70096 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Water Supply and Sanitation in Tanzania 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 Tanzania 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 Photograph credits: WaterAid Water Supply and Sanitation in Tanzania: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond An AMCOW Country Status Overview Water Supply and Sanitation in Tanzania Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 1 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Strategic Overview The water and sanitation sector in Tanzania has undergone pathway’, along which finance is converted into services, extensive reforms in the past decade. This led to the is functioning effectively. Upstream progress in policy and recent adoption of a Sector-Wide Approach (SWAp), institutional reforms as well as finance is positive, but is which includes much greater coordination of finance for currently undermined by downstream management and the sector as well as taking a sectorwide view of implementation challenges. Key concerns include: performance monitoring and institutional development. Through the multidonor Water Sector Development • At the national level, improvements in procurement and Program (WSDP), funding for the sector has quadrupled budget management, monitoring, and reporting are since 2002. critical to prevent a return to project funding. • At the local level, sustainability and equity challenges However, Tanzania is not on track to meet the Millennium threaten to undermine the effectiveness of the new Development Goal target for either water supply or funds in rural areas, as does the lack of a clear strategy sanitation—the overall trend in access as reported by survey for pro-poor urban water supply. data barely keeps up with population growth in both cases, • Low budget utilization suggests that even if investment let alone extending access to the unserved. Although the funding for water supply were increased to the required most up-to-date survey data was collected before the level, the targets would not be met. recent rapid increase in funding for the sector, the funding • In sanitation, institutional and policy frameworks lag has come too late to meet the targets. An analysis of the behind those of the water supply sector, though progress investment requirements and budget allocations suggests is being made in addressing this. that even with the recent increase, funding is less than • The sanitation sector is also undermined by the lack of what is required to meet urban water supply targets and accurate data on the current state of latrine coverage. only sufficient in rural areas if low cost technology options • The lack of proven effective strategies to persuade and are deployed. In sanitation, the mechanisms for leveraging enable rural and urban households to invest in improved the majority of finance which is expected to come from sanitation in the Tanzanian context is also holding back households are yet to be defined, making it difficult to the sector. The outcome of ongoing efforts to fill this estimate the investment gap. knowledge gap will be very important. The shift to a SWAp has not been a smooth transition, and This second AMCOW Country Status Overview (CSO2) has a number of still-unresolved issues threaten to undermine been produced in collaboration with the Government of donor confidence before the new approach has been given Tanzania and other stakeholders. Agreed priority actions time to deliver. Institutional reform and increased finance to tackle these challenges, and ensure finance is effectively do not guarantee services unless the entire ‘service-delivery turned into services, have been identified here. 2 Water Supply and Sanitation in Tanzania: 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 • Finalize and operationalize the promising draft National Sanitation and Hygiene Policy, and efforts to improve inter- ministerial coordination as a matter of urgency. • Cement recent efforts to systematize and speed up procurement and budget management processes. • Make a clearer distinction between routine monitoring and household surveys to help the sector identify key obstacles preventing supply side progress (outputs) translating into user side improvements (outcomes). • Bring household surveys in line with international best practice on sanitation. Rural water supply • Fast-track implementation of the new national program, PRONASAR and its associated common fund. • The establishment of institutional arrangements and mechanisms to ensure the sustainability of community-managed rural water supplies. Urban water supply • Clarify and strengthen pro-poor approaches for urban water supply, including a combination of strengthening accountability mechanisms, pro-poor service options such as kiosks, and even tariff increases for those already connected. Rural sanitation and hygiene • Identify an effective approach for rural household sanitation promotion based on current initiatives being tested at scale and mainstream this into a nationwide program supported with adequate staffing and budgets. Urban sanitation and hygiene • Revisit policy of only using public funds for sewerage expansion in favor of a pro-poor approach that supports urban household sanitation promotion with public solutions to facilitate better management of septage from onsite sanitation. 3 An AMCOW Country Status Overview 4 Water Supply and Sanitation in Tanzania: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations........................................................................................................................... 6 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 7 2. Sector Overview: Coverage and Finance Trends............................................................................................... 8 3. Reform Context: Introducing the CSO2 Scorecard ......................................................................................... 11 4. Institutional Framework ................................................................................................................................ 13 5. Financing and its Implementation.................................................................................................................. 15 6. Sector Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 18 7. Subsector: Rural Water Supply ...................................................................................................................... 20 8. Subsector: Urban Water Supply..................................................................................................................... 23 9. Subsector: Rural Sanitation and Hygiene ....................................................................................................... 25 10. Subsector: Urban Sanitation and Hygiene...................................................................................................... 27 Notes and References ................................................................................................................................... 29 5 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Acronyms and Abbreviations AfDB African Development Bank MKUKUTA Mkakati wa Kukuza Uchumi na AMCOW African Ministers’ Council on Water Kupunguza Umaskini Tanzania – National CAPEX Capital expenditure Strategy for Growth and Reduction of COWSO Community Owned Water Supply Poverty Organization MoHSW Ministry of Health and Social Welfare CSO2 Country Status Overviews (second round) MoWI Ministry of Water and Irrigation DAWASA Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage NAWAPO National Water Policy Authority NGO Nongovernmental organization DAWASCO Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage NWSDS National Water Sector Development Corporation Strategy EWURA Energy and Water Utilities Regulatory O&M Operations and maintenance Authority OPEX Operations expenditure GDP Gross domestic product PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper GNI Gross national income RSH Rural sanitation and hygiene GTZ Gesellschaft für Technische RWS Rural water supply Zusammernarbeit, a German technical SSA Sub-Saharan Africa assistance agency SWAp Sector-Wide Approach HH Household TAWASANET Tanzania Water and Sanitation JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency Network JMP Joint Monitoring Programme (UNICEF/ TSSM Total Sanitation and Sanitation Marketing WHO) UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund JWSR Joint Water Sector Review USH Urban sanitation and hygiene KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau; a German UWS Urban water supply government-owned development bank UWSA Urban Water Supply Authority LGAs Local government authorities WASH Water, sanitation and hygiene LIC Low-income country WHO World Health Organization M&E Monitoring and evaluation WSDP Water Sector Development Program MDG Millennium Development Goal WSP Water