IPP679 Social Assessment of the

Public Disclosure Authorized Water Supply and Sanitation Program-II WaSH–II

Public Disclosure Authorized

October 2013

Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized 2

Contents Acknowledgements ...... 3 Acronyms ...... 4 Executive Summary ...... 5 1. Introduction ...... 12 1.1 Objectives of the Social Assessment ...... 12 1.2 Social Assessment Methodology ...... 12 1.3 Outline of the Report ...... 15 2. The Institutional and Social Background to OWN-P (WASH-II) ...... 15 2.1 Characteristics of Vulnerability and Exclusion from WaSH Services ...... 16 2.2 Underserved and Vulnerable Groups ...... 19 2.3 Socioeconomic and cultural profile of some underserved communities……………….…………21 2.4 Vulnerability, Exclusion and Underserved Populations: Implications for Universal Coverage 39 2.5 The Legal and Policy Context for WaSH ...... 40 2.6 National Policy Framework for WaSH Provision ...... 42 2.7 The building blocks for Universal Acess ...... 45 3. OWN-P (WaSH II): Supporting Equitable and Inclusive Access to WaSH ...... 47 3.1 Principles and Pillars of OWN-P ...... 47 3.2 WaSH-I Progress towards Equitable Access to WaSH Provision: Lessons learnt ...... 48 3.3 Integrating Equity and Inclusion into the Design of OWN-P (WaSH II) ...... 49 4. Equitable and Inclusive WaSH Services: Key Messages from the Consultations ...... 51 4.1 Community Perceptions of Current WaSH Benefits ...... 51 4.2 Community Needs in Relation to WaSH Services ...... 52 4.3 Barriers to Equitable and Inclusive WaSH ...... 54 4.4 Improvement Suggestions ...... 56 5. Recommendations ...... 57 5.1 Potential Implementation Risks and Challenges ...... 58 5.2 Recommendations for OWN-P Implementation ...... 59 Annex 1: Documents Consulted ...... 67 Annex 2: Checklist of Themes and Question Prompts for Focus Group Discussions ...... 71 Annex 3: Suggested Amendments or Additions to the Key Performance Indicators for OWN-P ...... 74 Annex 4: Example of an Organisational Equity and Access Capacities Assessment Matrix ...... 77 Annex 5: Summary of Findings of the Stakeholder Consultations prepared by WaterAid ....79

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 3

Acknowledgements

The Social Assessment of the One Wash National Programme (Water Supply and Sanitation Programme – II) was undertaken on behalf of the NWCO of the MoWE, and its partners, by Mary Ann Brocklesby and WaterAid Ethiopia. The final report was written by Mary Ann Brocklesby. Stakeholder Consultations in Gambela, SNNPR and Somali were coordinated by Girma Aboma of Water Aid Ethiopia. The Field teams who collected and analysed the regional data and prepared the regional reports were as follows:

. Gambela – Fromsa Taya (Team Leader), Gari Duguma, Yewbdar Asefa, Muluken Abate . SNNPR – Terekegn Kassa (Team Leader), Aynalem Kassa, Sequarie Behane, Sara Ibssa . Somali – Alemu Yadeta (Team Leader), Demi Gemeda, Eyerusalem Melesse, Jemila Hussen . Afar, Oromia, Benishangul Gumuz—Abinet kebede (literature review)

Abiy Girma, the coordinator of NWCO/MoWE, Morag Baird of DFID; Tesfaye Bekalu and Chudi Okafor of the World Bank oversaw the preparation of the report. The Social Assessment was carried out with the support of UK AID Department for International Development. The MoWE, and the Social Assessment Team are extremely grateful to the government, stakeholders, and service providers, both inside and outside of government who were interviewed or took part in focus group discussions. Our greatest thanks are reserved for the WaSHCOs, women of all ages, older people, people with disabilities, homeless people and the poorer people within the communities we visited, who gave their time so freely and shared their opinions so openly with team members.

