD out of which USD 1.63 has been earmarked. Table 16 highlights the sources of funding for the program: Acronyms need to be explained

Table 6: Funding Sources for Phase 1, OWNP (FDR Ethiopia, 2013)

Donor

MoFED CWA

BoFED

ZoFED ToFED WoFED

WRDF

Town Water Boards



Source USD million %

Grant 214 13.1%

Loan 350 21.4%

Government 858 52.5%

NGOs 80.4 9%

Communities 131 8%

Total 1,633

Required Finance 2,411

Available Finance 1,633 68%

Funding Gap 778 32%

Key donors participating in this program include AfDB, DFID, UNICEF and the WB. Donor commitment is a total of US$ 807 out of which USD 564 will be disbursed in 2015. The World Bank has indicated that an overall US$ 202 million is available for ongoing projects as well US$ 150 million of new financing, potentially making it the largest donor. From the new financing, USD 52.5 million is planned to be disbursed up to 2015 (FDR Ethiopia, 2013). DFID’s commitment up to 2018 is GBP 106 million, from which GBP 14.5 million will be channelled through UNICEF (FDR Ethiopia, 2013). See the table 17 below for further details on donor commitments for OWNP. Table 7: Funding Commitments for Phase 1, OWNP (FDR Ethiopia, 2013)

Source Indicated Commitment US$ million

2013-2015 Grant Loan

AfDB 90 36 20 16

World Bank 150 52.5 13 39

UWSSP 180 7.5 173

WSSP 22 22

DFID 160 44 44



Italian Cooperation 24 20 3.9 16

AFD (France) 33 25 25

Finland 22 22

UNICEF 100 50 50

JICA 84 10 10

Emergency WASH 30 10 10

Netherlands 5 3 3

China (Soft loan) 100 60 60

EU 32 30 15 15

Total 807 564 214 350



8 HUMAN CAPACITY

8.1 Skills base

Human Capacity in terms of overall management, study, design, site selection and regulation of landfill sites, sludge drying beds and waste water treatment plants is limited. The few available experts are spread out into various institutions (municipality, health office, water utility, FMHACA, MoEF, etc.) and cannot shoulder the ever-growing responsibility of solid and liquid waste management.

The situation calls for lead agencies that will handle the provision and regulation of services. There is a clear argument to be made for sharing limited expertise between large towns and cities (where skills are concentrated) and the under-resourced medium and small towns where skills are extremely limited.

The HEWs who are assigned to carry out promotional activities have a knowledge gap on solid waste and liquid waste management in urban settings and they are not expected to engage in such activities. They need to be assisted by well-trained environmental health experts and sanitary engineers. Tigray region has started assigning junior environmental health experts at Health Centers level. The regulatory sections of health offices also require relevant professionals and junior level experts trained in solid and liquid waste management.

As shown in the typical municipality structure for sanitation, as there is no distinct full-fledged dedicated sanitation team, sanitation has to share resources with greenery & beautification team as well as abattoirs offices making solid waste and liquid waste management less prioritized, posing major challenge to municipalities.

Figure 18 Typical Municipality Organogram Showing Sanitation Sections



Furthermore, the fact that microenterprises are not using gloves, masks and goggles, due to low awareness and lack of facilities, is also an issue to be resolved.

In a situation where water utilities are providing desludging services, the situation is similar. The few available experts are stretched with water shortage issues and maintenance of frequently breaking vacuum trucks.

The awareness level of the vacuum truck operators is very low. The team has observed operators not using gloves, masks and goggles at one of the Addis Ababa transfer stations.

8.2 Disciplinary and professional mix

In as much as the issue of urban sanitation is very much fragmented, falling under the domain of a number of offices, a single institution/agency which is solely responsible for the sector is yet to be created. Similarly, the different offices that have a stake in urban sanitation only maintain certain groups of professionals relevant to the mandates of their respective sectors. The disciplines of solid and liquid waste management should be professionally, organizationally, and financially separate based on recently issued proclamations and directives. A sustainable institutional framework requires engineers, environmental health officers, local officials, technicians, professional labourers, etc., if effective and efficient Waste Management system is to be put in place.

A typical municipality structure for sanitation is as follows:

Municipal Service Manager

Infrasturcture Coordinating

Work Process

Land Administration, Design & Construction Permit WP

Sanitation, Beautification

& Abbatoir Service WP

Vital statstics &

Social Services

WP

Housing Devt &

Administration WP

Human Resource

Administration WP

Legal ServiceMunicipal Service Manager Office

Greenery

Team

Abattoirs

Service

Sanitation

Team



The strategy might need to identify an agency that would take the lead at national level and oversee the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of activities related to Urban Sanitation. The agency will also need to focus on capacity building, i.e. not just training but also development of systems and capacities of similar service providers at the different categories of towns in sanitation. The government’s action to engage Small Scale Micro-Enterprises in Solid Waste Management as part of Job Creation scheme is also very timely for the sector to take off. In order to enable the micro-enterprises to deliver effective services, they need to be given training on such matters as safe collection, transportation and disposal of SW in a manner that does not compromise their health and safety. Of course, the required funds need to generated or provided to enable this to happen.



9 SOCIAL INCLUSIVITY

9.1 Gender

Women in relation to urban sanitation provision face numerous challenges. As the primary-care givers, they carry the responsibilities of household health and the burden of managing family members that are differently-abled. For instance, in the household survey conducted by JSI, females in 87% of households manage the handling of solid waste. Despite women’s primary role, the traditional family structure in Ethiopian society is patriarchal. As the primary-income earners, men control the financial decisions for how household wealth is allocated.

Women’s economic powerlessness in being able to prioritize household investments that can yield higher returns on household health outcomes has been noted by the Ethiopian government. Significant job-creation opportunities for youth and women have been sponsored by the national government by providing training to assist in the establishment of micro-enterprises. This strategy has been effective in creating income-generating opportunities for women that have begun to create a flurry of activity in relation to public latrine management, waste management and beautification. In all towns visited by the WSUP team, women are active in managing the maintenance of public latrines, street sweeping and primary solid waste collection.

Unfortunately, these waste management and waste collection activities have very poor price structures and are rarely regulated, resulting in women carrying out activities that are rarely cost-reflective and often pose occupational-health risks. The IUSHS strategy will need to build on the existing foundations by looking at more effective cost structures for the sanitation services being provided by women as small entrepreneurs as well as identify simple yet enforceable measures to ensure their occupational-health risks re reduced. For instance, female school-leavers are being given opportunities to form their own micro-enterprises and this existing practice could be tailored to the range of services offered within the urban sanitation chain.

A brief scan of the water and sanitation policy documents emerging from the Ethiopian Government over the past ten years reveals a growing concern to have gender mainstreamed. However, limited analysis of partner capacity or existing gender focused activities has been undertaken either by the GoE or other partners.

