69918 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Water Supply and Sanitation in Rwanda Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond The first round of Country Status Overviews (CSO1) published in 2006 benchmarked the preparedness of sectors of 16 countries in Africa to meet the WSS MDGs based on their medium-term spending plans and a set of ‘success factors’ selected from regional experience. Combined with a process of national stakeholder consultation, this prompted countries to ask whether they had those ‘success factors’ in place and, if not, whether they should put them in place. The second round of Country Status Overviews (CSO2) has built on both the method and the process developed in CSO1. The ‘success factors’ have been supplemented with additional factors drawn from country and regional analysis to develop the CSO2 scorecard. Together these reflect the essential steps, functions and results in translating finance into services through government systems—in line with Paris Principles for aid effectiveness. The data and summary assessments have been drawn from local data sources and compared with internationally reported data, and, wherever possible, the assessments have been subject to broad-based consultations with lead government agencies and country sector stakeholders, including donor institutions. This second set of 32 Country Status Overviews (CSO2) on water supply and sanitation was commissioned by the African Ministers’ Council on Water (AMCOW). Development of the CSO2 was led by the World Bank administered Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) in collaboration with the African Development Bank (AfDB), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO). This report was produced in collaboration with the Government of Rwanda and other stakeholders during 2009/10. Some sources cited may be informal documents that are not readily available. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this volume do not necessarily reflect the views of the collaborating institutions, their Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The collaborating institutions do not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the collaborating institutions concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The material in this publication is copyrighted. Requests for permission to reproduce portions of it should be sent to wsp@worldbank.org. The collaborating institutions encourage the dissemination of this work and will normally grant permission promptly. For more information, please visit www.amcow.net or www.wsp.org. Front and inside back cover photograph credits: Getty Images Inside photograph: Courtesy of Living Water International (www.water.cc) © 2011 Water and Sanitation Program Water Supply and Sanitation in Rwanda: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond An AMCOW Country Status Overview Water Supply and Sanitation in Rwanda Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 1 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Strategic Overview Rwanda has made good progress in extending water supply sanitation subsectors on-site technologies predominate: and sanitation coverage during the past few years, under household contributions to capital investment are clear political commitment to three complementary sets of consequently expected to be high, to be supported by targets: the Economic Development and Poverty Reduction limited public subvention and large-scale promotion and Strategy (2012), Millennium Development Goals (2015), education campaigns. and Vision 2020. In previous years a third of capital investments have been The institutional framework has been reinforced by the financed from domestic sources: this proportion is expected recently updated National Policy and Strategy for Water and to increase annually in the medium term. However, the true Sanitation Services (2010), addressing all four subsectors. extent of available funding in the years to come remains The Ministry of Infrastructure leads coordination of unclear. Annual Public Expenditure Reviews have improved stakeholders in the water supply subsectors, sharing this public financial management, but without an agreed sector role with the Health Ministry in the case of sanitation. investment plan, the sector does not yet have a clear view There are nonetheless outstanding challenges, regarding of financing for the 2012–15 period. planning and budgeting, monitoring and evaluation, as well as capacity building at lower levels of government The enabling environment for service delivery, although following decentralization. guided by sound policy tools, would benefit from strengthened planning and budgeting instruments, linked Rwanda is closing the gap on its targets, but is unlikely to a fully operational monitoring and evaluation system. to attain the required coverage levels by 2015 without an Transparency and governance in expenditure and output increase in financing. The coverage trend over the past 10 provide a strong basis for project implementation, among years for rural water supply demonstrates the country’s central agencies as well as districts. capacity for developing new projects; while for sanitation the enabling environment and capacity for service Sustainability has become a rising concern with development will need to be strengthened further in the decentralization. The rural water supply subsector has medium term. After several years spent on fundamental switched from a community management model, to one sector reforms, implementation in the urban subsectors of public-private partnership. Nearly 30 percent of rural requires attention. For the newly launched public utility, water schemes are already managed by private operators Energy, Water, and Sanitation Authority (EWSA), the main and the Economic and Poverty Reduction Strategy aims for planning and budgeting challenge will be to stay ahead of 50 percent by 2012. There is thus potential for attracting rapid urban growth. private investment in the medium term, although public finance for rehabilitation is urgently required, To meet the national targets for 2015 would require an as an estimated 30 percent of infrastructure is still in additional 425,000 people to gain access to improved poor shape. water supply, and nearly half-a-million to gain access to improved sanitation, each year. Comparing estimates of Benchmarking confirms that the service delivery pathways required capital investment with what is anticipated to be in Rwanda are in good shape for turning finance into available from government, donors, and households, there services in the rural subsectors but that urban water supply is an annual financing gap of at least US$27 million per and sanitation need greater attention. year. Households’ capacity for sharing the costs of water supply capital investments is limited, and the strategy views This second AMCOW Country Status Overview (CSO2) has their main contribution as being towards operations and been produced in collaboration with the Government of maintenance costs, through water fees and tariffs. In the Rwanda and other stakeholders. 2 Water Supply and Sanitation in Rwanda: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond Agreed priority actions to tackle these challenges, and ensure finance is effectively turned into services, are: Sectorwide • Build districts’ capacity in terms of the quantity and skills of staff, to the level required to attain sector targets. • Develop a sector investment plan to guide the balance of investment to each of the subsectors, as urban water supply and sanitation are currently significantly underfunded relative to requirements. • Utilize modern communication technologies (for example, a user-friendly website), to promote a standard and ‘official’ set of figures and performance assessments. Rural water supply • Encourage donors to join harmonized procedures and to pool funding for rural water supply. • Publish a national inventory for RWS, including access rates and strategic ratios. • Develop technical assistance support for private operators of rural schemes. • Closely monitor O&M performance by RWS operators, to ensure long-term sustainability of water services. Urban water supply • Undertake reform and revise tariff to improve operational performance and ensure financial viability of urban water services under the newly established EWSA. • Update water supply master plan for Kigali taking into account urban growth and projected settlement patterns. • Promote investment in urban water supply to expand production capacity and expand and rationalize distribution network. • Develop pro-poor programs to serve low-income households including improved management of public kiosks and social connections. Rural sanitation and hygiene • Establish district-level surveys of access and need, to better monitor equity. • Carry out research into appropriate technologies, aiming at a large-scale transition from traditional to hygienic latrines at affordable cost to households. • Encourage all projects to follow sector policy on user contributions. Urban sanitation and hygiene • Develop an action plan for Kigali, adapted to Millennium Development Goal targets, and based on on-site sanitation for the medium term in line with sanitation master plan. • Develop private sector involvement in both hygiene promotion and on-site sanitation (latrine equipment, cheaper septic tanks, emptying trucks, and safe dumping sites). • Improve coordination between MVK (that is, Kigali Town Municipality) and the new utility, Rwanda Water and Sewerage Corporation. 