and Sanitation Program Exchange Rate: US$1 = TZS 1396.1 6 Water Supply and Sanitation in Tanzania: 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 (WSP) and the African Development Bank (AfDB), which are implementing it in close partnership with UNICEF and the WHO in over 30 countries across SSA. This CSO2 report has been produced in collaboration with the Government of Tanzania 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 a slight downward trend from 55 percent in 2008. To meet the Millennium Goal Development (MDG) target of 78 Current coverage estimates from the Ministry of Water percent (halving the unserved population, relative to 1990 and Irrigation (MoWI) distinguish between rural areas (58.7 levels) it would require an additional 2.4 million people per percent), small towns (53 percent), urban areas (84 percent) year to gain access to an improved water supply. and Dar es Salaam (68 percent). The estimates are derived from routine monitoring data (number of facilities built, For sanitation, the JMP suggests access to improved multiplied by a fixed estimated population served per facility). sanitation has just kept up with population growth between Based on population estimates for each area, an overall water 1990 and 2008, with coverage remaining stagnant at supply coverage estimate of 64 percent is derived for 2009 24 percent overall (dropping slightly to 21 percent in (Figure 1).3 National targets proposed for the forthcoming rural areas; rising slightly in urban areas to 32 percent).5 National Strategy for Growth and the Reduction of Poverty II Projecting the JMP trend line to 2009 to match the water (popularly known by its Swahili acronym, MKUKUTA) are also supply estimates implies 3.5 million Tanzanians will require set individually for these four distinct areas (65 percent in rural access each year up to 2015. If the current trend is not areas; 57 percent in small towns; 95 percent in urban areas; accelerated only 322,000 will obtain access per year. and 75 percent in Dar es Salaam). Overall, these individual targets translate into an ambition to provide services to 71 These trends reflect the difficult transition that the sector percent of the total population by 2015—an additional 1.5 has gone through in moving from projects to programmatic million people per year. support. Unlike education and health the water sector is driven by development budgets. The post–2000 shift towards Data from the Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP),4 which budget support funding to the Poverty Reduction Strategy uses household surveys, puts water supply coverage lower at Paper (PRSP) did not feed through to the development budget 54 percent (45 percent rural, 80 percent urban) representing in the water sector until 2005; when it did, sector systems to Figure 1 Progress in 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 JMP estimates MDG target JMP estimates MDG target Sources: Government data: MoWI submission for MKUKUTA II; JMP data: JMP 2010 report. 8 Water Supply and Sanitation in Tanzania: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond equitably allocate and decentralize spending had to be put in These charts demonstrate that the WSDP funding, while place. In 2007, as the culmination of several years of sector making a big step in the right direction, is too little reforms, a comprehensive sectorwide plan, the Water Sector too late to meet the national (water supply) and MDG Development Program (WSDP) 6, was launched for investing in (sanitation) targets. A total of US$272 million per year water supply and sanitation infrastructure, with almost US$1 is required from public finance and households in water billion finance over five years from the World Bank, AfDB, supply capital investments (CAPEX), of which just over German and Dutch governments, and the Government of half (US$165 million per year) is anticipated from public Tanzania. The scale of finance available for the sector is vastly investments. This is assumed to leverage an additional greater than the funding that was previously available, giving US$9 million per year in household contributions, based reason to hope that coverage trends will soon improve. on users contributing 5 percent of total costs, leaving a funding gap of US$98 million per year overall (assuming Investment Requirements: Testing the reallocations between urban and rural subsectors are Sufficiency of Finance possible). In fact, the gap is entirely in the urban water supply subsector, where a high proportion of anticipated Figure 2 and Table 1 compare public capital investment household connections (70 percent) leave a subsector needs to meet the national targets in the case of water funding gap of US$101 million per year. In contrast, supply, and the MDG target in the case of sanitation, with anticipated investments in rural water supply, assuming anticipated investments. For water supply, the estimates high existing coverage and a low cost technology mix, is draw on the routine monitoring data and population data sufficient to meet targets. If the JMP coverage estimates used above, together with data on anticipated investments, are instead used, and investment requirements estimated anticipated technology types to be deployed, and unit to meet the MDG targets, requirements are slightly higher cost data from the MoWI. These estimates assume a fairly for urban water supply, and around 50 percent higher for low-cost mix of technology types to be used, particularly rural water supply (due to a lower coverage estimate and in rural areas, and unit costs for each technology type higher subsector target). that are at the low end of the range of estimates used by different assessments, such as the Africa Infrastructure Analysis of public investment requirements for sanitation Country Diagnostic. In using routine monitoring data is complicated by two factors. First, national policy in for current coverage levels, the estimates assume higher Tanzania requires that capital investment in household existing coverage than other possible sources of coverage sanitation should be financed entirely by households data. themselves, with the exception of a small amount of Figure 2 Required vs. anticipated public and assumed household expenditure for water supply Water supply Sanitation Required CAPEX Required Required CAPEX OPEX Required OPEX 0 100 200 300 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 US$ million/year US$ million/year Public CAPEX (anticipated) Public CAPEX/software (anticipated) Household CAPEX (assumed) Household CAPEX (assumed) CAPEX deficit CAPEX deficit Source: CSO2 estimates. 9 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Table 1 Coverage and investment figures7 Coverage Target Population CAPEX Anticipated Assumed Deficit requiring requirements public CAPEX HH access CAPEX 1990 2009 2015 Total Public Domestic External Total % % % ‘000/year US$ million/year Rural water supply 46% 58% 64% 830 64 61 13 51 64 3 - Urban water supply 94% 80% 90% 656 207 197 22 79 101 5 101 Water supply total 56% 64% 71% 1,486 272 258 35 130 165 9 98 Rural sanitation 23% 21% 62% 2,590 150 0 0 3 3 150 - Urban sanitation 27% 32% 64% 900 55 15 1 7 8 22 25 Sanitation total 24% 24% 62% 3,491 205 15 2 10 12 172 21 Sources: For coverage, MoWI MKUKUTA II submission and JMP 2010 report; for investments, CSO2 costing. public investment in sewerage systems. The biggest roles Table 2 for public investment in sanitation are (a) in sanitation and Annual O&M, CSO2 estimates hygiene promotion activities, such as social marketing, Subsector O&M which do not produce easy estimates of public finance US$ million/year required to meet particular coverage targets; and (b) in Rural water supply 21 constructing sanitation facilities in public institutions such Urban water supply 83 as schools and health facilities and in public places such as Water supply total 104 markets and bus stations, none of which is covered by the Rural sanitation 12 MDG target. This undermines efforts to estimate public Urban sanitation 9 investment requirements for sanitation. Sanitation total 21 Source: CSO2 costing. Second, public sector budgets in Tanzania frequently do not distinguish between investments in water supply and investments in sanitation. This makes it hard to estimate achieved. If any of the annual OPEX has to be subsidized anticipated public investments in sanitation. The analysis from the public purse, for example to utilities that do not of sanitation sector investments presented in Figure 2 achieve operational cost recovery, it reduces the amount (to meet the MDG targets, based on JMP data) should available for capital investment. therefore be interpreted with caution. In particular, while the substantial user contribution to capital costs depicted These considerations are only part of the picture. in Figure 2 follows the policy assumption, it will not be Bottlenecks can in fact occur throughout the service leveraged in practice without