9.2 Social Inclusion

In trying to put in place a strategy that can reach universal coverage, the IUSHS will need to take into consideration the situation and needs of low-income people. Poverty, marginalization and social inclusion are inextricably intertwined. This means that the IUSHS will need to address exclusion from urban sanitation and hygiene as it relates to wider inequalities in power relations and in control over resources within the family, community and at institutional levels. Those who are particularly likely to be disadvantaged in Ethiopia include women, children, differently-



abled people, older people, people living with chronic illness, including HIV/AIDS and people living in remote and/or peripheral areas (Tesfu 2012). Marginalised people often suffer material deprivation and are excluded from information, services, programmes and policies. People who are marginalized are therefore often not consulted and have little control over decisions that affect them.

In Ethiopia, according to the 2007 Census, people with disability, though widely believed to be an underestimation, make up 1.09% of the population and is largely made up of people with visual impairment (30%) followed by non-functional limbs (27.4%). Trachoma is a significant contributor to blindness in Ethiopia and is largely due to lack of water, sanitation and poor hygiene practices.

The secondary role of women in Ethiopian society also contributes to gender disparities in HIV/AIDS infection rates. A 2008 UN-Habitat report on Ethiopia found that approximately 4.4% of the population was estimated to live with the disease (13% urban) with real life expectancy standing at 48 years. The same report claims that young urban women are three times more likely to contract HIV than urban young men and that women constitute 56% of all infections. Women are more vulnerable through lack of ability to decide on sexual matters, through awareness of decisions to use protection, or even through poor access to treatment once infected. The lack of access to sanitation facilities for people living with HIV-AIDS is an issue that the IUSHS should explicitly address given the silence on this topic (UN-Habitat 2008: 22).

The main barriers to access for differently-abled disabilities in Ethiopia are related to:

Lack of water (quantity or facilities or both) in nearly all public, community, health, school

and institutional facilities;

Physical infrastructure, such as steps, narrow entrances, slippery floors for water and

sanitation services;

Institutional, such as lack of policies/strategies, knowledge, skills, information, appropriate

designs and consultation mechanisms; and

Social environment such as prejudice, pity, isolation, overprotection, stigma, misinformation

and shame of the family. For instance, people living with HIV/AIDS often face stigmas when

accessing shared facilities and have little recourse to legal provisions when facing such

discrimination.

9.3 Pastoralists

Particular challenges affecting residents of geographically remote areas, such as pastoralists, have to do with historical, political, economic and socio-cultural marginalization combined with complex natural calamities such as drought, flood, disease and conflicts over scarce resources. The particular problems facing pastoralists include lack of appropriate livestock development and marketing, lack of roads, and communication infrastructure, low levels of education and poor levels of public health and veterinary services both for human and livestock, as well as lack



of access to financial services. For instance, the enrolment ratio for primary education in the Afar region was 31.5% compared to the national average of 94.2% (Education Statistics Annual Abstract, 2008/09).

In relation to water and sanitation services, due to their distance from main population centres, patterns of movement, invisibility to policy makers, pastoralists remain underserved. Basic water and sanitation services are designed for settled populations and are not adapted to pastoralists’ needs and requirements. The pastoralist town of Gwane in the Afar region was illustrative of this trend. With a population of just over 10,000 people, the town had no “government” or governance in place to ensure basic services were available to its population. The town’s water supply had ceased to function since over 10 months, forcing women to fetch water 30 km away at great costs. The town had no formal liquid or solid waste management systems in place other than primary collection to an open waste dump.

To sum up, the Water Investment Framework (2011) has begun to address social inclusion in tandem with the government’s increasing awareness about the need to start paying attention to the specific needs of marginalized groups, as briefly outlined above. This has led to a move away from the assumptions that as soon as basic water, sanitation and hygiene services are provided, that everyone in the immediate vicinity is using these services. Policy making starts from awareness at different levels and the issue of social inclusivity has now become a common agenda item. As a consequence, more organizations are starting to work together towards a common social inclusivity agenda in their WASH work and similarly, disability organizations are starting to include WASH in their objectives. The legislation banning civil society from engaging in any advocacy activity has indeed been a constraint to the core business of many non-governmental organizations. Nevertheless, differently-abled and WASH-related organizations are beginning to find cause for optimism in the growing level of state responsiveness to social inclusivity.



10 REFERENCES

A. Bogale and B. Urgessa. (2012). “Households’ Willingness to Pay for Improved Rural Water Service Provision: Application of Contingent Valuation Method in Eastern Ethiopia”, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

AAWSA (2002) Wastewater Masterplan. Volume 1 Executive Summary. Addis Ababa City Administration. (???). “Solid Waste Management Study”, Institutional Aspect.

Addis Ababa City Administration (2010), Overview of Addis Ababa City Solid Waste Management System Addis Continental Institute of Public Health. (2014). “Situational Analysis of Urban Sanitation and Waste Management”. Commissioned for John Snow, Inc. (JSI) Addis Ababa water and sewerage Authority. (2011). “SEWERAGE COLLECTION AND AVOIDANCE

FIVE YEARS ROAD MAP”, ROAD MAP, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Addis Ababa Water & Sewerage Authority. (2014). “DESIGN OF EXTERNAL WASTE WATER DISPOSAL SYSTEM AT ASKO SHEKLA CONDOMINIUM”, Design Report, Sewer Network System Monitoring & Control Case Team.

Addis Ababa water and sewerage Authority. (2011). “ADDIS ABABA CITY SEWERAGE COLLECTION AND AVOIDANCE FIVE YEARS ROAD MAP”, (ROAD MAP).

Addis Ababa Condominium House Data.

Alemayehu T et al. (2006) Degree of groundwater vulnerability to pollution in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. IN: Groundwater Pollution in Africa (eds. Yu X & Usher B). UNEP/Earthprint. Alana Potter with Amah Klutse, Mekala Snehalatha, Charles Batchelor, André Uandela, Arjen Naafs, Catarina Fonseca and Patrick Moriarty. (2011). “Assessing sanitation service levels”, Working Paper 3 Second Edition.

Alebel. Bayrau. “Affordability and Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Supply in Urban Areas of Ethiopia”.

An AMCOW Country Status Overview “Water Supply and Sanitation in Ethiopia”, Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond Government of Ethiopia.

Andrea Castro, Moumié Maoulidi and MCI. (2009). “A WATER AND SANITATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR MEKELLE CITY, ETHIOPIA”, MCI SOCIAL SECTOR WORKING PAPER SERIES N° 7/2009. , United States.

Article 55 (1) of the Consitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (2010). “Food, Medicine and Health Care Administration and Control Proclamation No. 661/2009”, Federal Negarit Gazeta.