3 An AMCOW Country Status Overview 4 Water Supply and Sanitation in Rwanda: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond Contents ........................................................................................................................... 6 Acronyms and Abbreviations. 1. .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction. 2. ............................................................................................... 8 Sector Overview: Coverage and Finance Trends. 3. ......................................................................................... 11 Reform Context: Introducing the CSO2 Scorecard. 4. Institutional Framework................................................................................................................................. 13 5. .................................................................................................................. 15 Financing and its Implementation. 6. Sector Monitoring and Evaluation.................................................................................................................. 17 7. Subsector: Rural Water Supply....................................................................................................................... 19 8. ..................................................................................................................... 21 Subsector: Urban Water Supply. 9. Subsector: Rural Sanitation and Hygiene........................................................................................................ 23 10. ...................................................................................................... 26 Subsector: Urban Sanitation and Hygiene. Notes and References.................................................................................................................................... 28 5 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Acronyms and Abbreviations AfDB African Development Bank MININFRA Ministry of Infrastructure AMCOW African Ministers’ Council on Water MINISANTE Ministry of Health CAPEX Capital expenditure MVK Kigali Town Municipality (Municipalité de CSO2 Country Status Overviews (second round) la Ville de Kigali) ECOSAN Ecological sanitation NGO Nongovernmental organization EDPRS Economic Development and Poverty O&M Operations and maintenance Reduction Strategy OPEX Operations expenditure EWSA Energy, Water, and Sanitation Authority PER Public Expenditure Reviews EU European Union PHAST Participatory hygiene and sanitation GDP Gross domestic product transformation GNI Gross national income PPP Public-private partnership GoR Government of Rwanda REMA Rwanda Environmental Management HAMS School Hygiene and Sanitation (Hygiène et Agency Assainissement en Milieu Scolaire) RSH Rural sanitation and hygiene HH Household RURA Rwanda Utility Regulatory Agency IDA International Development Association RWASCO Rwanda Water and Sewerage Corporation (World Bank) RWS Rural water supply JMP Joint Monitoring Programme (UNICEF/ SWAp Sector-Wide Approach WHO) UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund LIC Low income country USH Urban sanitation and hygiene M&E Monitoring and evaluation UWS Urban water supply MDG Millennium Development Goal VIP Ventilated improved pit (latrine) MINALOC Ministry of Local Government WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene MINECOFIN Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning WHO World Health Organization MINEDUC Ministry of Education WSP Water and Sanitation Program Exchange rate: US$1 = RWF 583.1 6 Water Supply and Sanitation in Rwanda: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 1. Introduction The African Ministers’ Council on Water (AMCOW) commissioned the production of a second round of Country Status Overviews (CSOs) to better understand what underpins progress in water supply and sanitation and what its member governments can do to accelerate that progress across countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).2 AMCOW delegated this task to the World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Program and the African Development Bank who are implementing it in close partnership with UNICEF and WHO in over 30 countries across SSA. This CSO2 report has been produced in collaboration with the Government of Rwanda and other stakeholders during 2009/10. The analysis aims to help countries assess their own service delivery pathways for turning finance into water supply and sanitation services in each of four subsectors: rural and urban water supply, and rural and urban sanitation and hygiene. The CSO2 analysis has three main components: a review of past coverage; a costing model to assess the adequacy of future investments; and a scorecard which allows diagnosis of particular bottlenecks along the service delivery pathway. The CSO2’s contribution is to answer not only whether past trends and future finance are sufficient to meet sector targets, but what specific issues need to be addressed to ensure finance is effectively turned into accelerated coverage in water supply and sanitation. In this spirit, specific priority actions have been identified through consultation. A synthesis report, available separately, presents best practice and shared learning to help realize these priority actions. 7 An AMCOW Country Status Overview 2. Sector Overview: Coverage and Finance Trends Coverage: Assessing Past Progress The government’s estimates and targets are derived from national infrastructure surveys, published since 1992.3 From baseline coverage rates of 64 percent for improved They provide estimates of the population served relative to water supply and 29 percent for improved sanitation in 1990, installed facilities, assuming a certain number are served Rwanda has made progress over the past decade, leaving by each facility (‘provider data’). The CSO2 also compares a relatively modest gap to reach the government’s 2015 countries’ own estimates of coverage with data from the targets (Figure 1). According to government data, improved UNICEF/WHO Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP).4 Unlike water supply coverage fell to 39 percent following the government estimates, JMP data is based on household genocide period, since which coverage has increased yearly surveys (‘user data’). by 2.3 percent, reaching 72 percent in 2009. The sanitation subsector also shows sustained progress reaching 45 percent For water supply, the JMP estimates that coverage decreased in 2009 but there is no government or other estimate for from 68 percent in 1990 to 65 percent in 2008, while sanitation coverage following the genocide. sanitation coverage increased from 23 percent to 54 percent. The JMP trendline for water supply does not, however, Rwanda has its own 2015 targets: an 85 percent coverage capture the drop in services following the genocide, as rate for water supply and a 65 percent coverage rate for there were no household surveys between 1992 and 1998. sanitation. These are aligned with the 2012 Economic Based on an extrapolation of the later JMP data the water Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EDPRS) targets supply MDG target (JMP version) may be missed by as much (80 percent for water supply and 47 percent for sanitation) as 20 percentage points (Figure 1). For sanitation, the JMP and those of Vision 2020 (100 percent for both water supply trendline indicates progress needs to be sustained at past and sanitation). There is a slight difference between the levels to achieve the MDG target (JMP version). Figure 1 also Millennium Development Goal (MDG) targets as derived reveals slight differences in the 1990 baselines used by JMP from JMP data (which remain the ‘official MDG’ targets at and government (3 percent for water supply and 6 percent the international level) and the national targets, which the for sanitation), as well as in the 2015 targets: for water Government of Rwanda also refers to as MDG targets. supply, 84 percent for the JMP MDG vs. 85 percent for the Figure 1 Progress in water supply and sanitation coverage Water supply Sanitation 100% 100% 80% 80% Coverage Coverage 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Government estimates Government target Government estimates Government target JMP estimates MDG target (‘JMP version’) JMP estimates MDG target Sources: JMP 2010 Report and MININFRA. 