sufficient funding, human delivery pathway—all the institutions, processes and actors resources, coordination and tools for promotion. that translate sector funding into sustainable services. Where the pathway is well developed, sector funding There are a number of reasons why the above depiction of should turn into services at the estimated unit costs. investments may be over-optimistic. A particular concern Where it is not, the above investment requirements may is operation and maintenance requirements (O&M) (see be gross underestimates. The rest of this report evaluates Table 2). As in many countries, in Tanzania there is an the service delivery pathway in its entirety, locating the implicit assumption that O&M costs (OPEX) will be bottlenecks and presenting the agreed priority actions to recovered from users, though in practice this is not always help address them. 10 Water Supply and Sanitation in Tanzania: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 3. Reform Context: Introducing the CSO2 Scorecard Tanzania’s socialist past delivered both positive and services, and three which relate to sustaining services. negative results in the water and sanitation sector. On the Each building block is assessed against specific indicators positive side, the high profile Mtu ni Afya public education and scored from 1 to 3 accordingly.11 campaign led to the widespread construction of basic household latrines, to the extent that Tanzania still has Figure 3 compares how these reforms in Tanzania have very high coverage of basic household latrines compared delivered with comparable low income countries (a GNI to elsewhere in Africa. However, in water supply, free below US$500 per capita, Atlas Method). In terms of water policies undermined sustainability and contributed, ‘enabling’ reforms, which are measured against indicators along with broader economic stagnation, to chronic relating to policies, plans, and budgets, Tanzania performs underinvestment in both expansion and maintenance. relatively well, though performance in this area is even stronger for water supply—the average figure is brought The first National Water Policy, adopted in 1991, was down by poor performance in sanitation. Tanzania’s scores the start of a long process of reforms to address the in ‘developing’ services, which relate to expenditure of shortcomings of the previous system and build donor funds, systems for allocating them equitably, and securing confidence. User charges were introduced along with sufficient output, are below the average for comparable the establishment of urban utilities, designed to be countries. The same applies to scores for ‘sustaining’ self-financing. This included an ultimately unsuccessful services once in place, which capture considerations attempt at introducing private sector participation to the such as the extent of markets for sanitation hardware, or running of Dar es Salaam’s water supply in 2003. A second maintenance and expansion of water supply systems— National Water Policy (NAWAPO)8 was adopted in 2002, again, if sanitation is excluded, Tanzania’s scores improve strengthening provisions for cost recovery and introducing considerably. stronger pro-poor rhetoric. Figure 3 Since 2005, a Sector-Wide Approach (SWAp) has been Average scorecard results for enabling, adopted, represented most particularly by the WSDP.9 This sustaining, and developing service delivery, and multidonor program aims to improve coordination and peer-group comparison increase national ownership of water sector investments Enabling and has attracted commitments worth US$951 million over five years from the World Bank and AfDB, German, Dutch and French governments, the US Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the Government of Tanzania. Finance for the sector has more than quadrupled since 2002 as a result.10 Alongside the increased finance, the SWAp includes efforts to improve sector performance monitoring and strengthen sector capacity. This recent history puts the service delivery pathway in context, which can then be explored in detail using the CSO2 scorecard, an assessment tool providing a snapshot Sustaining Developing of reform progress along the service delivery pathway. The Tanzania average scores CSO2 scorecard assesses the building blocks of service Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. <=$500 delivery in turn: three building blocks which relate to enabling services, three which relate to developing new Source: CSO2 scorecard. 11 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Sections 4 to 6 highlight progress and challenges across gross national income. The related indicators are extracted three thematic areas—the institutional framework, finance, from the scorecard and presented in charts at the beginning and monitoring and evaluation (M&E)—benchmarking of each section. The scorecards for each subsector are Tanzania against its peer countries based on a grouping by presented in their entirety in sections 7 to 10. Table 3 Key dates in the reform of the sector in Tanzania Year Event 1970s High profile Mtu ni Afya campaign on sanitation 1970s–80s Top-down, free water approach to water supply 1991 First National Water Policy, introducing user charges 2001 Legislation for an independent utility regulator passed 2002 National Water Policy (NAWAPO) adopted 2002 Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Program launched 2003 Leasing of Dar es Salaam water supply to private sector company 2005 Renationalization of Dar es Salaam water supply 2005 National Water Sector Development Strategy (NWSDS) developed 2007 Launch of the Water Sector Development Program ($951 million over five years) 2008 Approval of NWSDS 2009 New water legislation passed by Parliament 12 Water Supply and Sanitation in Tanzania: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 4. Institutional Framework Priority actions for institutional framework • The draft National Sanitation and Hygiene Policy and efforts to improve inter-ministerial coordination are promising and should be finalized and operationalized as a matter of urgency. Tanzania’s institutional framework for water supply has rural water supply. It builds on the previous Water Policy undergone considerable reform in recent years as part of (of 1991), strengthening mechanisms for community and the shift to a SWAp. As a result, Tanzania out-scores its private sector participation in water supply, and reducing peers on indicators related to the institutional frameworks the role of central government in implementation and for urban and rural water supply. However, reforms to management of water projects. This was followed by the institutional framework for sanitation and hygiene the 2005 National Water Sector Development Strategy have lagged behind and are only now taking place. These (NWSDS), which sets out to strengthen the previously findings are reflected in Figure 4. The basic outline of weak institutional and legal frameworks to implement reforms for water supply and sanitation respectively is the NAWAPO.14 This was formally approved in 2008 and provided here, followed by key thematic challenges faced two new water acts (the Water Supply and Sanitation Act by the sector. and Water Resource Management Act) were passed by Parliament in early 2009. Policy and legal framework for water supply. The National Water Policy (NAWAPO, of 2002)13 forms Policy and legal framework for sanitation. In the basis of water sector policy, covering both urban and contrast, the policy and legal frameworks for sanitation are weak, though this is being addressed. In particular, a National Sanitation and Hygiene Policy is in development, Figure 4 led by the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (MoHSW). Scorecard indicator scores relating to Previously, sanitation was spread across a number of institutional framework compared to peer group (see endnotes)12 related policies, including water (notably sewerage), health, education, and community development, resulting RWS in fragmentation and little coordination. Rural water supply institutions: Decentralization and community ownership. Under Tanzania’s decentralization policies, local government authorities USH UWS (LGAs) have taken over responsibility for investment in rural water supply infrastructure, with the national ministry focusing on developing policy and guidelines, capacity development, and performance monitoring. This division of responsibilities technically began some RSH years ago but did not become the norm until 2007 with the launch of the WSDP. Further, centrally-coordinated Tanzania average scores rural projects continue to be initiated in large numbers. Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. <=$500 At community level, community-owned water supply Source: CSO2 scorecard. organizations (COWSOs) are responsible for O&M. 13 An AMCOW Country Status Overview COWSOs can take a number of different forms, including UWSAs in both small and large towns and the future of water user groups and private companies, and are to be this approach remains unclear.18 established and registered as independent legal entities. However, in practice, many village water committees (the Household sanitation: Steps towards previous water supply authority at village level, formed as institutional clarity at national level. Institutional part of village government) remain in place and continue roles and responsibilities for household sanitation are much to be formed in some cases. Furthermore, the registration less clearly defined. At national policy-making level, the of COWSOs is complex and time consuming and many MoHSW has the mandate for coordination of sanitation therefore remain unregistered.15 policy and finance matters, but the practice is less clear- cut. The MoWI has responsibility for sewerage, and the Urban water supply: Uncertain steps to majority of aid finance for household sanitation is bundled privatization. Urban water supply authorities (UWSAs) together with finance for water supply and therefore have responsibility for water supply, regulated by an flows through the MoWI’s budgets. There have been some independent regulator, the Energy and Water Utilities recent efforts to improve coordination in the sanitation Regulatory Authority (EWURA). There is some minor sector as part of the work to develop a National Sanitation duplication of responsibilities between the recently and Hygiene Policy. This brings together the Ministries of formed independent regulator, EWURA, and MoWI, Health and Water with Education and Vocational Training with the ministry continuing to perform some roles that and the Prime Minister’s Office for Regional Administration fit more naturally with EWURA, such as monitoring and and Local Government, including the development of a reporting. UWSAs are theoretically autonomous entities multiministerial Memorandum of Understanding outlining being strengthened for privatization, though the majority their respective roles and responsibilities. remain highly dependent on operational subsidies from central or local government.16 Dar es Salaam has been Aid coordination: Continuing the positive managed separately due mainly to its size. A failed attempt developments. Since 2004, the main donors in at leasing the water supply operation in 200317 has left Tanzania’s water sector have improved their coordination the city with two publicly-owned entities, an asset holding greatly, with the German development agencies KfW agency (DAWASA, Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage and GTZ playing leading roles alongside the World Bank; Corporation) and an operating authority (DAWASCO, and AfDB, the Netherlands, and France supporting the Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage Authority), which resulting SWAp. This culminated in the development of a coexist in an often uneasy relationship. The future remains SWAp and the WSDP. The majority of the sector’s major unclear, with talk of merging DAWASA and DAWASCO donors are either pooling funds in the sector basket taking place alongside discussion about reprivatizing funding mechanism or coordinating their funding closely DAWASCO. with other donors while providing earmarked funds for particular projects or subsectors. This is a significant Small towns: Creating viable service providers. improvement since five years previously, when almost The status of small town utilities is currently in flux, with all donor finance for the sector was provided as project concerns about their financial viability leading to efforts funding. There is an active Development Partner Group to cluster several small town utilities together with a for Water, which acts as the main forum for coordinating larger, better-established UWSA. This is being resisted by donor activities. 14 Water Supply and Sanitation in Tanzania: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 5. Financing and its Implementation Priority actions for financing and its implementation • The shift from project funding to a sectorwide approach is not a smooth process and it is not yet certain that the sector will emerge from the transition without losing the trust of some key donors. Cementing recent improvements to procurement and budget management will be critical. • More systematic use of data on access and infrastructure in planning and budget allocations would help overcome the present equity challenges and result in more efficient use of resources. The WSDP represents a quadrupling of finance for the Planning: Tighter linking of inputs, outputs, sector—a major accomplishment—though managing and need. The sector’s investment plan, the WSDP, has these funds effectively, efficiently, and equitably remains its own targets and is therefore not directly based either challenging. Furthermore, financing for sanitation remains on national (MKUKUTA) or international (MDG) targets. opaque, hard to distinguish from finance for water supply Furthermore, the WSDP’s targets (and costing) are based and split between multiple agencies. As a result, and as on routine monitoring figures while MDG monitoring shown in Figure 5, Tanzania out-scores its peers in terms draws on household surveys. Similarly, operational of finance for water supply, though not for sanitation and planning processes depend on routine monitoring data. hygiene. In rural water supply, this is operationalized through a formula-based allocation system, though this is not fully implemented.20 In urban water supply, service delivery data Figure 5 is used for planning, though not systematically. It is also Scorecard indicator scores relating to financing becoming widely accepted that routine monitoring data and its implementation, compared to peer for both urban and rural water supply is based on flawed group19 assumptions, though there are currently efforts under way in both urban and rural water supply to improve the quality of routine monitoring data.21 RWS Budgeting: Quantity. The WSDP represents a 400 percent increase in funding for Tanzania’s water sector.22 Even this increase, however, does not appear to be USH UWS sufficient to meet the sector targets. However, increasing funding further is not likely to close the gap as absorption capacity is already insufficient to keep pace with the increases. RSH Equity: Fairer allocations to subnational level. Public funding for water sector investments is allocated Tanzania average scores using a combination of formulae and less systematic Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. <=$500 approaches. The division of funding between urban Source: CSO2 scorecard. and rural water supply is made at the political level, 15 An AMCOW Country Status Overview with lobbying from civil society (supported by donors) Expenditure: Blockages to utilization. Utilization having recently reduced a considerable bias in favor of of allocated resources is a major issue for the sector in urban investments.23 In urban water supply, there is no Tanzania. In the financial year 2007/8, only 55 percent of national formula-based allocation system to utilities for allocated budgets were expended,27 with delays in donors’ either capital or operational subsidy. The ministry has a disbursements, cumbersome procurement processes, and set of criteria for allocating investment funds to utilities, limited implementation capacity cited as the main reasons though these criteria are not used systematically. A for these delays.28 The situation improved slightly in formula system, linked to the Local Government Capital 2008/9, partly as a result of a budget reduction and partly Grant means allocations within the rural water supply due to improvements in procurement management.29 subsector are more systematic, which has brought about Nevertheless, utilization challenges remain serious, and a major improvement in equity between districts,24 though currently suggest that even if funding were to increase deviations from the formula system remain common.25 to the required level, the targets would not be met. The capacity constraints of coordinating authorities, Equity: Local participation. At a local level, the implementing agencies, and private sector contractors all allocation of resources to projects in specific rural act as brakes on spending, and it is unlikely that additional communities within a district is intended to be based on a funding for water supply would make much difference at combination of need (as demonstrated by current levels of present. access) and demand (as demonstrated through the bottom up planning process). However, recent evidence suggests Aid delivery and coordination: A positive but that in practice, allocations are targeted at wealthier, difficult transition. The majority of major donors for more politically connected, less remote and better-served the sector are fully engaged with the SWAp, including communities.26 Furthermore, though there is no systematic the World Bank, AfDB, KfW, Royal Netherlands Embassy research available, there is widespread anecdotal evidence (RNE), and Agence Française de Développement (AFD). The that investment allocations within urban areas are also main exceptions are JICA and the US agencies (Millennium targeted at wealthier communities. Challenge Corporation, MCC, and USAID). Nevertheless, Figure 6 Overall annual and per capita investment requirements and contribution of existing financing by source Rural water supply: Urban water supply: Rural sanitation: Urban sanitation: Total: $64,300,000 Total: $207,000,000 Total: $150,000,000 Total: $55,500,000 Per capita: $36 Per capita: $225 Per capita: $36 Per capita: $52 Domestic anticipated investment Assumed household investment External anticipated investment Source: CSO2 scorecard. 