Arto. Suominen. (2012). “Community-Led Accelerated WaSH in Ethiopia”, COWASH.

AWMERDB(2014) Maksegnit Town SMP,Part 1: Situation Analysis and Minimum Package Brinkhoff T (2010) City Population.

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council. (2007). “Municipal Waste Management

Strategy”.

Brian H. Roberts. (2014). “Managing Systems of Secondary Cities, Cities Alliance/UNOPS”, Brussels.

(CAF and ICF International, 2012)

CAF and ICF International. 2012. Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2011. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and Calverton, Maryland, USA: Central Statistical Agency and ICF International.

CARE (2007), Report of review findings – Sultan Wereda, Oromia Region, Ethiopia.

CCRDA - Water and Sanitation Forum. (2009). “ANNUAL JOINT CSOs REPORT ON WATER, SANITATION and HYGIENE (WaSH)”, Report for the 2009/10 Financial Year. CDC(2013), Fact Sheet




Chang, A., Svoronos, T., Lesh, N. (2012) The use of a microgrant for water and sanitation, Social Medicine,Volume 7, Number 1, December 2012

CSA (2005) Welfare Monitoring Survey 2004 Vol 2. Statistical Report on Indicators for Living standards, Accessibility, Household Assets, Food Security and HIV/AIDS. Central Statistical Authority, Addis Ababa. Céline Kauffmann and Edouard Pérard. (2007). “Stocktaking of the water and sanitation sector and private sector involvement in selected African countries”, Background note for the Regional Roundtable on Strengthening Investment Climate Assessment and Reform in NEPAD Countries, Lusaka, Zambia. (Check this ref.)

Central Statistical Agency. (2011). “Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey”, Preliminary Report, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Central Statistical Agency. (2011). “Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey”, ICF International, Claverton, Maryland, USA.

Central Statistical Agency [Ethiopia]. 2014. Ethiopia Mini Demographic and Health Survey 2014. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Chattisgarth Urban Sanitation Strategy. (2010).

Christian Riuji Lohri, Ephraim Joseph Camenzind, Christian Zurbrügg. (???). “Financial sustainability in municipal solid waste management – Costs and revenues in Bahir Dar, Ethiopia”.

Cities & Citizens Series. (???). “Urban Inequities Report: Addis Ababa”, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

CITY GOVERNMENT OF ADDIS ABABA ADDIS ABABA WATER AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, (2011). “AAWSA – Business Plan 2011 – 2020”, FINAL REPORT, Addis Ababa.

CITY GOVERNMENT OF ADDIS ABABA, Housing Construction Project Office, Bole Bulbula Housing Projects. (2013). “Final Design Report FOR SEWERAGE SYSTEM”.

Community Development Research. (2011). “Ethiopia Solid Waste & Landfill’, Country Profile and Action Plan.

Council of Ministers pursuant to Article 5 of the Definition of Powers and Duties of the Executive Organs of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Proclamation No. 691/2010 and Article 55 (1) of the Food, Medicine and Health Care Administration and Control Proclamation No. 661/2009. (2014). “Food, Medicine and Health Care Administration and Control Council of Ministers Regulation No. 299/2013”, Federal Negarit Gazeta.

Dagnew Hagos, Alemu Mekonnen, and Zenebe Gebreegziabher. (2012). Households’ Willingness to Pay for Improved Urban Waste Management in Mekelle City, Ethiopia”, Environment for Development Discussion Paper Series.

DYNAMIC PLANNERS PLC. 2012. “WASTEWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN REPORT”, Addis Ababa

ECOUPIA Environment Consultant (2012). “Market-Led Solid Waste Management Study For Bishoftu City”, Nishoftu City Administration, Oromia National Regional State. Egziabher AG (1994) Urban Farming, Cooperatives, and the Urban Poor in Addis Ababa. IN: Egziabher AG et al. (eds.) Cities Feeding People: An Examination of Urban Agriculture in East Africa. IDRC. Ethiopian Food, Medicine and Healthcare Administration and Control Authority. (2005). “Healthcare Waste Management Directive”, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ethiopian Food, Medicine and Healthcare Administration and Control Authority pursuant to Article 55 (3) of the Food, Medicine and Healthcare Administration and Control Proclamation No 66/2009. (2012). “Directive on Administrative Measure Taking and Complaint Handling”, Number 8/2012.

Ethiopian Water Supply and Sanitation Project (EWSSP)”, case study in Benishangul-Gumuz regional state. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.



EU Water Initiative (November 2006) Financing Strategy for the Water Supply and Sanitation sector, Ethiopia, Executive Report, Final.

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Health. (2010). “Health Sector Development Program IV In line with GTP 2010/11 -2014/15”.

Federal Democratic Republic Of Ethiopia, MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION. (2014). “Ethiopian Cities Prosperity Initiative”, Building Green, Resilient and Well Governed Cities, 2013/14-2025, Addis Ababa

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (2011). “Ethiopia’s Climate-Resilient Green Economy”, Green economy strategy, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (2013), ONE WASH NATIONAL PROGRAM - A Multi-Sectoral SWAp, Program Document, Final August 2013

FMOH. (2013) Sanitation and Hygiene Strategic Action plan (SAP) final edited version FMOH. (2009) , Health and Health Related Indicators FMOH. (2013) , Health and Health Related Indicators FMOH. (2013/14),HSDP IV Woreda Based Health Sector Annual Core Plan FMOH. (2014),Mini Demographic Health Statistics (DHS) Fitsum Tsegaye. (2007). “Assessment of Management options for domestic solid waste”, Case study of French Legasion Area, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

FRIENDS CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS PLC. (2013). “FINAL DESIGN REPORT”, DESIGN STUDY OF EXTERNAL WATER SUPPLY & STORM WATER SYSTEM FOR TULU DIMTU SITE, ADDIS ABABA.

FRIENDS CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS PLC. (2013). “WASTEWATER COLLECTION & TREATMENT SYSTEM”, ADDIS ABABA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICE (AAHDPO), ADDIS ABABA

G.Abdi(2011), Potential Of Constructed Wetland System For Domestic Wastewater Treatment In Ethiopia (PCWSDWTE) Gebre G (2009), Urban water pollution and irrigated vegetable farming in Addis Ababa. 34th WEDC International Conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2009. Gill, S., Hayes, J. Coates, S. (2012). “Diarroea Dialogues: From Policies to Progress” commissioned by Path and tearfund.