8 Water Supply and Sanitation in Rwanda: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond government target; for sanitation, 62 percent for the JMP subsectors (the current projections suggest the deficit is MDG vs. 65 percent for the government target.5 larger for rural water supply). Investment Requirements: Testing the Achieving improved sanitation access for just under half- Sufficiency of Finance a-million people a year to meet the national target is estimated to require annual capital investments of US$38 An estimate of the investment required to meet the million per year (Figure 2 and Table 1). Users are expected national 2015 targets was developed using the CSO2 to bear around 70 percent of costs in rural and urban areas costing model, using data on coverage, technology mix, (on-site sanitation remaining dominant for the period), unit costs, and other variables gathered in 2009, (due to but this will require sufficient inputs from government the need for shared baselines and benchmarking across and donors to leverage household funds. With US$9 more than 30 participating countries). The CSO2 costing million per year anticipated in public sanitation capital model allows estimated capital investment requirements investments (US$8 million of which is for rural sanitation), to be compared with anticipated public investment, and a US$9 million per year deficit remains, mainly in the the assumed contribution from households (Figure 2).6 urban sanitation subsector. Given the rapid population Investment requirements for operations and maintenance growth of the capital Kigali—expected to grow to over a (OPEX) are assessed separately (Table 2). Input data million people by 2015—there is likely to be demand for and the costing results were validated by a Ministry of more sophisticated and expensive sanitation technology Infrastructure (MININFRA) task force. options, including sewerage with implications for higher CAPEX requirements. The financing requirement based on national targets shows that expanding coverage of improved water supply The above figures are based on Government of Rwanda to 0.425 million people per year7 will require an estimated coverage data, and their version of the MDG targets for annual capital investment (CAPEX) of US$54 million 2015. If the costing is repeated using coverage and MDG (Figure 2 and Table 1). Of this US$2 million per year is targets derived from the JMP 2010 Report, the investment expected to be contributed by households (5 percent requirement would be around 17 percent higher for water contribution in rural areas; no user contribution in urban supply, and 20 percent lower for sanitation (2 percent areas), leveraged by the US$34 million per year anticipated more overall). This is due more to differences in estimates in public investment (domestic and donor). This leaves a of current coverage between the government and JMP, funding gap of US$18 million per year, even assuming that than differences in their versions of the MDG targets, funds can be allocated optimally between rural and urban which are slight (see Figure 1). Figure 2 Required vs. anticipated (public) and assumed (household) expenditure Water supply Sanitation Required CAPEX Required CAPEX Required Required OPEX OPEX 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 US$ million/year US$ million/year Public CAPEX (anticipated) Public CAPEX (anticipated) Household CAPEX (assumed) Household CAPEX (assumed) CAPEX deficit CAPEX deficit Source: CSO2 costing. 9 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Table 1 Coverage and investment figures8 Coverage Target Population CAPEX Anticipated Assumed Total requiring requirements public CAPEX HH deficit access CAPEX 1990 2009 2015 Total Public Domestic External Total % ‘000/year US$ million/year Rural water supply 62% 72% 85% 330 42 40 12 18 30 2 11 Urban water supply 93% 76% 85% 94 12 12 1 3 4 0 8 Water supply total 65% 72% 85% 425 54 52 13 21 34 2 18 Rural sanitation 29% 44% 65% 405 28 8 2 6 8 18 3 Urban sanitation 38% 54% 65% 85 10 3 1 0 1 2 6 Sanitation total 29% 45% 65% 490 38 11 3 6 9 20 9 Sources: MININFRA, JMP 2010 Report, and CSO2 costing. The contribution of local government and small Table 2 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to estimates Annual O&M requirements of anticipated public investment is not fully accounted for, due to inadequate documentation, implying a slight Subsector O&M US$ million/year overestimation of the financing gap. On the other hand, while in Rwanda there is an implicit assumption that Rural water supply 19 operations and maintenance costs (OPEX/O&M) will be Urban water supply 6 recovered from users this is not always the case. For rural Water supply total 24 water supply the national policy of promoting public- Rural sanitation 4 private partnership (PPP) for O&M has delivered good Urban sanitation 3 results over the past three years. But private operators are Sanitation total 7 not yet fully professionalized and district offices in charge Source: CSO2 costing. of PPP monitoring are yet to adjust to their new role. The risk is that operating costs are met while more major maintenance is underfinanced, storing up even larger such including Community Based Environmental Health rehabilitation costs when systems fail, which would need Promotion Program (CBEHPP) and the school hygiene and to be subsidized with public capital finance. Table 2 and sanitation program (HAMS, Hygiène et Assainissement en Figure 2 show that, especially in the case of water supply, Milieu Scolaire). These software costs are additional to the the additional O&M costs are significant. capital investment requirements as discussed earlier. For sanitation, the majority of costs are expected to be met These considerations are only part of the picture. by users, with public investments equivalent to 30 percent Bottlenecks can, in fact, occur throughout the service of total CAPEX. However, the absence of a clear user delivery pathway—all the institutions, processes, and actors contribution policy, with adequate ‘software’ to back it up, that translate sector funding into sustainable services. may restrict actual contributions from households (for the Where the pathway is well developed sector funding costing model the ratio of public/household contributions should turn into services at the estimated unit costs. was estimated by a MININFRA task force). Leveraging the Where it is not, the above investment requirements may required household contributions will in any case require be gross underestimates. The rest of this report evaluates a major scaling up of promotion campaigns—Hygiene the service delivery pathway in its entirety, locating the as envisaged in the Sanitation Presidential Initiative bottlenecks and presenting the agreed priority actions to (HSPI) which has raised the profile of existing programs help address them. 10 Water Supply and Sanitation in Rwanda: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 3. Reform Context: Introducing the CSO2 Scorecard While the rural water supply sector began to take shape in Moving downstream along the service delivery pathway, the 1960s, and an urban utility was created in 1976, the reforms to enhance development of new services on the first National Sectoral Policy was developed only in 1992. ground, as well as the sustainability of those services, It has subsequently been revised four times to include have been put in place for both rural and urban water emerging issues such as: community management and supply. For rural water supply (RWS), the aim has been demand responsive approaches (1997); decentralization to improve cost recovery by moving from community and reinforced participation (2004); and sanitation and the management to private operators, with the introduction environment (2010). Analysis of the sector’s recent history of local PPP. In urban areas the public utility underwent a puts the service delivery pathway in context, which can series of reform process from 2003, first separating water then be explored using the CSO2 scorecard, an assessment supply from electricity, but concluding in 2010 with a new tool providing a snapshot of reform progress across combined electricity and water public utility (that is, the the ‘building blocks’ that make up the pathway in each Energy, Water and Sanitation Authority, or EWSA), which subsector: three building blocks which relate to enabling has also added sewerage management to its mandate. services; three which relate to developing new services; Though the sanitation sector has received less emphasis and three which relate to sustaining services. Each building in these reforms, its share of attention has been growing block is assessed against specific indicators and scored from since 2004. 1 to 3 accordingly.9 Figure 3 shows Rwanda has developed relatively strong In 1994 Rwanda was afflicted by a genocide that destroyed capacities throughout the service delivery pathway hundreds of thousands of lives. The human tragedy was (enabling, developing, and sustaining services), giving accompanied by a loss of capacity and the widespread confidence that the country is able and ready to absorb destruction of WSS infrastructure. Against the 1990 larger amounts of money and successfully translate them baseline, water supply coverage declined by more than 20 percent. A following period of emergency programs Figure 3 resulted in neglected maintenance, low investment, and Average scorecard results for enabling, abandonment of cost recovery. developing, and sustaining service delivery, and peer-group comparison Reforms to address these monumental challenges Enabling have been varied. In terms of developing the enabling environment for service delivery, the decentralization process has seen steps towards bottom up planning (the National Decentralization policy was launched in 2000 and the process entered its second phase in 2006)10. But a five-fold reduction in the number of staff in central government has not been compensated for at district level; districts now lack technical support from central WSS institutions as well as skilled staff of their own. There are promising developments under way to harmonize donors’ funding procedures. Though not yet a fully-fledged Sector-Wide Approach (SWAp), in 2008 harmonized Sustaining Developing procedures for project implementation (technical and Rwanda average scores financial) were adopted by major funding agencies (the Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. <=$500 World Bank, African Development Bank, European Union, and International Development Association). Source: CSO2 scorecard. 