16 Water Supply and Sanitation in Tanzania: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond this approach is not seen by donors or government as lose faith in the approach, while others see the challenges perfect; the shift from project funding to the WSDP has more as growing pains, which will take time to overcome, not been easy. The ministry’s new role as coordinator but worth waiting for on the basis that once new systems (rather than implementer) requires a different skill-set and and capacities are in place, national ownership and different thinking. This transition has contributed to the accountability will be substantially stronger than would slow pace of implementation and is affecting the quality be the case under a return to project financing. This is of planning, monitoring and reporting in a way that is a particular concern as the initial five-year period of the leaving some donors dissatisfied. Some are beginning to WSDP comes to an end. 17 An AMCOW Country Status Overview 6. Sector Monitoring and Evaluation Priority actions for sector monitoring and evaluation • A clearer distinction between routine monitoring and household surveys would help the sector identify key obstacles preventing supply-side progress (outputs) translating into user-side improvements (outcomes). • Bring household surveys into line with international best practice on sanitation. Performance monitoring in Tanzania is benefiting from review of the sector’s performance monitoring framework the shift to thinking at sectorwide level. This has drawn and systems. Significant weaknesses highlighted by the attention to inconsistencies and inaccuracies in existing review include the inconsistency of household surveys monitoring and reporting mechanisms. As in other areas, with MDG definitions for ‘improved’ sanitation, the over- water supply out-scores sanitation, where less work has reliance on routine monitoring data for water supply that gone into improving monitoring systems. depend upon flawed assumptions, and the slow pace of efforts to improve routine monitoring systems for rural Performance monitoring: Improving consistency. water supply.31 Performance monitoring in the sector has been recognized as a weak point, resulting in the commissioning in 2009 of a Accountability: Improving consultation. Annual Joint Water Sector Reviews (JWSRs) have taken place in Tanzania since 2006. At each review, an annual sector Figure 7 performance report has been presented and priority Scorecard indicator scores relating to sector M&E, actions for the coming year discussed and agreed. It has compared to peer group30 quickly become a key event in the annual calendar, the focus of considerably civil society lobbying and increasingly RWS substantive debate. The equity reports (discussed in the final paragraph of this section) and engagement from the sector civil society network, TAWASANET, with the JWSRs are evidence that the forum acts as an accountability mechanism. As a more open forum than any other USH UWS decision-making process in the sector, it is more easily accessible to civil society groups. Accountability: Reporting and supervision. The quality of reports presented to the JWSRs has varied. The RSH most recent report (for 2008/9)32 was considered to be Tanzania average scores an improvement on previous years, though this did not Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. <=$500 include reporting on expenditure versus budget. Reports in all years have included nationally consolidated reports Source: CSO2 scorecard. of sector outputs, though not consistently disaggregated 18 Water Supply and Sanitation in Tanzania: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond by utility and district. Similarly, the quality of discussion Accountability: Independent reporting on and outputs of the JWSRs has varied, though on a positive equity. The 2007 JWSR mandated the recently formed trajectory. A complementary process of twice-annual civil society network, TAWASANET, to prepare an equity WSDP Supervision Missions has been in place since the monitoring strategy and report for the sector. This WSDP was launched in 2007. The September–October report was presented at the 2008 review,33 stimulating 2009 Mission was, for the first time, timed to coincide some debate on the equity-orientation of the sector and with the JWSR. This has the positive effect of reducing resulting in the mandate being extended to TAWASANET duplication of dialog, but also took the final process of to prepare an annual equity report as a recurring feature annual priority-setting away from the more public JWSR of future JWSRs. The second such report was presented at forum and into a closed door meeting, potentially reducing the 2009 JWSR.34 accountability. 19 An AMCOW Country Status Overview 7. Subsector: Rural Water Supply Priority actions for rural water supply • The increased funding available for rural water supply should be allocated more efficiently, including through more systematic use of data. This applies both nationally, where the allocation formula should be applied in full, and at local level, where equity considerations should be given greater weight in planning. • Develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to address the poor sustainability record of rural water projects, including through strengthening monitoring of functionality and exploring the possibility of creating a funding window for rehabilitation of rural water supply infrastructure. Government routine monitoring data puts coverage at 59 The costing model, which assumes the higher coverage levels percent in 2009, against a subsector target of 64 percent. depicted by MoWI estimates, and a low-cost technology These figures are derived from the MoWI’s estimates and mix, suggests that current levels of funding in the rural water targets for rural areas and small towns—the latter is counted supply subsector are sufficient to meet the target for rural as part of the urban subsector by MoWI, but is bracketed water supply (derived from the MoWI’s separate targets for by the CSO2 with rural for purpose of consistency with small towns and rural areas). On the other hand, calculating other countries. Meanwhile, according to the trend line the investment requirements to meet the rural share of the provided by JMP data, coverage has dropped fractionally MDG target, based on the latest JMP report (1990 baseline from 46 percent to 45 percent, suggesting decades of and 2008 coverage) produces a deficit equivalent to around underinvestment in rural water supply have resulted in a third of available finance. Furthermore, regardless of the no increase access. The massive increase in funding in the coverage data used, it is likely that some of the required past three years has the potential to improve this situation, operational expenditure (OPEX) burden of around US$19 though significant bottlenecks are undermining progress million per year will fall on public finance, in the absence of in rural water supply. These are discussed later. sufficient cost recovery from users. Figure 8 Figure 9 Rural water supply coverage Rural water supply investment requirements 1 0.8 Coverage 0.6 Required CAPEX Required 0.4 OPEX 0.2 0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 0 20 40 60 80 100 US$ million/year Government estimates Government target Public CAPEX (anticipated) JMP improved JMP, piped Household CAPEX (assumed) Source: CSO2 costing. Sources: MoWI submission to MKUKUTA II and JMP 2010 report. 