Getnet Alemu, David Thomas. (2009). “Financing in the water, sanitation and hygiene (WaSH) sector in Ethiopia: Evidence from Benishangul-Gumuz regional state”, Synthesis Paper from the Finance theme: Financing in the water, sanitation and hygiene (WaSH) sector in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ghrmawit Haile & Will Davies. (2009). “WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND MULTI SECTORAL APPROACHES Sustainable financing for the water and sanitation sector in Ethiopia”, 34th WEDC International Conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Girma. Aboma. (2009). “Ethiopia Effective financing of local governments to provide water and sanitation services”, A WaterAid report, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Global Health Leadership Institute: 2012) Need the full reference on this.

Government of Tripura Urban Development Department. “Tripura urban Sanitation Strategy”, Draft.

Government of Ethiopia. 1993. Health Policy of the Transitional Government of Ethiopia. Government of Ethiopia.

Available from : www.cmpethiopia.org/media/health_policy_of_ethiopia_1993.

Holding Company for Water and Wastewater. (2008). “Egypt National Rural Sanitation Strategy”, Final Document, Cairo, Egypt.

http://www.wedc-knowledge.org/wedcopac/opacreq.dll/fullnf?Search_link=AAAA:9122:68922909



Hutton G, Haller L & Bartram J (2007) Economic and health effects of increasing coverage of low cost household drinking-water supply and sanitation interventions to countries off-track to meet MDG target 10. Geneva, Switzerland, World Health Organization.

Hywas Engineering Consultants. (???).Addis Ababa Housing Development Project Sanitary Design for New Sites” , Detail Sanitary Design.

Hywas Engineering Consultants. 2011. “Final Design Report”, DESIGN OF EXTERNAL WATER SUPPLY & WASTE WATER DISPOSAL SYSTEM AT GELAN-III SITE, Ethiopia.

HEPCAPS1 Series Paper #1, September 2012). MK please put full reference

Hywas Engineering Consultants. (???) “Water Supply and Sanitation Development & Rehabilitation Akaki Catchment Wastewater Treatment, Project office & Sewerage System Design.

Hywas Engineering Consultants. (???). “SEWER SYSTEM AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS DETAIL DESIGN REPORT FOR AKAKI CATCHMENT WASTEWATER PROJECT”.

Hywas Engineering Consultants. (???). FINAL SEWER & WWTP DETAIL DESIGN REPORT.

Hywas Engineering Consultants. (???). “FINAL EIA PEPORT”, Water Supply and Sanitation Development & Rehabilitation Akaki Catchment Wastewater Treatment Project office & Sewerage System Design

Hywas Engineering Consultants. (2010). “Final Report “, Use of Reclaimed Water for Small Scale Irrigation.

Hywas Engineering Consultants. (???). “Socio Economic Report”, Water Supply and Sanitation Development & Rehabilitation Akaki Catchment Wastewater Treatment Project office & Sewerage System Design

International Environmental Law Research Centre. (2010). “Bihar Urban Sanitation Strategy”, Draft. Bihar.

International Environmental Law Research Centre. (2011). “Odisha Urban Sanitation Strategy”, Housing & Urban Development Department, Government of Odisha.

ITALTREND, in Consortium with IAK, SOPEX, ADAS, HYDRO R&D, and MacAlister-Elliott & Partners.

(2009). “Namibia National Sanitation Strategy 2010/11 – 2014/15”, SECOND DRAFT, Namibia.

ITAL TREND, in Consortium with IAK, SOPEX, ADAS, HYDRO R&D, and MacAlister-Elliott & Partners. (2009). “Development of a Five-Year National Strategy for Sanitation in Nambia”, Second Draft, Namibia.

Jessica Hagen-Zanker, Anna McCord. (2011). “The affordability of Social protection in the light of international spending commitments”, Financing Social Protection in LIC’s – Finding the Common Ground.

John. J. Boland. (???). “Water Tariff Design Developing Countries”, Disadvantages of Increasing Block Tariffs (IBTs) and Advantages of Uniform Price with Rebate (UPR) Designs. USA

Ketema Consulting Engineers. (2012). “External Sanitary Design for Meskel Entrance & Basha Wolde”, Final Sanitary Design Report, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ketema Consulting Engineers. (2012). “EXTERNAL WATER SUPPLY, WASTE WATER DISPOSAL AND STORM WATER DESIGN”, Final Sanitary Design Report, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

LG & RD Department NAs. (2008). “Northern Areas Sanitation Strategy.

Lohri, C. R., Camenzind E.J., Zurbrügg, C, (2014) Financial sustainability in municipal solid waste management – and revenues in Bahir Dar, Ethiopia, Waste Management 34 (2014) 542–552

Mahider Tesfu. (2012). “Equity and Inclusion Approach Paper- A contextualized version from the Global Equity and Inclusion framework”.

Mahider Tesfu, Priscilla Magrath. (2007). “Water and sanitation access for people with motor disabilities”.



McPhail, A., (1993), “The Five Percent Rule” for Improved Water Service: Can Households Afford More?, World Development, Vol. 21(6), pp.963-973.

Medhin Fissha. (2008). “Household Demand for Improved Water Service in Urban Areas: The Case of in Urban Areas: The Case of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia”, Lusaka, Zambia.

MDG. (2014). “Assessing Progress in Africa toward the Millennium Development Goals”, Analysis of the Common African Position on the post-2015 Development Agenda, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Meera Mehta, Thomas Fugelsnes & Kameel Virjee. (2005). “Financing the Millennium Development Goals for Water and Sanitation: What Will it Take?”, International Journal of Water Resources Development, 21:2, 239-252.

Meike van Ginneken, Ulrik Netterstrom, and Anthony Bennett. (2011). “More, Better, or Different Spending? Trends in Public Expenditure on Water and Sanitation in Sub-Saharan Africa”, Water Papers, USA

Ministry of Urban Development and Construction. (2011). “Urban Wastewater Plan Manual”, First Draft, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION. (2014). “Ethiopian Cities Prosperity Initiative: Building Green, Resilient and Well Governed Cities, 2013/14-2025”, Draft, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ministry of Urban Development Government of India. (???). “National Urban Sanitation Policy”, Government of India.

Ministry of Urban Development and Construction Urban Planning, Sanitation and Beautification Bureau. (2012). “Solid Waste Management Manual: With Respect to Urban Plans, Sanitary Landfill Sites and Solid Waste Management Planning”, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ministry of Urban Development and Construction Urban Planning, Sanitation and Beautification Bureau (UPSBB). (2012). “ Urban Wastewater Plan Manual”, Final Draft, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ministry of Urban Development and Construction - Urban Planning, Sanitation and Beautification Bureau. (2012). “STRUCTURE PLAN MANUAL”, Revised Version, Addis Ababa.

MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION - Urban Planning, Sanitation and Beautification Bureau. (2012). “STRUCTURE PLAN MANUAL”, Revised Version, Addis Ababa.

MINISTRY OF WATER AND ENERGY. (2011). “URBAN SANITATION UNIVERSAL ACCESS PLAN, PART IV, Addis Ababa.

MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. (2006). HANDBOOK OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING”, India.

Minilik Wube and Epherem Alemu, Bureau of Water Resources. Abera Endeshaw, RiPPLE. Girmaw Nemera, Bureau of Finance and Economic Development. (2009). “Matching funds allocation in the

MS CONSULTANCY. (2008). “Environmental Impact Assessment Report”, Design Review of Trunk, Secondary and Lateral Sewers, and Wastewater Treatment Plant for Eastern Part of Addis Ababa (LOT-2), Volume II.

MS Consultancy. (???). “Sewerage System Final Design Report”, Lot-2, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

MS Consultancy. (???). “Final Design Report”, Water and Sanitation Development and Rehabilitation Project Sewerage System

Eastern Catchments/ Addis Ababa / Ethiopia.

MS Consultancy. (???). “SEIA Report”, Water and Sanitation Development and Rehabilitation Project Sewerage System Eastern Catchments/ Addis Ababa / Ethiopia.

MS Consultancy. (???). “Section IX. Bill of Quantities for Civil Works”.

MS Consultancy. (???). “Technical Specification for Civil works”.

MS Consultancy. (???). “Section X. Security Forms”.

MS Consultancy. (???). “Section I. Instructions to Bidders (ITB)”.



MS Consultancy. (???). “Section IV. Forms of Bid, Qualification Information, Letter of Acceptance, and Agreement”.

Morrison Hershfield International Inc. (2014). “Kaliti Sewage Catchment Area UPDATE OF THE 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN”, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Myles F. Elledge and Marcella Mc CLatchey. (2013). “India, Urban Sanitation, and the Toilet Challenge”, Research Brief. India.

MoFA. 1997. Environemnt Policy of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Available: http://www.mfa.gov.et/docs/ENVIRONMENT%20POLICY%20OF%20ETHIOPIA.pdf.

MoFED. 2010a. Growth and Transformation Plan. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. Available: www.et.one.un.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=87&Itemid=494.

MoFED. 2010b. Ethiopia: 2010 MDGs Report: Trends and Prospects for Meeting MDGs by 2015. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Ministry of Finance and Economic Development.

MoUD. 2008. Available: http://moud.gov.in/nusppolicy.

MOUDHC (2014), PPP, Municipal Solid Waste Management Practices and Challenges in Ethiopia

MoUDHC(2014) RWA-Ethiopia-Urban_SWM_Standards-Part _1 and Part_2-FINAL_20140226.pdf MoWEI(2011), National WaSH Inventory (NWI) MoWEI(2011) Universal Access Plan (UAP), parts 2,3 &4 MoWEI (2013), One WaSH National Program (OWNP) National Business Initiative. (2006). “Overview of Municipal Service Delivery Mechanisms”, South Africa.

OWERDB(2014), Wolenchiti,Abomsa & Sheno Towns SMP,Part 1: Situation Analysis and Minimum Package OWNP. 2014. One WaSH National Program: Program Operational Manual for the Consolitdated WaSH Accounts. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.

PLANET Integrated Water Resources Development PLC. (2013). “DESIGN O F EXTERNAL WATER SUPPLY, WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM AND STORM WATER DESIGN AT KILINTO SITE”, Final Design Report”, Addis Ababa.

Population Affairs Coordination Sub process Finance and Economic Development Bureau. (2009). “ADDIS ABABA POPULATION IMAGES”.

PowerPoint Presentation. (2010). “Overview of Addis Ababa City Solid Waste Management System”, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Saleamlak Fentaw Getahun. (2013). “Households’ Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Supply Services in Mekelle City, Northern Ethiopia”, A Thesis, Mekelle City, Northern Ethiopia.

Sandec: Department of Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries. (???).”Sandec Training Tool 1.0 – Module 5”, Faecal Sludge Management (FSM), Switzerland.

Sangeeta Chowdhry, Doulaye Kone. (2012). “Business Analysis of Fecal Sludge Management: Emptying and Transportation Services in Africa and Asia”, Draft Final Report, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Sanitation and Water for All. “Ethiopia Briefing: Economic Impact Of Water And Sanitation”.

Samual Shimelis Teka. (2006). “Commercial Solid Waste Generation and Composition Analysis”, Arada Subcity, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

SileshiTaye. (2014). “Urban Sanitation in One WASH”, National WASH Multi-Stakeholder Forum6.

Sileshi Taye. (2008). “Proceeding of the 2nd Annual Review Workshop on Healthy Citities Programme”, Assella Town.

Small Town Water Supply and Sanitation. (2002). “Small Towns, Special Challenge 26617”, International Conference on Water Supply and Sanitation for Small Towns and Multi-Village Schemes, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.



Sophie Trémolet, Martina Rama. (2012). “Tracking national financial flows into sanitation, hygiene and drinking-water”, Working paper. Switzerland.

Srilaxmi. Shanmugham and Solomon BekeleTekle. (2011). “An assessment on the status of water supply and sanitation in Ethiopia: A CASE OF AMBO TOWN”, Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa. Clarion University of Pennsylvania, Clarion, Pennsylvania.

Svein Ege, Harald Aspen, Birhanu Teferra and Shiferaw Bekele, Trondheim. (2009). Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of Ethiopian Studies”, Urban Challenges in Addis Ababa.

Tearfund. (2005). “Financing water, sanitation and hygiene in Ethiopia”, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for all.

T. Getahun, E. Mengistie, A. Haddis, F. Wasie, E. Alemayehu, D. Dadi, T. Van Gerven, B. Van der Bruggen. (2011). “Municipal solid waste generation in growing urban areas in Africa”, Current practices and relation to socioeconomic factor, Jimma, Ethiopia.

The Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME), Department of Human Settlements (DHS), Department of Water Affairs (DWA), the Department of Cooperative Governance

(DCoG), National Treasury (NT). (2012). “The quality of sanitation in South Africa”, Report on the Status of sanitation services in South Africa, South Africa.

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Environment Protection Authority. (2003). “Guideline Series Documents for Reviewing Environmental Impact Study Reports”, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. (2010). “Growth and Transformation Plan”, 2010/11 – 2014/15, Volume II Policy Matrix, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (2014). “Program Operational Manual(POM) for the Consolidated WASH Account’s”, Final.

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Health. (2008). “Strategic plan for Ethiopia Health Sector”, HMIS Reform Team.

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Health. (2010). “Health Sector Development Program IV”, 2010/11 – 2014/15, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Health. (2011). “National Strategic Action Plan for Improved Hygiene and Sanitation”, Final, Ethiopia.

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Industry. (2014). “ESMF for Bole Lemi II and proposed Kilinto Industrial Zones Competitiveness and Job Creation Project”, Draft report. Ethiopia.