11 An AMCOW Country Status Overview into sustainable services. Rwanda performs consistently monitoring and evaluation (M&E). The related scorecard better than its peers—low-income countries with a GNI indicators, which give an empirical basis for evaluation, below US$500 per capita (Atlas method). are presented at the beginning of each section. The scorecards for each subsector are presented in their Sections 4 to 6 highlight challenges across three thematic entirety in Sections 7 to 10. areas—the institutional framework, finance, and Table 3 Key dates in the reform of the sector in Rwanda Year Event: Rural Year Event: Urban 1964 Rural water supply delegated to an NGO 1976 REGIDESO, created in 1939 and covering Rwanda for the whole country, under Government and Burundi, is replaced by ELECTROGAZ, a national of Rwanda financing monopolistic public utility managing power and 1978 Participatory approach introduced by NGOs water in urban areas (Kigali city and 14 secondary towns by 2009) 1992 First national policy on WSS 1994 Genocide, followed by humanitarian and emergency programs up to 1999 1997 Update of national water policy (demand 1999 ELECTROGAZ monopoly removed and sector responsiveness, community management liberalized through Regies Associatives) 2001 RURA (multisectoral regulatory agency) created 2006 Decentralization process enters second phase, with central staff reduced by factor of five 2007 National Strategy on Sanitation and Promotion of Hygiene 2008 Management of environment, water resources, and water supply services separated between three ministries Law passed for the use, conservation, protection, and management of water resources Environmental Health Policy (MINISANTE, the ministry of health) Government of Rwanda participates in AfricaSan II and signs the eThekwini Declaration 2009 SWAp MoU signed 2009 Rwanda Water and Sanitation Corporation (RWASCO) National WSS Policy fourth revision launched (decentralization, PPP, and sanitation) 2010 Establishment of EWSA (Energy, Water and Sanitation Authority) to absorb RECO (energy) and RWSACO (water and sewerage) 12 Water Supply and Sanitation in Rwanda: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 4. Institutional Framework Priority actions for institutional framework • Build districts’ capacity, in terms of the quantity and skills of staff, to the level required to attain sector targets. Since 1992 Rwanda has had a clear policy for water perform similarly, with Rwanda performing better than supply, which has been regularly adapted, is well known the average for its regional peer group (Figure 4). The to stakeholders, and supported by the central authorities. following paragraphs highlight outstanding challenges for Each policy revision has been developed through a broad the institutional setup of the sector participative process. The last update (gazetted in April 2010) aimed to integrate such concerns as decentralization, Decentralization: Ensuring capacity at local national quality standards, hygiene behavior, dissemination levels. Rwanda’s decentralization process was intended of rainwater harvesting techniques, industry development, to develop district-level service delivery capacity, in chemical and biological pollution, and private sector parallel with significant staff reductions in central investment. Critically, sanitation has also now been government. However, districts have not yet received recognized as a national priority.12 Figure 5 shows the the financial resources and skilled staff required to boost main institutions active in the sector, and their roles. WSS service delivery, and still need support in planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, capacity Related scorecard indicators, which look at the extent for which is now limited in central government. Even to which national targets, policies, and institutional though they have been consolidated from 90 to 30 in roles have been put in place, show that all subsectors number, districts are struggling to obtain the same level of operational capacity and experience as was previously Figure 4 available at national level. Scorecard indicator scores relating to institutional framework compared to peer group11 Regulation: Developing Rwanda Utility Regulatory Agency’s (RURA) presence and RWS powers in rural areas. Regulation works reasonably well for urban water supply services. For rural water supply the RURA lacks sufficient field-level capacity to monitor and regulate relations between districts, private operators, and users. An appropriate operating model USH UWS for the RURA to supervise all the districts and the dozens of small-scale operators has yet to be established. Urgent strengthening of the RURA is required in this regard, especially with private operators expected to manage 50 percent of schemes by 2012.13 RSH Donor coordination: Ensuring sufficient focus Rwanda average scores on sanitation and underprivileged districts. Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. <=$500 Donors could do more to reinforce equity in terms of the Source: CSO2 scorecard. attention they give both to sanitation and to underserved 13 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Figure 5 Institutional roles and relationships in the water supply and sanitation sector Water supply Water supply Sanitation Sanitation Rural Urban Urban Rural MINECOFIN Sector leadership MININFRA MININFRA + MINISANTE National RURA Regulation REMA MINALOC Service development DISTRICTS MVK DISTRICTS MINEDUC Local and provision Private Operators EWSA Households MININFRA (Ministry of Infrastructure): National policies, guidelines MINEDUC (Ministry of Education): Cooperates in implementing and strategies for the WSS sector, enhancing institutional and hygiene programs human resource capacity of districts, monitoring the implementation RURA (Rwanda Utility Regulatory Agency): Regulates water supply of government policies. Leads WSS sector stakeholder coordination and sanitation services. Allows fair competition and protection of MINECOFIN (Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning): both consumers and operators, facilitates private sector involvement Responsible for budgeting and financing of WSS, participates in (PPP) fixing utility rates. External Finance Unit, Central Public Investment, REMA (Rwanda Environmental Management Agency): Monitors and External Finance Bureau manage external funds, including and facilitates fundamental right to live in a healthy and balanced project approval and implementation monitoring. Key actor in environment improving external aid coordination MVK (Kigali town municipality) and Districts: Organize access MINALOC (Ministry of Local Government): Decentralization process, to proper sanitation for their populations (including solid waste management of RWS projects by grassroots communities. Ensures collection, transport and disposal). Districts are committed to local institutions contribute to effective service delivery, aiming at agreed goals through a performance convention passed with community and socioeconomic development. Funds small-scale MINALOC. They are also in charge of providing safe water and WSS projects organizing supply services MINISANTE (Ministry of Health): Provides preventive, curative, and EWSA: Energy, Water and Sanitation Authority that has absorbed rehabilitative services. Supports MININFRA in promoting hygiene RECO (Energy) and RWSACO (water and sewerage). Launched in and monitoring water quality 2010 Source: Various. areas of the country. There is general agreement that operators in managing rural water schemes shows signs each donor will concentrate on a specific area of the of success. However, while both districts and operators country until EDPRS and MDG targets are met. However, see local PPP as a way to address performance and due to limited M&E it is difficult to establish whether governance issues in existing community management the benefit is equitably distributed across the country. regime, they aren’t yet equipped for PPP at scale. The A programmatic approach could better harmonize rules of engagement are not yet sufficiently clear to procedures, especially if it supports the development of ensure a sustainable benefit for all stakeholders. Thus sector basket funds. far, the spirit of partnership between public and private partners has often decreased once contracts are signed. Rural operators: Reinforcing professionalism Based on recent studies and expert reports, enhanced in public-private partnerships (PPP). A strategy professionalism appears to be a key challenge in launched in 2007 to promote the involvement of private strengthening the PPP strategy.14 14 Water Supply and Sanitation in Rwanda: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 5. Financing and its Implementation Priority actions for financing and its implementation • Develop a sector investment plan to guide the balance of investment to each of the subsectors, as urban water supply and sanitation are currently significantly