20 Water Supply and Sanitation in Tanzania: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond Figure 10 Rural water supply scorecard Enabling Developing Sustaining Policy Planning Budget Expenditure Equity Output Maintenance Expansion Use 3 3 2.5 2 2 2 1 0.5 2 Source: CSO2 scorecard. The subsector scorecard is depicted in Figure 10. The Figure 11 scorecard uses a simple color code to indicate: building Average RWS scorecard scores for enabling, blocks that are largely in place, acting as a driver on service sustaining, and developing service delivery, and delivery (score >2, green); building blocks that are a drag peer-group comparison on service delivery and require attention (score 1–2, yellow); Enabling and building blocks that are inadequate, constituting a barrier to service delivery and a priority for reform (score <1, red). Figures 10 and 11 (which compare Tanzania’s performance to its peers) indicate progress has been good in designing the institutional and policy elements that make up the enabling environment—high scores are registered for elements such as the NAWAPO (policy) and WSDP (investment plan). However, there is clearly room for improvement further downstream in the service delivery Developing Sustaining pathway, with regard to aspects relating to developing and sustaining services. There are three major obstacles in rural water supply that if not addressed, will prevent the increased Tanzania average scores funding from achieving concrete improvements in service Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. <=$500 delivery. First, the capacity of local government and private Source: CSO2 scorecard. contractors to efficiently absorb increased funding means that further funding increasing would be unlikely to deliver any benefit—as far as budget utilization can be estimated, it remains below 75 percent of allocated funds—reducing Third, sustainability challenges threaten to undermine the score for ‘expenditure’ (Figure 10). new investments, with as many as 46 percent of rural waterpoints not functional. According to policy, O&M Second, unless funding is targeted where most needed, costs for rural water supply infrastructure are to be covered new services actually mean better services for those who through user fees. However, its implementation in practice already have some access rather than increasing the is inconsistent. In many cases, user fees are not collected number of people with access to water supply. The score or are set at a level that is too low to cover repairs when for ‘equity’ is reasonable because there is a national-level required.37 In other cases, user fees are collected but not formula system for allocating funds. However, it needs to protected for use when needed—the funds are either spent be consistently applied and better integrated with local for some other purpose or misappropriated. This points to government planning systems to avoid new projects being a failure of management, monitoring, and regulation. Poor allocated by LGAs to communities based only on demand institutional arrangements at the community level may be rather than on consideration given to existing service levels at fault, as when community water supply organizations as well as demand.35 Otherwise underserved communities are insufficiently autonomous from village government. will continue to be overlooked.36 Yet, even well designed institutional arrangements require 21 An AMCOW Country Status Overview some form of outside monitoring and regulation. District and encouraging expansion. However, while new government is mandated to perform this backstopping institutional arrangements have been prescribed by the and oversight role, but there is no systematic approach NWSDS and the recent Water Supply and Sanitation Act, to doing so,38 and recurrent funding lags well behind the implementation remains patchy. Village water committees, recent increases in development funding. These challenges formed as part of village government, remain common and result in an a modest score for maintenance, and the lack of continue to be formed in some cases, despite policy and funding and support has even more serious implications for legislation calling for more autonomous arrangements. expansion of rural water supply schemes, which registers Where more autonomous entities have been formed, the lowest score of all. protecting their independence by ensuring that they are legally registered has been a time-consuming exercise. Ensuring that community water supply organizations The recent legislation simplifies the process by enabling are autonomous of village local government has been registration at district rather than national level, though this recognized as a key component of ensuring sustainability has yet to be implemented. 22 Water Supply and Sanitation in Tanzania: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 8. Subsector: Urban Water Supply Priority actions for urban water supply • Clarify and strengthen pro-poor approaches for urban water supply, including a combination of strengthening accountability mechanisms, pro-poor service options such as kiosks, and even tariff increases. According to the trend line derived by the JMP from Financial flows in the subsector are currently insufficient household surveys, access to improved water supply in to meet the above target of 90 percent coverage. An urban areas is not keeping pace with population growth, estimated US$207 million per year would be required and has declined from 94 percent in 1990 to 80 percent annually between 2009 and 2015 to meet this target, by 2008. Water piped on premises has declined at a while only US$101 million per year is currently available similar rate, accessed by 23 percent of the population, from public funds. This may leverage a further US$5 according to the latest JMP report. This is the result million per year from households based on a 5 percent user of a combination of past underinvestment and urban contribution policy, leaving a deficit of US$101 million per population growth, particularly in Dar es Salaam. Unlike year. Furthermore, utilities’ average operating cost ratio in rural water supply, the MoWI’s routine monitoring data is currently 0.92, meaning operating costs (estimated at is in line with the JMP trend line. The subsector target US$83 million per year) are currently being subsidized depicted here and used for the costing (90 percent) is from the public budget and there is no surplus available derived from the MoWI’s separate targets for urban areas for expansion. (95 percent) and Dar es Salaam (75 percent). Figure 12 Figure 13 Urban water supply coverage Urban water investment requirements 1 0.8 Coverage 0.6 Required CAPEX Required 0.4 OPEX 0.2 0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 0 100 200 300 400 US$ million/year Government estimates Government target Public CAPEX (anticipated) JMP improved JMP, piped Household CAPEX (assumed) CAPEX deficit Sources: MoWI submission to MKUKUTA II and JMP 2010 report. Source: CSO2 costing. 23 An AMCOW Country Status Overview As in the rural subsector, urban water supply is generally pro-poor planning. Strategies in use in some utilities for stronger upstream, though it registers lower scores for expanding services to the poor in current use include developing aspects than sustaining (see Figure 15). Overall, the construction of public water supply kiosks and cross- it performs above its peer group average, but apart from subsidies to support first time connections. However, these the apparent shortfall in investments there are several strategies are not widely implemented—a 2008 survey issues which need to be addressed before finance will found that only 5 percent of 185 recently constructed translate into services on a one-to-one basis. First, the low kiosks in Dar es Salaam were functional,40 while subsidized budget utilization rates (as low as 55 percent in 2007/8)39 connections are likely to benefit the poorer middle classes since funding has increased suggest that lack of sufficient living close to existing network infrastructure more than finance is not the only obstacle to service expansion. Low the poorest households. utilization rates have been blamed primarily on procurement and contract management delays, though considerable The most straightforward measure of utilities’ financial progress is being made in addressing these problems by viability is their operating ratio (operational income over introducing new management tools. operational expenditure). The average ratio is currently 0.92, meaning utilities’ revenues are currently not sufficient The equity with which finance is distributed also registers a to cover their operating costs. Nonrevenue water is also low score. At utility level, there are some efforts to ensure high, at 37.4 percent in 2008, and is thought to be significantly higher in Dar es Salaam. Official data report that the average hours of service per connection per day Figure 14 is 18, though some areas get considerably less than this Average UWS scorecard scores for enabling, sustaining, and developing service delivery, and amount, with services sometimes available for only a few peer-group comparison hours each week.41 Enabling Maintenance and expansion for urban water supply receive higher scores than in the rural subsector, but it is nonetheless widely acknowledged in the sector that water tariffs are insufficient to cover the operating costs of most utilities. This has the effect of undermining the sustainability of utilities and preventing network expansion. If it results in a need for operational subsidies, it effectively means taxpayers in unserved households are subsidizing Sustaining Developing served households. Higher tariffs would therefore be in the interest of unserved households, including the vast majority Tanzania average scores of poorer households in urban areas. However, public Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. <=$500 debate around regular tariff review applications is almost Source: CSO2 scorecard. universally in favor of keeping tariffs low, making it difficult for the regulator to go against public opinion. Figure 15 Urban water supply scorecard Enabling Developing Sustaining Policy Planning Budget Expenditure Equity Output Maintenance Expansion Use 3 3 2.5 2 1 2.5 2 2.5 2 Source: CSO2 scorecard. 