03.06.2015 Views

Complete Book PDF (4.12MB) - World Bank eLibrary

Complete Book PDF (4.12MB) - World Bank eLibrary

Complete Book PDF (4.12MB) - World Bank eLibrary

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

132 Diagnosing Corruption in Ethiopia<br />

Forum (MSF) in 2006 set a new standard for the sector in terms of consultation<br />

and transparency, followed by additional MSFs in December<br />

2007 and October 2009.<br />

Under the policy of decentralization, regional water bureaus and<br />

woreda water desks are in charge of investment planning, monitoring, and<br />

technical assistance to service providers. Although several mechanisms of<br />

financing rural water supply remain (as further discussed in the next section),<br />

the country’s 700 woredas now receive block grants from the central<br />

government and can decide autonomously how to use these grants<br />

within broad criteria set by the Ministry of Finance and Economic<br />

Development (MOFED). In rural areas, community water and sanitation<br />

committees—or Water User Associations (WUAs)—operate water systems<br />

and promote sanitation, supported by woreda and regional water<br />

and sanitation government staff.<br />

Challenges Ahead<br />

Considering the ambition of the UAP, Ethiopia has done remarkably well<br />

in attracting finance to the sector. The combined budgeted volume of<br />

the financing modalities employed in Ethiopia (about Br 1.2 billion, or<br />

US$109 million) closely matches the government’s estimated annual<br />

costs of meeting either the MDG for rural water supply (Br 900 million,<br />

US$81 million) or the UAP (Br 1.1 billion, US$99 million). 7 However,<br />

the <strong>World</strong> <strong>Bank</strong>’s (2009) recent Public Finance Review added a number<br />

of caveats:<br />

• High inflation and an increase in project costs have forced the government<br />

to revise the annual cost of implementing the UAP upward to<br />

Br 1.7 billion (US$154 million) for the 2009–12 period.<br />

• Government and development partner support must be renewed to<br />

sustain this level of funding for rural water supply.<br />

• Only 60 percent of budgeted finance is actually spent, with the result<br />

that funding is not being translated into an equivalent increase in<br />

service delivery. 8<br />

A joint technical review of rural water supply in January 2009 commended<br />

the progress made but identified the following main sector issue<br />

areas: underexpenditure, planning, capacity, procurement, and coordination<br />

at the regional and woreda levels. 9<br />

Table 4.1, drawn from the <strong>World</strong> <strong>Bank</strong>’s (2009) recent Public Finance<br />

Review, summarizes costs and budgets for rural water supply and provides

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!