underfunded relative to requirements. The scorecard indicators relating to finance range from the coordinated and closely linked sets of targets: EPDRS 2012, development of a SWAp and costed investment program, MDG 2015, and Vision 2020. Up to 2012 progress will be to the overall sufficiency of finance and extent of its closely monitored via the EPDRS roadmap. Additionally, it utilization (foreign and domestic). As can be seen from has been announced that the eThekwini commitment will Figure 6, Rwanda’s finance indicators are slightly above soon be met (0.5 percent of GDP dedicated to sanitation the average for the peer group for all subsectors except and hygiene). urban water supply. Outstanding challenges include the projected annual financing gaps for all subsectors However, to realize these targets, a detailed needs- (elaborated in Sections 7 to 10), and utilization of donor assessed business plan for reaching the MDGs is required funding which is below 75 percent across subsectors. to guide investment. In spite of regular increases in the In addition to the priority action to develop investment domestic budget, boosted by budget support, reliance planning, outlined above, harmonizing donor funding on donor project funding to the WSS sector is high. modalities may help to address low utilization rates. The lack of clear investment guidance in the run up to 2015 could influence outcomes especially in the urban Effective strategies: Developing a business subsectors, which are particularly underfunded relative to plan for the MDGs. Rwanda is committed to three requirements, despite urgent need in Kigali to develop and rehabilitate the water supply system and to build a modern Figure 6 sewerage and treatment system. The rural sector appears Scorecard indicator scores relating to financing and comparatively well financed, though in absolute terms, its implementation, compared to peer group15 the deficit for rural water supply is the largest. Figure 7 shows the balance of anticipated CAPEX, between donor RWS finance, households (expected contribution), and domestic finance, as well as the projected capital financing gap (red color), if each of the four subsectors’ national targets are to be achieved. USH UWS Despite attracting the largest share of public finance, rural water supply won’t fill its 25 percent gap in the run up to 2015. The 65 percent gap for urban water supply reflects the long and uncertain reform process, which discouraged medium-term planning and investment. RSH Anticipated rural sanitation financing appears almost Rwanda average scores sufficient at a nationwide scale, but this hides great Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. <=$500 regional disparities. The challenge is more obvious for urban sanitation, with low investment anticipated from Source: CSO2 scorecard. 15 An AMCOW Country Status Overview the government and virtually none from external donors. marketing (‘software’). Hygiene promotion may have Both urban and rural sanitation are heavily dependent on benefits for the rural water supply subsector, as the per household contributions, which will require additional capita average use of clean water is very low over the public resourcing for hygiene promotion and sanitation country (less than 5 liters per day).16 Figure 7 Overall annual and per capita investment requirements and contribution of anticipated financing by source Rural water supply: Urban water supply: Rural sanitation: Urban sanitation: Total: $42,100,000 Total: $11,700,000 Total: $28,200,000 Total: $9,510,000 Per capita (new): $83 Per capita (new): $85 Per capita (new): $43 Per capita (new): $74 Domestic anticipated investment Assumed household investment External anticipated investment Gap Source: CSO2 costing. 16 Water Supply and Sanitation in Rwanda: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 6. Sector Monitoring and Evaluation Priority actions for sector monitoring and evaluation • Utilize modern communication technologies (for example, a user-friendly web site), to promote a standard and “official” set of figures and performance assessments, made visible and accessible to nonexperts. Sector M&E has made progress but this is mostly a secondary Public expenditure reviews (PERs): Further benefit from sector coordination efforts, as a full M&E improving value. Since 2005 Rwanda has held system, with dedicated tools and a departmental unit, isn’t annual sectoral PERs, complemented by an annual ‘joint yet in place. Divergent data and reports are published by sector review’ with donors (each April). Existing PERs multiple organizations, using inconsistently implemented bring together budgets, actual expenditure, and output field surveys and varying definitions. Performance data. The quality of the PERs is increasing each year, but assessment of operators and districts is limited, restricting coherence between successive reports could be improved, the government’s ability to advise and control. As shown and expenditure as well as output data are incomplete at in Figure 8, water supply subsectors nevertheless perform the district level. The PERs could also provide more strategic well across scorecard indicators relating to M&E compared projections, linking analysis to targets (for example, the to the peer-group. Both sanitation subsectors perform less MDGs). This would further emphasize the need for a well—political commitment to sanitation being a fairly budget structure better able to provide a breakdown of recent development (2007–08). Figure 9 shows the M&E local and subsector expenditure. cycle in its current state. Rural water monitoring: Maintaining the database. National surveys of RWS facilities have not Figure 8 Scorecard indicator scores relating to sector M&E, been regularly updated since decentralization. A new compared to peer group17 management information system is expected, but in the meantime an accurate understanding of where the facilities are in each district or of local access rates, is RWS limited. As a consequence, evaluation of rehabilitation needs, or assessment of operational performance of the PPP strategy, is difficult. When specific studies are conducted, they are restricted to small sample populations and do not feed into the framework of a wider sector USH UWS M&E system. Definitions and standards: Ensuring consistency. While policies and strategies are regularly updated, the definitions on which they rely are not fully standardized, RSH resulting in confusion when implementing or monitoring. Rwanda average scores Household surveys are regularly undertaken, the last one Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. <=$500 in 2008 (Interim Demographic and Health Survey, IDHS) Source: CSO2 scorecard. but indicators are not coordinated with WSS national policy definitions, or with the institution responsible for 17 An AMCOW Country Status Overview services (MININFRA). Accurately assessing access to WSS is. Finally, modern tools such as web sites with free and facilities is complicated by varying definitions of what an user-friendly access, have not been explored for data acceptable ‘source of drinking water’ or hygienic toilet presentation or dissemination of guidelines. Figure 9 The monitoring and evaluation cycle in the Rwandan water sector Annual PER Reports and joint sector review, Policies for water and Various plans, strategies, from monitoring of expenditure by MINECOFIN and sanitation, as well as MININFRA, PNEAR, MINISANTE, of implementation by MINALOC; RWASCO government plans such as MINEDUC, RURA and REMA. reports: project evaluations from PNEAR: EDPRS and Vision 2020 Performance contracts and Quarterly Sector Working Group meetings between Districts and (hosted by MININFRA) Objectives MINALOC Reports Plans The Sector Working Group, provides an active MTEFs platform for gathering and disseminating Information prepared by Ministries, information. A full Management Information Budgets Systems plus annual District System (MIS) is to be hosted by PNEAR but is budgets. An not yet operational Indicators integrated business plan for achieving the MDG target in Mainly household survey results. A set of indicators is under construction to monitor each subsector is still sector progress in the medium to long term. required Source: Various. 