24 Water Supply and Sanitation in Tanzania: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 9. Subsector: Rural Sanitation and Hygiene Priority actions for rural sanitation and hygiene • Identify an effective approach for rural household sanitation promotion based on current initiatives being tested at scale and mainstream this into a nationwide program supported with adequate staffing and budgets. As a legacy of the 1970s public health campaign, Mtu ni Tanzania does not subsidize household latrine construction. Afya, access to basic household latrines in rural Tanzania In the absence of detailed affordability analysis, Figure 17 is relatively high at around 90 percent.42 However, there indicates that there is therefore no deficit for the subsector, is little data on the standard of these latrines. Official that is, that household finance will be sufficient. However, household surveys have not distinguished between ‘basic’ the limited anticipated CAPEX shown for rural sanitation is and ‘improved’ latrines (as per the JMP/MDG definitions), mainly from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)—it is though the JMP estimates that the coverage of ‘improved’ not clear that there is sufficient finance from government latrines in rural areas of Tanzania is as low as 21 percent, for software activities (promotion and marketing) to a figure that is supported by other studies,43 and declining. encourage households to spend their limited incomes on This is disputed within Tanzania, but until survey data is sanitation. The assumed household contribution depicted brought into line with the MDG definition of ‘improved’ in Figure 17 could therefore be illusory. latrines, this is the best available estimate. The JMP estimates that a further 21 percent of rural Tanzanians Misleading household survey statistics that hide the extent share a latrine between two or more households, which is of the challenge are often cited as evidence that Tanzania not counted as improved access. does not have a rural sanitation problem. The subsector scorecard (Figures 18 and 19) indicates the serious The projected CAPEX requirement for rural sanitation in challenges throughout the service delivery pathway, with a Tanzania is US$150 million per year, of which the vast large number of red-colored, low scoring ‘building blocks’. majority is expected to be contributed by households— At the first point in the service delivery pathway, the policy Figure 16 Figure 17 Rural sanitation coverage Rural sanitation investment requirements 1 0.8 Coverage 0.6 Required CAPEX Required 0.4 OPEX 0.2 0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 0 50 100 150 200 US$ million/year JMP improved JMP, improved + shared Public CAPEX (anticipated) Household CAPEX (assumed) Sources: JMP 2010 report. Source: CSO2 costing. 25 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Figure 18 Rural sanitation and hygiene scorecard Enabling Developing Sustaining Policy Planning Budget Expenditure Equity Output Markets Up-take Use 1.5 1.5 0.5 0 0.5 1.5 0.5 0 0.5 Source: CSO2 scorecard. Figure 19 spend the money. However, there are several promising Average RSH scorecard scores for enabling, efforts under way to develop and demonstrate effective sustaining, and developing service delivery, and approaches. Most notably this includes Total Sanitation peer-group comparison and Sanitation Marketing (TSSM), led by WSP, alongside Enabling various efforts from other development agencies and international NGOs such as UNICEF, WaterAid and GTZ. However, it remains the case that no single approach has yet proved conclusively effective in the Tanzanian context of pre-existing high coverage of basic latrines: low or no- subsidy approaches are conventionally more effective in getting households to shift from open defecation to basic sanitation, rather than upgrading from basic to Sustaining Developing improved latrines. Existing approaches have also yet to be mainstreamed into the policy and practice of national and Tanzania average scores local government. Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. <=$500 Source: CSO2 scorecard. The no-subsidy policy combined with the lack of a proven approach to sanitation promotion makes it difficult to score is reduced by institutional coordination challenges: assess the sufficiency of finance flows. It is not easy to responsibility for sanitation lies with the MoHSW but donor calculate how much needs to be spent on sanitation finance is often provided alongside funds for water supply marketing and/or artisan training in order to persuade a through the MoWI. Efforts to clarify, and agree on, roles given number of households to invest in improved latrines. and responsibilities are making good progress. Unclear Furthermore, budgets for the sector are very difficult to budget lines for the subsector reduce rural sanitation’s extract from wider water sector budgets. score for the budget building block. Rural sanitation markets are largely undeveloped in Tanzanian government policy does not support subsidies for Tanzania, outside of a few isolated efforts to build rural household sanitation, but rather calls for government artisan capacity. In more remote rural areas, particularly, efforts to encourage households to invest in their own accessibility of sanitation equipment (slabs, and so on) is sanitation facilities. Increasing coverage therefore requires minimal. The issue has yet to be prioritized by government. persuading households to invest in improved latrines and The scores for uptake and use suffer from the lack of making it as easy as possible for them to do so. monitoring—in addition to the above-mentioned problems around defining improved sanitation in household surveys There is limited but increasing understanding of how (use), data on how households respond to the various best to achieve this. Recent funding made available promotion efforts (uptake) are largely absent, making to local government under the WSDP for this purpose it especially difficult to identify and scale-up the most reportedly went unused as recipients were unsure how to effective approach. . 26 Water Supply and Sanitation in Tanzania: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 10. Subsector: Urban Sanitation and Hygiene Priority actions for urban sanitation and hygiene • Revisit policy of only using public funds for sewerage expansion in favor of a pro-poor approach that supports urban household sanitation promotion with public solutions to facilitate better management of septage from onsite sanitation. The JMP estimates that only 32 percent of urban user contribution of over 70 percent is assumed for urban Tanzanian households have access to an ‘improved’ sanitation overall (on-site and networked combined). latrine. Relative to 1990 levels of 27 percent improved Figure 21 gives the impression that almost all the US$55 coverage, this indicates a slight increase. However, the million per year is available, assuming that anticipated difficulty with these figures is that household surveys on public investments of US$8 million per year are able to which JMP estimates are based have not distinguished leverage a further US$22 million per year in household between ‘basic’ and ‘improved’ latrines, and it is therefore contributions. However, this may be misleading as on-site impossible to know with confidence what proportion of sanitation is expected to be built without any leveraging these latrines count towards the MDG target. A further contribution from government, requiring considerable 30 percent are estimated to access shared facilities. Very promotion and marketing efforts, on which there is little few urban households in Tanzania have no access to any progress so far. latrine (open defecation)—only 2.3 percent according to the 2007 Household Budget Survey.44 Like rural sanitation, the scorecard shows the serious limitations for the subsector. The challenges for urban Public finance for urban sanitation and hygiene does not sanitation occur even earlier along the service delivery provide for construction of household latrines—this cost is pathway: scores for policy and planning are inhibited by to be covered by households themselves, as in rural areas. the lack of a clear strategy, which has consequence for Public investment is instead targeted at sewerage and other scores such as equity (no allocation or participation sludge management infrastructure. Based on this policy, a mechanisms to allocate funds according to need) and Figure 20 Figure 21 Urban sanitation coverage Urban sanitation investment requirements 1 0.8 Coverage 0.6 Required CAPEX Required 0.4 OPEX 0.2 0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 0 20 40 60 80 US$ million/year JMP, improved JMP, improved + shared Public CAPEX (anticipated) Household CAPEX (assumed) CAPEX deficit Source: JMP 2010 report. Source: CSO2 costing. 