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Water and Energy. (2011). “Urban Sanitation Universal Access Plan’, Part IV, Addis Ababa.

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (2011). “National WaSH Implementation Framework”, Summary, Ethiopia.

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Water Resources. (2001).”Ethiopia Water Sector Strategy.

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Urban Development, Housing and Construction. (2014). “Municipal Solid Waste Management Practices and Challenges in Ethiopia”.

The Federal Negarit Gazeta of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (2002). “Environmental Protection organs Establishment proclamation No. 295/2002”, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

The Federal Negarit Gazeta of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (2002). “Environmental Pollution control Proclamation No. 300/200”, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

The Federal Negarit Gazeta of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (2010). “Food, Medicine and Health Care Administration and Control Proclamation No. 661/2009”, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.



The Federal Negarit Gazeta of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (2014). “Food, Medicine and Health Care Administration and Control Council of Ministers Regulation No. 299/2013”, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Health. (2011). “National Hygiene & Sanitation Strategic Action Plan for Rural, Per-Urban & Informal Settlements in Ethiopia”, Final 2011-2015, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

The Federal Negarit Gazeta of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (2007). “Solid Waste Management Proclamation No. 513/2007”, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Water and Energy. (2011). “Urban Sanitation Universal Access Plan (USANUAP), Part IV, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Health. (2013). “National Sanitation Marketing Guideline”, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (2014). “Draft Report on GTP II Indicators”, GROWTH AND TRANSFORMATION PLAN (GTP II) (2015/2016 - 2019/2020), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Thurza. Sullivan. (2012). “Pre-reading for Disability Inclusiveness Workshop”, Nairobi.

Transitional Government of Ethiopia. (1993). “Health Policy”, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

The South African Human Rights Commission. (2014). “Report on the Right to Access Sufficient Water and Decent Sanitation in South Africa”, Water is Life. Sanitation is Dignity: Accountability to People who are Poor, South Africa.

UNEP/GRID-Arendal (2002), Water availability in Africa. UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library. UNICEF Ethiopia. (2013). “DFID One WASH PLUSProposal”, 2013-2018.

UNICEF. (2013). “The Quarter Million Intiative”, DFID One WASH Proposal.

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). (2014). “STRUCTURAL TRANSFORMATION IN ETHIOPIA: THE URBAN DIMENSION”, Building ‘Economically Productive, Socially Inclusive, Environmentally Sustainable & Well Governed’ Cities, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

United Nations Human Settlements Programme. (2011). “Gender mainstreaming Impact Study”, Water and Sanitation Trust Fund Impact Study Series, Nairobi, KENya

UN-Habitat (2008). “Ethiopia Urban Profile”, pp 1-36.

UN-Habitat (2005) Situation Analysis of Informal Settlements in Addis Ababa.

United Nations Human Settlements Programme. (2014). “STRUCTURAL TRANSFORMATION IN ETHIOPIA: THE URBAN DIMENSION”, Building Economically Productive, Socially Inclusive, Environmentally Sustainable & Well Governed, Cities, Nairobi, KENYA

United States Agency for International Development/Ethiopia, Catholic Relief Services/Ethiopia. (2003). “GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL-SCALE

RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION PROJECTS IN ETHIOPIA”, A Policy and

Planning Framework for Activities Funded by USAID under the Title II (Food for Peace)

Program, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Urban Development and services Practice 1 (AFTU1). (2014). “Ethiopia Urbanization Review”, Making Cities Efficient and Sustainable.

Van Rooijen D & Taddesse G (2009), Urban sanitation and wastewater treatment in Addis Ababa in the Awash Basin, Ethiopia. 34th WEDC International Conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2009. Virginia Consultants. (2013). “Bole- Bulbula Housing Project: External Sanitary Works”, Final Design Report, Housing Construction Project Office, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Vivien Foster, Elvira Morella. (2011). “Ethiopia’s Infrastructure a Continental Perspective”, Policy Research Working Paper 5595, The World Bank Africa Region, Sustainable Development Department.



Vodounhessi, Anselme (2006) “Ghana - Financial and institutional challenges to make faecal sludge management an integrated part of the ecological sanitation approach”, in Snel, Mariëlle and Smet, Jo, The Value of Environmental Sanitation – Case studies. Occasional paper series 42. IRC International Water and Sanitation Agency, the Netherlands.

WASH. 2005. National and Regional WASH access for 2003, 2004 and 2005 biannual. ONE Wash Program.

WaSH. 2011. National WaSH Implementation Framework. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: ONE WaSH Program.

WaSH. 2014. One WaSH National Program: Program Operational Manual for the Consolitdated WaSH Accounts. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

WaterAid. (2007). “Guidance manual”, Our water, our waste, our town Supporting civil society to engage in urban water and sanitation reforms, Marco Betti.

WaterAid. (2010). “Small town water and sanitation delivery, Taking a wider view”

WaterAid. (2011). “Urban framework”, WaterAid, London.

WaterAid. (???). “Equal access for all?”, Briefing note No.6, Ethiopia.

WaterAid (2008), Effective financing of local governments to provide water and sanitation services, Ethiopia.

WaterAid. 2012). “Equity and Inclusion Approach Paper-A contextualized version from the Global Equity and Inclusion framework”, Tesfu, M. WaterAid. (2007) “Water and Sanitation access for people with motor disabilities”, Tesfu, M. and Magrath, R.

Wilbur J. (2010). “Principles and practices for inclusion of disabled people in access to safe sanitation”, A case study from Ethiopia, WaterAid Briefing note, UK.

Worku G & Adam A (1999) Wastewater Management in Addis Ababa. 25th WEDC International Conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2009. World Bank. (2011). “The Political economy of Sanitation: How can we increase investment and improve service for the poor?”, operational experiences from case studies in Brazil, india, indonesia, and Senegal.

World Bank. (2012). “PROJECT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT”, SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM THE THREE CITIES SANITATION PROJECT (CREDIT 3211).

World Bank. (2013). “Tapping the Market: Opportunities for Domestic Investments in Sanitation for the Poor”, World Bank Water and Sanitation Program and International Finance Corporation, USA.

World Bank. 2014. “Ethiopia Urbanization Review: Making Cities Efficient and Sustainable” draft, May. Report no. XXXX-ET.

WSP (2011), Water Supply and Sanitation in Ethiopia, Turning Finance into Services for 2015

and Beyond, AMCOW country status report, World Bank administered Water and

Sanitation Program (WSP) in collaboration with the African Development Bank (AfDB), the United Nations Children’sFund (UNICEF), the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO).