18 Water Supply and Sanitation in Rwanda: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 7. Subsector: Rural Water Supply Priority actions for rural water supply • Continue advocacy for donors to join harmonized procedures and basket funds. • Publish a national inventory for RWS, including access rates and strategic ratios. A triennial update and publication would shape a recognized standard and promote ‘official’ survey results. • Develop technical assistance support for private operators, exploring the potential contribution of modern communication technologies available in Rwanda. • Closely monitor O&M performance by RWS operators, to ensure long-term sustainability of water services. The government’s estimates from MININFRA show coverage actual use). Neither method addresses quality and quantity, of 72 percent in 2009.18 This progress was made from a for instance, the WHO’s 20 liters per capita criteria. Piped post-genocide low estimated by the government to have coverage (household connections) remains limited in rural been 36 percent. If the trend continues at these rates, the areas (1 percent). government’s 2015 target of 85 percent may well be met. The JMP estimates access to be lower (62 percent), with a The CSO2 estimate of required capital investment to falling trendline from a higher 1990 estimate.19 However, as meet the government target shows a shortfall of US$11 explained in Section 2, the JMP trendline does not capture million per year (Figure 11), assuming anticipated public the drop in services following the genocide, as there were investment of US$30 million per year and household no household surveys between 1992 and 1998. contributions of US$2 million per year (users meeting 5 percent of the cost of any scheme). The CSO2 estimates Data sources also differ, with the JMP assessing use through additional OPEX requirements of US$19 million per year, household survey data, and MININFRA providing estimates which are expected to be covered by users, boosted by the based on the number of facilities (which is not the same as PPP framework. Appropriate regulation and monitoring is Figure 10 Figure 11 Rural water supply coverage Rural water investment requirements 100% 80% Coverage 60% Required CAPEX Required 40% OPEX 20% 0% 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 0 20 40 60 80 US$ million/year Government estimates Government target Public CAPEX (anticipated) JMP, improved JMP, piped Household CAPEX (assumed) CAPEX deficit Sources: JMP 2010 Report and MININFRA. Source: CSO2 costing. 19 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Figure 12 Rural water supply scorecard Enabling Developing Sustaining Policy Planning Budget Expenditure Equity Output Maintenance Expansion Use 3 1.5 3 2.5 2.5 3 2 1 2.5 Source: CSO2 scorecard. required to adapt tariffs to economic constraints, to avoid Figure 13 OPEX becoming a burden on public finance in the form of Average RWS scorecard scores for enabling, deferred maintenance and rehabilitation needs. developing, and sustaining service delivery, and peer-group comparison Authorities have, up to now, focused on structural Enabling reforms, including consolidation of approaches and harmonized project procedures and financing. Despite the challenges of decentralization (severe decrease in human and logistical resources in central institutions, without equivalent increase in district-level capacity), this has led to good and sustainable results during the 2005–09 period. The subsector scorecard (Figure 12) indicates that enabling conditions for progress towards the MDG target are Developing Sustaining good, with sound policy and budgeting. The scorecard uses a simple color code to indicate: building blocks that are largely in place, acting as a driver on service delivery Rwanda average scores (score >2, green); building blocks that are a drag on Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. <=$500 service delivery and require attention (score 1–2, yellow); Source: CSO2 scorecard. and building blocks that are inadequate, constituting a barrier to service delivery and a priority for reform (PPP strategy), with a target of 50 percent of rural schemes (score <1, red). to be managed by private operators by 2012. Nonetheless, the real standard of O&M executed by private operators Planning, however, suffers from the lack of a specific needs to be monitored, and fee rates require regulation. MDG business plan, which does little to attract additional Expansion suffers from the lack of planning at the district financing. Capacity for developing services on the ground level to keep pace with increasing demand; PPP potentially is also good, with high utilization rates for domestic funds, offers new opportunities for financing expansion, pending and national-level expenditure monitoring. Equity also adapted contract conditions. The score for the Use registers a high score, with allocation criteria used to indicator is, in part, attributable to the success of demand- target funds to underserved areas, and local participation responsive programs at the district level. Benchmarking encouraged at every stage of project cycle, with clear Rwanda against its peers (Figure 13) shows above-average responsibilities assigned, as a pillar of both EDPRS and performance throughout the service delivery pathway. Vision 2020. The scorecard performance suggests good potential for contributing to meeting the MDG target, inhibited by Building blocks relating to sustaining services also score availability of finance rather than subsector processes— reasonably. Maintenance of existing infrastructure is though monitoring and investment planning should be improving with the introduction of private management strengthened. 20 Water Supply and Sanitation in Rwanda: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 8. Subsector: Urban Water Supply Priority actions for urban water supply • Undertake reform and revise tariff to improve operational performance and ensure financial viability of urban water services under the newly established EWSA. • Update water supply master plan for Kigali taking into account urban growth and projected settlement patterns. • Promote investment in urban water supply to expand production capacity and expand and rationalize distribution network. • Develop pro-poor programs to serve low-income households including improved management of public kiosks and social connections. The urban water supply subsector shows an overall negative 45,000 to about 78,000—the percentage of the urban trend relative to 1990 baselines, whether estimated by population with access has inevitably dropped since MININFRA using provider data (76 percent in 2009)20 or 1990 and led to a need for greatly increasing the raw the JMP using household surveys (77 percent in 2008). water supply to urban areas. JMP estimates of household Meanwhile, EWSA (the public utility in charge of urban connections also show a decreasing trend since 1990 water supply and sanitation) puts current coverage at 71 (from 32 percent to 15 percent in 2008). percent.21 Again the JMP trendline does not capture the drop in services following the genocide. What the trend To reach the government target, the CSO2 costing model over the period also masks is very rapid urban expansion. estimate indicates a total capital investment need of There were nearly five times as many Rwandans living US$12 million per year. Without any expected household urban areas in 2008 as compared to 1990—an increase contribution, anticipated investment of US$4 million per of 1.4 million urban dwellers. Thus, despite the rapid year leaves a shortfall of US$8 million per year (Figure 15). expansion of number of connections since 2005—from An additional OPEX requirement of US$5 million per year Figure 14 Figure 15 Urban water supply coverage Urban water investment requirements 100% 80% Required Coverage 60% Required CAPEX OPEX 40% 20% 0% 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 0 5 10 15 20 US$ million/year Government estimates Government target Public CAPEX (anticipated) JMP, improved JMP, piped CAPEX deficit Sources: JMP 2010 Report and MININFRA. Source: CSO2 costing. 21 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Figure 16 Urban water supply scorecard Enabling Developing Sustaining Policy Planning Budget Expenditure Equity Output Maintenance Expansion Use 2.5 1 2 2.5 1 3 1.5 1.5 3 Source: CSO2 scorecard. is expected to be covered from user fees, as it has been in negative coverage trend over past decades. The score for past years: cost recovery may improve with forthcoming equity is limited, however, showing the lack of procedures regulation of water pricing. and criteria for enhanced targeting, resulting in unequal service delivery across urban areas, with some suffering The subsector scorecard shows that the enabling severe shortages. environment of the urban water supply service delivery pathway is reasonably well developed (Figure 16). Though Building blocks relating to sustaining services have the the policy building block scores high, planning is limited highest average score—not least because of the retention by the slow evolution of the urban utility reforms, and of experienced ELECTROGAZ (now RWASCO) operational the absence of a sectorwide approach based around a staff. In terms of maintenance, the score is reduced by full needs assessed business plan. The recently launched levels of nonrevenue water, which has deteriorated from EWSA should develop such a plan and build upon renewed about 30 percent in 2005 to about 37 percent in 2009.22 donor interest in the subsector. The underlying operational costs for the water utility are driven up by a high dependence on imported energy Building blocks of the service delivery pathway relating (47 percent of recurrent expenditure) and chemicals (25 to developing services are strong, relative to peer group, percent of recurrent expenditure). showing potential to develop new services despite a Revenues from water supply services are well below operating costs; current operating ratio stands below Figure 17 0.6. The recent tariff study has recommended modulated Average UWS scorecard scores for enabling, developing, and sustaining service delivery, and increases to bring the operating ratio slightly above 1 but peer-group comparison still far from full cost recovery. Enabling The expansion of the network, especially to secondary centers, was a major challenge for the stability of RWASCO’s finances (together with reducing nonrevenue water)—especially as it managed sewerage and