27 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Figure 22 Urban sanitation and hygiene scorecard Enabling Developing Sustaining Policy Planning Budget Expenditure Equity Output Markets Up-take Use 1.5 0.5 1 1 0 1 0.5 0 0 Source: CSO2 scorecard. Figure 23 sludge are not protected, overflowing from poor quality Average USH scorecard scores for enabling, pits or dug out and dumped. sustaining, and developing service delivery, and peer-group comparison Tanzanian policy with regard to public subsidy for urban sanitation is that on-site facilities are a private good to be paid for by private households. Public funds are available Enabling for investing in sewerage network infrastructure and sludge management facilities, as well as for sanitation promotion. Arguably this creates a form of subsidy in favor of (wealthier) households with networked systems, though such households do pay the cost of the connection to the network and pay a monthly charge through their water bill. Developing A second policy distinction is made between on-site and Sustaining network infrastructure. Sewerage systems, including investment, operations and maintenance falls under the Tanzania average scores mandate of the MoWI at national level and utilities at local level, while sanitation promotion, sludge management and Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. <=$500 treatment falls under the MoHSW at national level and Sources: CSO2 scorecard. local government authorities at local level. This division of responsibilities also creates a bias in favor of network systems, since the majority of donor funding for urban uptake (no data on how promotion efforts, insofar as sanitation is provided together with funding for water they occur, relate to uptake). Sewerage dominates policy supply and channeled through the MoWI. debates, though existing networks are very small: only 35,000 households nationwide have a network sewerage With no clear or proven strategy for sanitation promotion, connection,45 less than 10 percent of the number of it is difficult to assess the finance requirement for meeting household water supply connections and less than 2 the urban share of the sanitation MDG target. And with percent of all urban households. Sewerage is also a sanitation budgets typically hidden alongside water supply much more expensive option than on-site sanitation. On- investments, it is also difficult to assess the amount of site options have been neglected, particularly in more finance currently available. We cannot, therefore, conclude densely populated areas, and are left largely to the private with any confidence whether the available finance is sector. Little attention has been given to the challenges sufficient. However, we can be confident that prioritizing of persuading private households to invest in improved sewerage networks over lower cost alternatives is the most latrines and ensuring that there is sufficient supply of expensive option, and that if the majority of funds for affordable private sector actors providing pit construction, urban sanitation continue to be spent on sewerage, then pit emptying and sludge transport services (resulting in a the MDG target will not be met without a huge injection low score for ‘markets’). As a result, large quantities of of additional finance. 28 Water Supply and Sanitation in Tanzania: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond Notes and References 1 Global Economic Monitor, the World Bank. 2010 Ministry of Water and Livestock Development. 2002. 13 average. National Water Policy. 2 The first round of CSOs was carried out in 2006 covering 16 Ministry of Water and Livestock Development. 2005. 14 countries and is summarized in the report, ’Getting Africa National Water Sector Development Strategy. on-track to meet the MDGs on Water and Sanitation’. 15 The 2009 Water Supply and Sanitation Act includes 3 Ministry of Water and Irrigation estimates (2009), draft provisions to simplify registration of COWSOs, but submission for MKUKUTA II. implementation has not yet begun in practice. UNICEF/WHO Joint Monitoring Programme. 2010. Progress 4 Ministry of Water and Irrigation. 2009. Annual Report for 16 on Sanitation and Drinking Water, 2010 Update. JMP Urban Water and Sewerage Authorities; MoWI. 2009b. estimates are based on a linear regression of nationally Water Sector Status Report, 2009. representative household surveys. 17 For more details of this case, see Cooksey and de Waal. 5 These JMP figures are disputed in Tanzania, largely as the 2008. Why Did City Water Fail? best available national survey data does not distinguish between ‘basic’ and ‘improved’ latrines, as per the JMP 18 Ministry of Water and Irrigation. 2009b. definitions. Survey-based estimates of access to ‘basic’ latrines that range between 85 percent and 95 percent 19 Indicators relating to the section on financing and are widely cited within Tanzania as evidence that the its implementation are as follows: All subsectors: country does not have a sanitation problem, though a programmatic SWAp; investment program based on recent source of detailed data (IHI, forthcoming) suggests MDG needs assessment; sufficient finance to meet MDG that the majority of household latrines are ‘basic’ rather (subsidy policy for sanitation); percent of official donor than ‘improved’, supporting the JMP figures. commitments utilized; percent of domestic commitments utilized. 6 Ministry of Water. 2006. Water Sector Development Program, Consolidated Document. TAWASANET. 2009. Out of Sight and Out of Mind?; van 20 den Berg, Burke, Chacha, and Kessy. 2009. 7 Due to rounding, component figures may not sum to totals. Taylor. 2009. Comprehensive Review of Sector Performance 21 Monitoring Framework and Systems. Ministry of Water and Livestock Development. 2002. 8 National Water Policy. 22 van den Berg, Burke, Chacha, and Kessy. 2009. 9 Ministry of Water and Irrigation. 2006. Water Sector 23 Taylor. 2008. Water: More for some or some for more?; Development Program, Consolidated Document. van den Berg, Burke, Chacha, and Kessy. 2009. 10 van den Berg, Burke, Chacha, and Kessy. 2009. Tanzania 24 Taylor. 2008. Public Expenditure Review of the Water Sector. TAWASANET. 2009; van den Berg, Burke, Chacha, and 25 11 The CSO2 scorecard methodology and conceptual Kessy. 2009. framework are discussed in detail in the synthesis report. Taylor. 2008; TAWASANET. 2009. 26 12 Indicators relating to the institutional framework 27 van den Berg, Burke, Chacha, and Kessy. 2009. section are as follows: All subsectors: targets in national development plans/PRSP; subsector policy agreed and 28 Ministry of Water and Irrigation. 2008. Water Sector approved (gazetted as part of national policy or as stand Performance Report for the year 2007/08. alone policy); RWS/UWS: institutional roles defined; RSH/ USH: institutional lead appointed. 29 Ministry of Water and Irrigation. 2009b. 29 An AMCOW Country Status Overview 30 Indicators relating to the sector M&E section are as follows: 36 Taylor. 2008. All subsectors: annual review setting new undertakings; subsector spend identifiable in budget (UWS: inc. recurrent 37 WaterAid Tanzania. 2009. Management for sustainability: subsidies); budget comprehensively covers domestic/donor Practical lessons from three studies on the management of finance; RWS, RSH, and USH: domestic/donor expenditure rural water supply schemes. reported; UWS: audited accounts and balance sheets 38 WaterAid Tanzania. 2009. from utilities; RWS, RSH, and USH: periodic analysis of equity criteria by CSOs and government; UWS: pro-poor 39 van den Berg, Burke, Chacha, and Kessy. 2009. plans developed and implemented by utilities; RWS/UWS: nationally consolidated reporting of output; RSH/USH: 40 Mfungo and Taylor. 2008. Mapping public water kiosks in monitoring of quantity and quality of uptake relative to Dar es Salaam. promotion and subsidy efforts; all subsectors: questions and choice options in household surveys consistent with 41 Ministry of Water and Irrigation. 2009b. MDG definitions. NBS. 2009. 2007 Household Budget Survey. 42 31 Taylor. 2009. IHI (forthcoming). Baseline Study for UNICEF/GoT 43 32 Ministry of Water and Irrigation. 2009b. interventions in the seven learning districts (and six non- learning districts). 33 Taylor. 2008. NBS. 2009. 44 34 TAWASANET. 2009. 45 MoWI. 2009b. 35 TAWASANET. 2009. 30 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