WSSCC (2005) Financing water, sanitation and hygiene in Ethiopia. WSSCC (2009), Sanitation Sector Status and Gap Analysis Ethiopia Z&A P. ANTONAROPOULOS & ASSOCIATES S.A. and TROPICS CONSULTING ENGINEERS PLC. (2013). “FINAL INCEPTION REPORT”, CONSULTANCY SERVICE FOR DESIGN & STUDY OF DECENTRALIZED WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT, ETHIOPIA.



Annexure 1: Comparison of Water supply Access (NWI 2011 versus UAP 2011)

0102030405060708090

100

Tigray

Amhara

Oromiya

BenishangulGumz

Gambela

Addis

Ababa

Access to Drinking waterRural

53.93 46.04 41.64 37.3 44.66

Access to Drinking waterUrban

71.71 74.25 71.6 16.29 79.69 96.16

Access to Latrine FacilitiesRural + Urban

57.84 47.53 45.11 36.78 46.44 96.16

% A

cce

ss

Access to Drinking water (2011 NWI)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Som

ali

Gam

ble

lla

Dir

e D

awa

Tigr

ai

Afa

r

Ben

ish

angu

l

Am

har

a

SNN

PR

Ad

dis

Ab

aba

Oro

mya

Har

ari

Access to Drinking Water (Administrative Report -Source UAP part III,2011)

people with Access(2011) people without Access(2011)



Annexure 2: Comparison of Sanitation Access (NWI 2011 versus health development indicators report 2011)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Sanitation Access By Region 2011 Source , Health and health related

Indicators(Extrapolated)

% Access 2011 % OD

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tigray

Amhara

Oromiya

BenishangulGumz

SNNP

Gambela

Harar

Addis

Access to LatrineFacilitiesRural

53.87 63.2 50.63 57.22 75.39 29.17

Access to LatrineFacilitiesUrban

80.6 74.96 67.2 100 95.05 73.09 53.5 92.34

Access to LatrineFacilitiesRural + Urban

59.75 63.82 52.55 58.88 76.39 36.84 53.5 92.34

% A

cces

s

Access to Latrines by Region(2011NWI)



Annexure 3: Technical Features of JWBO Constructed Wetland

According to Birhanu Genet Fenta’s thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of the Addis Ababa University in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Environmental Science in November 2007 a case study was undertaken on JWBO constructed wetland for assessing the potential of cultivated wetland in Ethiopia.

Figure 1: Sketch Map Of JWBO Wetland, Treatment Unit and Plant Species Planted And Sampling Sites For the Case Study

The result showed that the average percentage removal efficiency of JWBO wetland system was: 99.3% (BOD5), 89% (COD), 85% (TSS), 28.1% (NH4 +-N), 64% (NO3-N), 61.5% (TN), 28% (orthophosphate), 22.7% (TP), 77.3% (Sulfate), 99% (Sulfide), 94.5% (TC) and 93.1% (FC). These showed that the treatment performance of JWBO CW was low for ammonium nitrogen, and phosphorus. This was mainly due to the low HRT of the wetland. Since then, the compiler of this discussion note has got the chance of witnessing the introduction of chlorination, aeration and storage for reuse by the branch office in line with the recommendation of the case study. The additional treatment has now kept the outlying ammonium nitrogen, coliform bacteria and orthophosphate levels within the National

Reuse for

watering the

compound lawn

and Trees

Toilets Ground Plus four Office and

Residence Building



Environmental Quality Standard for domestic wastewater effluent (EEPA, 2003) making the final effluent safe for reuse(watering the garden with sprinkler system).

It could therefore be fairly concluded that the case study and the actions taken thereafter by the branch office has showed the effectiveness of constructed wetlands in fulfilling the regulatory limit values of not only discharging the effluent to surface and inland water bodies but to reuse the effluent for watering the lawn, ornamental trees and flowers in the compound. The case study indicated the SSF wetlands treatment system can effectively treat wastewaters under the favorable climatic condition of Ethiopia that allow the growth of different wetland plant species with high uptake of nutrients from the waste.

Recommendations for scaling up the use of Constructed wetlands

i. For effective wastewater treatment performance, constructed wetlands should consist of a minimum of two to three cells in series and all the cells should be planted with different plant species within the system that will increase the root biomass. The more the cells the better depending on cost effective design.

ii. The case study has indicated that constructed wetland treatment systems can effectively treat domestic wastewater. But different wetland plant species selection and management techniques that create the largest rhizosphere surface area per volume of bed and bed design (optimal depth, HRT and media type) should be explored with further research by the sanitation sector and higher learning institutes.

iii. The significant phosphorus and nitrogen removal will require a long detention time in the wetland system. The longer the wastewater remains in the wetland, the greater the chance of sedimentation, biotic processing and retention of nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients. Consequently, the wetland should be designed according to the objective of the system (removal of nitrogen and phosphorus with more HRT). Alternatively it could be checked how the planting of bamboos13 which are good in nitrogen and phosphorous uptake can improve the effluent qualities.

iv. In a situation where the effluent concentration values of ammonium and coliform bacteria are above the discharge limits set by National Environmental Quality Standard for domestic wastewater effluent, additional effluent treatment options such as liming, chlorination, combination of SSF with SF constructed wetland system are required as demonstrated on the JWBO constructed wetland.

v. Efforts for investigating the effectiveness of constructed wetlands for treating various types of wastewaters shall be scaled up. It is highly recommended that future action researches shall incorporate all issues of wetland in order to maximize benefits from constructed wetlands.

13Teshamulwa Okioga,appraisal report of the Addis Ababa Ecological Sanitation and Market Based product development Pilot Project, RELMA-in-ICRAF, 2006



Annexure 4: WaSH Statistics of Five Northern cities

Town Wukro Mekele Bahir Dar Maksegnit Gondar

Population 40,000 340,000 312,000 27,559 270,000according to Water utility. 219,790 city plus satellites = 315.958

Sub-cities 9 13

Households 8,365 43,000 44,000 9,000 51,304

Satellite towns and villages

3 9 12

Water supply

Number of connections 28,786 including 44 public fountains

900 hh connections, 14 institutional, 4 religious

Current supply m3/day 634 27,000m3 29,000m3stated by utility

162.36m3 10,000m3

NRW estimated 25% 27-38% 25-30%

Current demand m3/day including NRW

2,500 53,000 NA

Current available water supply including NRW (UFW), commercial, construction, etc. M3/day

1,400 33,000 7% of demand

18,533 m3

Rationing - days per week available

3 – 4 3 5 1 5

Rationing - hours per day available

8 - 10 8 10 4 8

Utility tariff 4-5 Birr/m3 with

step tariff

2.9 – 8.2 Birr/m3 stepped tariff>25m3/month

5 Birr/m3. 0.2 B/20l = 10 Birr/m3 at standposts and Handpumps (split 50/50

between vendor and utility




Vendor tariff 150 Birr/m3 50 B/m3 charged to neighbours by hh with metered connection