was not able to subsidize water supply costs through power tariffs, as ELECTROGAZ could. RWASCO had limited managerial autonomy. The degree of financial and operational autonomy afforded to the urban water services department Sustaining Developing under the EWSA framework is yet to be fully defined. The main source of finance in the near term is likely to Rwanda average scores be external partners. Partners would, however, want to Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. <=$500 have a clear understanding of EWSA finances and the Source: CSO2 scorecard. flows of revenues and expenses between its components departments.23 22 Water Supply and Sanitation in Rwanda: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 9. Subsector: Rural Sanitation and Hygiene Priority actions for rural sanitation and hygiene • Define coordinated standards and a methodology for surveying and sector evaluation. • Establish district-level surveys of access and need, to better monitor equity. • Carry out research into appropriate technologies, aiming at a large-scale transition from traditional to hygienic latrines at affordable cost to households. • Encourage all projects to follow sector policy on user contributions, and to invest a significant share of their budget (15 percent at least) in sanitation software and hardware, with the aim of leveling access rates with the water supply subsectors in the medium term, and achieving universal access by 2020. For 2009 MININFRA uses its own survey data to establish 44 The CSO2 estimates capital investment requirements percent as the official national access rate and the baseline of US$28 million per year to achieve the national for future monitoring. The JMP trendline incorporates a subsector target of 65 percent coverage (Figure 19). 2008 household survey, the results of which MININFRA Anticipated public investment of US$8 million per has queried,24 yielding a 55 percent access rate for 2008. year (which includes some finance for promotion and For 1990, meanwhile, MININFRA estimates coverage at hygiene awareness campaigns) is expected to leverage 29 percent, based on an average from successive JMP household contributions to a capital of around reports.25 The latest JMP report (2010 issue) estimates US$18 million per year,26 leaving a US$3 million per 1990 coverage at 22 percent. A major point of debate year deficit. The CSO2 estimates additional annual is how to define a hygienic household sanitation facility OPEX requirements of US$4 million per year, which in Rwanda’s rural subsector, which partly underlies the are expected to be fully covered by households (as conflicting survey results. sanitation facilities are private). Figure 18 Figure 19 Rural sanitation coverage Rural sanitation investment requirements 100% 80% Required CAPEX Coverage 60% Required OPEX 40% 20% 0% 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 0 10 20 30 40 US$ million/year Government estimates Government target Public CAPEX (anticipated, includes some software financing ) JMP, improved JMP, improved + shared Household CAPEX (assumed) Sources: JMP 2010 Report and MININFRA. CAPEX deficit Source: CSO2 costing. 23 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Figure 20 Rural sanitation and hygiene scorecard Enabling Developing Sustaining Policy Planning Budget Expenditure Equity Output Markets Uptake Use 2.5 1 1 2.5 2 2 1.5 1 1.5 Source: CSO2 scorecard. Figure 21 public areas (for example, main roads, bus stations, and Average RSH scorecard scores for enabling, markets). developing, and sustaining service delivery, and peer-group comparison In December 2009 the Environmental Health Desk of Enabling the Ministry of Health launched a Community-Based Environmental Health Promotion Program (CBEHPP) to further build on progress made under the PHAST and HAMS approaches. CBEHPP is described as “... a hygiene behavior change approach to reach all communities and empower them to identify their personal and domestic hygiene and environmental health related problems (including access to safe drinking water and improved Sustaining Developing sanitation) and solve them”. These developments have received backing from the highest level—the Hygiene and Rwanda average scores Sanitation Presidential Initiative (HSPI)—which will see Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. <=$500 CBEHPP’s expansion to all 30 districts. Source: CSO2 scorecard. The scorecard (Figure 20) shows that policy tools are Although figures for the coverage rate in 2008–09 differ largely in place, with agreed national targets and a between government and JMP sources, Rwanda has subsector policy document. The ‘enabling’ score is reduced achieved notable progress. Some of this stems from the by institutional fragmentation, mainly due to recent reconstruction period following the genocide. Supported decentralization. The central government is developing by relief agencies, an estimated 300,000 houses, most of coherent and effective coordination, but districts are not which included latrines, where built for the estimated 1.5 yet sufficiently informed or mobilized in the subsector. The million returning refugees. score for planning is, as for all subsectors, limited by the lack of a costed investment plan, while that for budgeting Since then regular campaigns from the Health Ministry, suffers most from a budget structure that does not allow supported by 45,000 health workers together with HAMS subsector spend to be disaggregated. A bridging issue and Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation is that sanitation doesn’t yet benefit from an integrated (PHAST) programs in schools, have resulted in continued M&E system allowing plans and budgets to be established progress. Around 80 percent of Rwandans now use on the basis of consolidated progress reports. traditional latrines though these are often unhygienic: consequently the strategy aims to shift people to hygienic, Aspects relating to developing services perform well, ‘improved’ latrines, for which an appropriate definition above the regional peer-group average (Figure 21). Equity and affordable technologies are yet to be defined. The scores well for participatory procedures and use of criteria national policy also promotes sanitation facilities in to allocate finance, in common with the RWS subsector. 24 Water Supply and Sanitation in Rwanda: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond Building blocks relating to sustaining services perform least Pit (VIP) latrines in the 1990s, ECOSAN today), which has well on the scorecard, but still better than the peer-group done little to promote private sector involvement. average by some margin. Markets for rural sanitation suffer from a weak supply chain with proposed ‘improved’ The score for uptake of sanitation and hygiene highlights technologies still too expensive for most households. the lack of impact monitoring and outcome evaluation—a Performance contracts for districts to improve living difficult task given the complicated cause and effect links standards at household level may help in this regard, but between public interventions and outcomes, which mainly experienced engineers and trained technicians are rare at take place at the household level. Despite concerted district level, leading to variable implementation quality. hygiene awareness campaigns, uptake of hand washing The subsector has too long been dominated by donors’ pilot has been limited and could be better supported through programs (Sanplat in the late 1980s, Ventilated Improved integration in each water supply project. 25 An AMCOW Country Status Overview 10. Subsector: Urban Sanitation and Hygiene Priority actions for urban sanitation and hygiene • Develop action plan for Kigali, adapted to the MDG targets, and based on on-site sanitation for the medium term, in line with the sanitation master plan. • Support Kigali Town Municipality (MVK) to utilize GIS capabilities to monitor access rates. • Develop private sector involvement in both hygiene promotion and on-site sanitation businesses (latrine equipment, cheaper septic tanks, emptying trucks, and safe dumping sites). • Improve coordination between MVK and the new utility RWASCO. Based on its own survey data, MININFRA estimates 54 The estimated required CAPEX to meet the national percent to be the official 2009 national access rate and coverage target is US$10 million per year. Anticipated baseline for future monitoring. The current access rate public investment of US$1 million per year is expected to according to the JMP is 50 percent (2008). For 1990, leverage a little over US$2 million per year in household as in the case of rural sanitation, MININFRA uses an investments, on the expectation that users will meet 70 average from JMP reports to establish a 1990 baseline of percent of costs.28 This leaves a capital financing deficit 38 percent,27 slightly higher than the JMP 2010 report’s of US$6 million per year. Additional O&M costs (OPEX) estimate of 35 percent. Overall, there is little divergence of US$3 million per year are expected to be covered between MININFRA and JMP trends, compared to other by households. The substantial expected contribution subsectors. Progress in coverage needs to be accelerated from households (70 percent of total costs), will require slightly to meet the national subsector target of 65 percent. significant and effective promotion and education activities Use of shared sanitation facilities was estimated by the JMP from government. to be 18 percent in 2008. Figure 22 Figure 23 Urban sanitation coverage Urban sanitation investment requirements 100% 80% Required CAPEX Required Coverage 60% OPEX 40% 20% 0% 0 5 10 15 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 US$ million/year Government estimates Government target Public CAPEX (anticipated) JMP, improved JMP, improved + shared Household CAPEX (assumed) CAPEX deficit Sources: JMP 2010 Report and MININFRA. Source: CSO2 costing. 