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 4

Acronyms

AMCOW African Ministers Council of Water CB Capacity Building CLTSH Community Led Total Sanitation and Hygiene CMP Community Managed Project COWASH Community-Led Accelerated WASH CSO Civil Society Organisation DFID Department for International Development EDHS Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey FGD Focus Group Discussion GoE Government of Ethiopia GoF Government of Finland GQIP General Education Quality Improvement Programme GRM Grievance and Redress Mechanisms GTP Growth and Transformation Plan HEW Health Extension Worker HSC Health Science College ILO International Labour Organisation KPI Key Performance Indicators M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MDG Millennium Development Goal MoE Ministry of Education MoFA Ministry of Federal Affairs MoFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development MoH Ministry of Health MoU Memorandum of Understanding MoWE Ministry of Water and Energy MTR Mid-Term Review NWCO National WASH Coordination Office NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NWI National WaSH Inventory ODF Open Defecation Free O&VC Orphans and Vulnerable Children OWN-P One WaSH National Programme PMU Project Management Unit RWCO Regional WaSH Coordination Office RWSS Rural Water Supply and Sanitation SNPPR Southern Nations, Nationalities and People’s Region SWAp Sector Wide Approach ToR Terms of Reference TWB Town Water Boards UAP Universal Access Program UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund WaSH Water Sanitation and Hygiene WaSHCO WASH Committees WIF WASH Implementation Framework WS Water Supply WSSP Water Supply and Sanitation Project (funded by IDA/DFID) WWT Woreda WASH Team WB World Bank Glossary of Local Terms Kebele: The smallest administrative unit in Ethiopia Woreda: is an administrative division of Ethiopia (managed by a local government), equivalent to a district. Woredas are composed of a number of kebeles

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 5

Executive Summary The OWN-P (WaSH II) social assessment was commissioned as part of the finalisation of the OWN-P design and Implementation strategy. The primary focus of the social assessment was on the Woreda managed project modality of OWN-P (WaSH II). OWN-P is the GoE’s main instrument for achieving the goals and targets of increased coverage of water supply and sanitation established in the GTP. It is a 7 year programme designed to be implemented in two phases: Phase 1 - 2013 -2015 and Phase 2 – 2015 -2020. Phasing allows for adjustments, after 2015, in line with changed GoE priorities, policies and strategies post the GTP, MDGs and UAP.

The purpose of the social assessment was to: a) assess the potential impact of OWN-P’s (WaSH II) proposed project components on the under-served populations in the emerging regions and pastoralist areas as well as vulnerable and disadvantaged social groups in Ethiopia and, b) identify strategies for mitigating risk and adverse impacts. There were two main components to the SA: a) analysis of existing data sources in relation to the key social and institutional issues affecting poor, vulnerable and underserved individuals, households and populations and, b) rapid participatory stakeholder consultations in 3 regions – Gambella, Somali and SNNPR.

Social Background There has been substantial progress in extending the provision of WaSH services. From a very low base, in 1990, of 19% for water supply and 3% for sanitation coverage the overall access - rural and urban- to water supply and sanitation facilities, by 2010, had expanded to 52% and 63%, respectively. Notwithstanding these significant improvements, there are considerable disparities in WaSH provision. Ethiopia is off-track in meeting its MDG targets for water and sanitation. The Growth and Transformation Plan (2010 – 2015) reaffirmed GoE’s commitment to extending WaSH services to under-served households and populations. However, the WaSH coverage date indicates, there are significant challenges to meeting the GTP goals which the OWN-P is seeking to address. The overriding issues of equity and inclusion, recognised by the GoE are --that for a number of disadvantaged and vulnerable groups and regions, there are differing levels of welfare and opportunities to participate in, and benefit from the extending and improving of WaSH services. Spatial inequalities mean that functioning WaSH services are more likely to be located in urban areas and in the more developed regions. The emerging regions, which comprise 10% of the population, are significantly underserved by WaSH services in relation to the other regions. Specific groups who experience the greatest challenges in accessing WaSH services are: women in general, older people, people living with disabilities and HIV, communities in remote rural areas and in urban slums or informal settlements. The poorest and most disadvantaged households and individuals, especially women, in all regions are less likely to access functioning WaSH services of adequate quality, either within their communities or in education and health provision.