Revenue as %age of O&M costs

100 100% plus 50% of investment

costs

100% in 2014 100% plus surplus for capital

Solid waste

Operators 1 private with 143 employees and

7 trucks. 5 micro-enterprise with

300 employees and 4 municipal trucks

4 micro-enterprise with 216 members

Transfer stations 3 in each of 9 sub-cities

SWM expenditure per year

1,200,000 Birr 15,000,000 Birr 7,200,000 Birr

SWM Fee per HH per year

12-14 Birr 96 Birr

For all HHs = 109,000 Birr 500,000 Birr 4,224,000 Birr

Town coverage %age 100 100 95 100

Revenue as %age of expenditure

9% 3 54 NA 16,454 unimproved

Sanitation

Open defecation %age NA NA 44 10

Pit latrine %age 100 60 56(or 78%?) NA

Utilisation 95%

Households with improved pit latrines

20% 8,166

Flush to lined pit (sealed of leaky) or septic tank

- 40 assumed - 6




and soak away %age

Number of communal toilet (around 100p served)

20 under construction

46 2 Charge 50c per visit

2,537 pits 1,359 improved pits

757flush type

Number of public toilets 3 NA 6 and 4 under construction

1 8 6 with showers

Sewerage %age - Nil NA

Sludge production 85,680 m3/month

Number of vacuum trucks

1 2 Municipal 14 Private

4 Municipality 3 Private

Served from Gondar

2 (1 working)

Vacuum charge per m3 in Birr

Free Birr 60/m3 Birr 400 Municipality Birr 600 Private

NA Birr 400/8m3

Disposal charge at drying beds in Birr

Free No fee NA Birr 30

HEP hh graduates 19,089 graduated 3,871 reverted

2,154 re-graduted



Annexure 5: Five Southern Cities and Addis Ababa

Town Awassa Halaba Gewane Adama Bishooftuu Addis Ababa

Population 420,000 37,689 10,298 350,000 167 064 3,500,000

Satellite towns and villages 4 4 4

Water supply

Current supply m3/day 14832 1517 111 19280 9,324 270000

Current demand m3/day including NRW 26250 2817 442 28000 12480 670000

Current available water supply including NRW (UFW), commercial. construction, etc. M3/day

19282 1972 144 25064 12,121 350000

Rationing - days per week available 5 5 1 4 5 3

Rationing - hours per day available 12hours 12hours 8hours 12 hours 20 hrs for 5 days per week

12 hours

Revenue as %age of O&M costs 95% 80% 90% 95% 120% 97%

Solid waste

Town coverage %age 70% 60% 30% 70% 70-75% >75%

Revenue as %age of expenditure 15% 10% None(Collection & disposal by

communities)

20% 20% 30%

Sanitation

Open defecation %age 10% 30% 87% 9% 28% 10%

Pit latrine %age 90% 70% 13% 91% 72% 90%

Flush to lined pit (sealed of leaky) or septic tank and soak away %age

Number of communal toilet (around 100p served) 18

Number of public toilets ~5 5 2 20 15 30

Sewerage %age 0 0 0 0 0 7%

Number of vacuum trucks 6 (4 public, 2 private)

None None 9 2 (private) 100



Town Awassa Halaba Gewane Adama Bishooftuu Addis Ababa

Vacuum charge per m3 in Birr 150 None 50 70 17.6

Disposal charge at drying beds in Birr 173 Birr/trip None 4Birr per trip



Annexure 6: Sanitation SWOT Analysis

Strengths

i. Recognition that weaknesses in Sanitation exist that threaten successful implementation

ii. Demonstrated institutional attempts to strengthen Sanitation by FMoH, MoWEI, MoUDH, Town administrations etc.

iii. Stated institutional will for improvement from FMOH, MoWEI, MoUDH, development partners, etc.

iv. Availability of a number of universities with a high potential of providing training in sanitation at graduate and postgraduate levels

v. Availabilities of TVETCs (???) and HSCs (???) that can provide training at Junior sanitation professionals level

vi. The launching of UHEP along with community sensitization through HDA

vii. The roll out of sanitation Marketing viii. The start of organic waste sorting and composting

in some towns like Bahir Dar and Bishoftu ix. The practice of primary solid waste collection by

micro enterprises in many towns and the start of secondary solid waste collection and disposal by big enterprises in large towns and Addis Ababa

x. The practice of involving private companies in desludging wherever the companies feel this can be profitable

xi. The preparation Solid waste Standards and Manual by MoUDHC

xii. The start of constructing appropriate sanitary landfill sites with leachate containment etc. (in four

Weaknesses

i. UHEP potentials not fully utilized in towns due to limitations in logistics, budget, etc.

ii. Low awareness on principles and benefits of sanitation at all levels leading to low resource allocation

iii. Data Limitation and Inconsistency iv. Lack of trained and skilled human power with required

professional mix (Sanitary Engineers, Environmental sanitation experts, etc.)

v. Lack of Equipment, tools, machineries, etc. along with corresponding supply chain required for solid and liquid waste management

vi. Weak coordination and Integration vii. Fragmented institutional roles and responsibilities

viii. Technology limitation (common types of latrines being constructed do not allow composting and biogas generation)

ix. Sanitation Marketing is at infant stage and is not in a position to help communities climb up the sanitation ladder

x. Poor health care waste management (incineration at a low temperature in health centers and hospitals is contributing to air pollution )

xi. Poor Urban drainage leading to siltation and pollution of lakes, rivers and dams

xii. >90% of latrines are unlined drop and store type seeping into nearby drains and streams

xiii. Facilities for differently abled are almost non existent xiv. Menstrual hygiene management is limited to small scale

demonstration in a few schools xv. Close to nonexistent sewerage and sewerage treatment

systems ( as an exception, a system that covers 3-7% of Addis Ababa’s population and a system with 40,000 persons



towns i.e. Adigrat, Bishouftu, Dilla and Diredawa)

equivalent exist in Gondar) xvi. Poor siting and management of waste dumping sites

xvii. No segregation of waste at household level xviii. No cost recovery in SWM and LWM due to poor value chain in

SWM and LWM xix. Lack of performance standards and regulation xx. Poor industrial waste management

Threats

i. A lot of competing sectors like road & building construction, industrialization, etc.

ii. Limitation in land availability iii. Ever-increasing high disease burden (URTI, diarrhea,

etc.) iv. Poor personal protective equipment (PPE) v. Difficulty with securing firm leadership at highest

federal and regional levels in a situation where there are numerous priorities and routines

vi. Poor M&E system vii. Poor regulation system

Opportunities

i. The ongoing Urban Health Extension program ii. Reconstruction of towns iii. The job creation mentality and program of the country iv. The clean and green city vision v. The effort for moving towards middle income country by 2025