26 Water Supply and Sanitation in Rwanda: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond Figure 24 Urban sanitation and hygiene scorecard Enabling Developing Sustaining Policy Planning Budget Expenditure Equity Output Markets Uptake Use 2.5 0.5 1.5 1.5 1 2 2 2 1 Source: CSO2 scorecard. Figure 25 municipalities aren’t yet efficiently coordinated—especially Average USH scorecard scores for enabling, between the MVK and EWSA. Subsector planning is much developing, and sustaining service delivery, and weaker than policy development, constituting a barrier for peer-group comparison the whole pathway. There are no moves towards a SWAp (unlike in other subsectors), and few needs-assessed Enabling investment plans for secondary towns. The subsector should receive additional guidance from the new bill governing town planning and building in Rwanda. This could strengthen organization and planning of both on-site and sewerage facilities. The 2008 meeting AfricaSan +5 boosted coordination between Rwandan institutions, based on an understanding that no one Sustaining Developing institution can successfully address sanitation alone, especially in the urban context. In the near term, action plans addressing the subsector target are likely to focus Rwanda average scores on adapted on-site sanitation, as up to now no significant Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. <=$500 investment program is anticipated for developing public sewerage systems, despite Vision 2020 aiming at universal Source: CSO2 scorecard. access by the end of the next decade. The subsector scorecard indicates a less evolved service Among building blocks relating to developing services, delivery pathway for urban sanitation and hygiene than expenditure for the subsector receives a lower score for Rwanda’s other subsectors (Figure 24), though the due to the absence of consolidated reporting. As in urban performance is still better than the peer-group average water supply, budget allocation criteria are not used to across enabling, developing, and sustaining building blocks target resources to underserved areas, reducing the score (Figure 25). The first step, defining a policy framework, for equity. has been achieved, with policies from MININFRA (National Policy and Strategy for Water Supply and Sanitation At the sustaining end of the service delivery pathway, there Services, 2010) and the Health Ministry (Environmental appears to be potential in terms of markets for sanitation Health Policy, 2008), as well as a Sanitation Master Plan goods such as latrines and slabs, and pit-emptying services, for Kigali town (2007).29 While a lead agency is in place with the government actively encouraging private sector (MININFRA), responsibilities shared with the EWSA and participation. 27 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Notes and References 1 Global Economic Monitor, The World Bank. 2010 The following texts framing the development goals of 12 Average. the country also have a bearing on the water supply and sanitation sector: Rwanda Vision 2020. 2003; Organic Law 2 The first round of CSOs was carried out in 2006 covering 16 determining the modalities of protection, conservation and countries and is summarized in the report, ‘Getting Africa promotion of environment in Rwanda. 2005; Economic On-Track to Meet the MDGs on Water and Sanitation’. Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy, 2008–2012 (EDPRS). 2007; Bill governing town planning and building 3 MININFRA. 2009. Water Supply and Sanitation Current in Rwanda. 2009. Status. Government of Rwanda. 2007. Economic Development 13 4 UNICEF/WHO Joint Monitoring Programme. 2010. Progress and Poverty Reduction Strategy 2008–2012 (EDPRS). on Sanitation and Drinking Water: 2010 Update. JMP estimates are based on a linear regression of nationally Jos Van Gastel. 2007. Promotion and establishment of 14 representative household surveys. Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) for management of rural water schemes; and, Hydroconseil. 2009. PPP performance 5 The government 1990 baseline is calculated by taking an in management of rural water supply systems in Rwanda. average of figures from the 2006, 2008, and 2010 JMP reports, which themselves have fluctuating baselines due Indicators relating to the section on financing and its 15 to the influence of additional surveys on the regression implementation are: All subsectors: programmatic method used to calculate the JMP trendline. Sector-Wide Approach; investment program based on MDG needs assessment; sufficient finance to meet MDG 6 In the absence of a clear policy on user contributions, (subsidy policy for sanitation); percent of official donor the proportion of capital costs assumed to be met by commitments utilized; percent of domestic commitments households was estimated in Ministry of Infrastructure utilized. Task Force meetings, as: 5 percent for rural water supply, 0 percent for urban water supply and 70 percent for both Hydroconseil. 2009. PPP performance in management of 16 rural and urban sanitation subsectors. rural water supply systems in Rwanda, p. 24. 7 Population calculations are based on National Institute for Indicators relating to the sector M&E section are: All 17 Statistics of Rwanda (NISR), as published on the web site: subsectors: annual review setting new undertakings; http://statistics.gov.rw subsector spend identifiable in budget (UWS: inc. recurrent subsidies); budget comprehensively covers domestic/donor 8 Due to rounding, component figures may not sum to finance; RWS, RSH, and USH: domestic/donor expenditure totals. reported; UWS: audited accounts and balance sheets 9 The CSO2 scorecard methodology and conceptual from utilities; RWS, RSH, and USH: periodic analysis of framework are discussed in detail in the synthesis report. equity criteria by CSOs and government; UWS: pro-poor plans developed and implemented by utilities; RWS/UWS: 10 Ministry of Local Government, Good Governance, nationally consolidated reporting of output; RSH/USH: Community Development and Social Affairs, Government monitoring of quantity and quality of uptake relative to of Rwanda. 2007. Rwanda Decentralization Strategic promotion and subsidy efforts; All subsectors: questions Framework. and choice options in household surveys consistent with MDG definitions. 11 Indicators relating to the institutional framework section are: All subsectors: targets in national development plans/ MININFRA. 2009. Water Supply and Sanitation—Current 18 PRSP; subsector policy agreed and approved (gazetted as status. part of national policy or as standalone policy); RWS/UWS: institutional roles defined; RSH/USH: institutional lead The JMP regression line declines largely because of the 19 appointed. negative influence of the results of a 2008 survey (Ministry of Health, National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda, ICF Macro. 2009. Rwanda Interim Demographic and Health Survey), the results of which are disputed by MININFRA. 28 Water Supply and Sanitation in Rwanda: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond MININFRA. 2009. Water Supply and Sanitation—Current 20 and standards, and agrees to use JMP estimates as its own status. data for rural sanitation in historic periods are imprecise. To even out the JMP’s ‘floating’ baseline the government’s ELECTROGAZ. 2009. Performance assessment. 21 agreed baseline for access rate in 1990 is the average from the three JMP reports, that is, 29 percent. ELECTROGAZ Annual Report 2008; and ELECTROGAZ. 22 2009. Performance Assessment. See note 6. The exact extent to which public finance 26 leverages household contributions will depend on the Law establishing Rwanda Energy, Water and Sanitation 23 implementation of any user contribution policy (in terms Authority; March 2011. of promotion and marketing efforts, as well as the Ministry of Health, National Institute of Statistics of 24 effectiveness of any subvention system), rather than the Rwanda, ICF Macro. 2009. Rwanda Interim Demographic policy intention. and Health Survey (IDHS) April 2009. 27 Again, the average of three successive JMP reports is Figures in JMP reports change between successive issues, 25 taken. See note 25. due to the regression line method of calculation. For 28 See note 6. rural sanitation the MDG baseline (1990) is estimated by the JMP at 36 percent in the 2006 report, 29 percent 29 NWSC Study: Guide for Tariff and Billing Systems for in the 2008 report, and 22 percent in 2010 report. The Urban Water Systems in Rwanda; draft December 2010. Government of Rwanda tries to follow the JMP definitions 29 Notes Notes Notes For enquiries, contact: Water and Sanitation Program–Africa Region The World Bank, Upper Hill Road P.O. Box 30577, 00100, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +(254) 20 322 6300 E-mail: wspaf@worldbank.org Web site: www.wsp.org