There is a risk that focusing policies and programmes on broad-based understandings of underserved regions, populations and vulnerable groups will lead to overlooking inequalities between individuals within these regions, populations and groups. Moreover, there is increasing evidence that the issue of spatial inequality is not just one of comparisons between regions. Research by Water Aid and the National Water Inventory data (2011) both show large variations between woredas in the same Region and between kebeles in the same woreda, even those which are being served by existing WaSH programmes. The reasons for this are a complex mix of environmental, social and institutional factors that have yet to be fully analysed. Vertical inequalities within populations and groups (e.g. pastoralist communities, children, and kebeles within woredas) are often larger than horizontal inequalities between populations and groups (e.g. rural-urban populations). A focus on vertical differences within underserved populations and vulnerable groups means WaSH policies and interventions can better address the different needs amongst people who are under-served and better target resource-constrained services to those not currently accessing WaSH services. The current sector data collection and monitoring system for the WaSH sector has yet to consider the full range of vertical differences within underserved populations and vulnerable groups. It does not capture coverage, access and use data below the household level. There is limited data on differential access and use by age, gender and disability. The OWN-P opens up opportunities for the WaSH sector to progressively address these gaps and support more effective targeting as it moves to universal coverage of basic WaSH services.

Policy, Institutional and Implementation Framework for OWN-P The review of the policy, and the institutional and implementation framework for OWN-P indicated that there is a committed enabling environment supporting OWN-P meet the ambitious goals laid out in the GTP and UAP.

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 6

Constitutional rights, policies and programmes in Ethiopia strongly support and promote the equitable inclusion of regions and social groups lagging behind in access to WaSH Services. The GoE has moved on a number of fronts – strategies, financing, strengthened coordination mechanisms and improved data flows to address the immediate constraints affecting progress towards universal WaSH coverage. Nevertheless, a number of challenges face the sector in meeting the goal of universal WaSH access. Some are generic to the sector including: capacity and human resource issues, high government staff turnover, limitations in private sector capacity to meet demand, geographical inequities, operation and maintenance issues, ensuring sustainability, ongoing limitations in M&E and slow financial utilisation rates for some donor funds. Other challenges relate directly to progressing equitable access to WaSH services for under-served populations and vulnerable groups. These include: lack of awareness by service providers (government and CSOs) of the legal and policy framework supporting equitable access; inaccurate and non-existent data on the numbers and characteristics of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups within Ethiopia; limited social science capacity at Regional level, particularly in pastoralist areas, to address the social dimensions of WaSH provision; inconsistencies in WaSH policies and strategies in relation to identifying and targeting vulnerable groups.

Integrating Equity and Inclusion into the Design of Own-P (WaSH II) OWN – P (WaSH -II) builds on the achievements of WaSH I and other implementation mechanisms operating prior to OWN-P. The emphasis in Phase 1 is on harmonisation and alignment of partners’ plans and strategies to OWN- P and to expanded WaSH coverage to meet GTP targets by 2015. Institutional arrangements and implementation modalities for Phase II will be determined after the Mid-Term Review in 2015.

The OWN-P, like the majority of policies and strategies within the WaSH sector, does not identify or define specific vulnerable groups needing special attention, within the WaSH sector, (such as people living with disabilities or the elderly) or elaborate specific strategies to reach these groups. However, in terms of equitable access, OWN-P’s goal explicitly seeks “to reduce regional and social disparities in access to safe drinking water and sanitation” (MoWE, 2013:41). It will do this through a range of implementation modalities, strategies and targets including:

. A dedicated component for pastoralist WaSH reflecting a commitment to address the specific environmental and social conditions in pastoralist areas. . Mainstreaming gender equality approaches throughout the programme, including gender disaggregation of data in the MIS and results framework. The Gender Directorate of the MOWE is currently undertaking a gender audit of WaSH service provision under the WMP modality. The results of which will be fed into the implementation strategies of OWN-P . Using NWI data to identify and target areas with low access to water supply and basic sanitation differentiating between regions, woredas and between kebeles within woredas. . Giving priority (financial and human resource allocations) to acute water and sanitation “hotspots” including those in conflict zones, informal settlements of migrant labourers and other emergency WaSH situations. . Close collaboration with emergency WaSH structures and activities. This will involve: including emergency WaSH into the co-ordination and reporting structures of OWN-P; integrating emergency preparedness and response Unit within the NWTT and ensuring coordination with regional, zonal and woreda emergency structures, especially in pastoralist regions. . Committing to, and prioritising demand-led and community based approaches in all implementing mechanisms in order to promote a) full participation of communities in WaSH provision and b) post- implementation maintenance and sustainability. . Provision of a resettlement policy framework (RPF) describing legislation and regulation and due process for compensation if land acquisition is needed or productive assets are lost.

Equitable and Inclusive WaSH Services: Findings from the Stakeholder Consultations Rapid participatory stakeholder consultations in selected woredas in Gambella, Somali and SNNPR focused on stakeholder perceptions in relation to: service user and community perceptions of the benefits from existing WaSH 1 services; community needs in relation to WaSH; barriers to equity and inclusion under OWN-P (WaSH- II), and improvement suggestions.

Benefits from existing Wash Services: In all regions, people consulted in the woredas, emphasized the importance of WaSH services to themselves and their families. Abobo Woreda in Gambella region was the only

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 7

location to report satisfaction with, and benefits from WaSH services under WaSH I. All people within 16 of the 17 kebeles in Abobo reported significant benefits from increased access to water and sanitation facilities, under the WaSH I programme. Water points have been installed across the Woreda, including the kebele where villagisation took place. Households have dug and started using pit latrines and have year-long water supply from three shallow wells installed in the Woreda. In the new commune, residents –men and women- valued the range of WaSH services available to them. They felt they had particularly benefited from the Health Extension Worker (HEW), active in their community. Adolescent girls valued the installation of water and girl only latrines in their school. They no longer needed to feel embarrassed or worry about lack of privacy. Having latrines, made school more accessible to them.

Community Needs: In all Woredas people consulted highlighted affordability as integral to sustained access. Communities also raised issues relating to: adequate quality of water supply and sanitation; the need to adapt WaSH services to their particular location as well as the needs of certain groups as significant concerns. Access to water could not be separated from being able to afford the water. Affordability was determined by location and wealth status. Widows, older people, pastoralists and agro-pastoralists living on the edge of town, as well as people living in areas with poor infrastructure (urban slums and remote rural areas) all reported the cost of water as being prohibitive to them accessing safe water sources. Poor men and women in all woredas felt that as a percentage of their income, they paid more for water than better off residents in their woreda. Functionality of sanitation services (home and communal) and water points after implementation was a major concern for all FDG participants. In SNNPR, and Gambella town, WaSH services stopped being used because they were broken (water points) or overflowing (latrines) and no longer of an acceptable quality. Access to water of adequate quality was an issue for men and women in all woredas. Across all regions, maintaining basic latrines or improving them was extremely difficult for poor households, the elderly and disabled people. Disabled men and women did not feel that WaSH services had been adapted to their particular needs: even when there was an improved water supply, it was difficult for them to use it because of their mobility constraints. Women and girls in all woredas but Abobo, in Gambella Region, felt that more could be done to meet their WaSH needs. They received limited information about female hygiene and sanitary practices. Latrines in health posts or schools were not functional, because of lack of water or privacy, which meant they felt uncomfortable in using the facility. In Gambella Town, Anyuak women reported not being able to use household latrines because they were being used by the males in the household. In the Anyuak community, culturally and traditionally women are not allowed to use the same sanitation facilities as men but as they had not been consulted, this had not been taken into account in the design and planning of WaSH facilities.

Barriers to Equitable Access to WaSH Provision: Access to information was a concern for all participants in the FDGs and especially for women and particularly in relation to hygiene and sanitation. Poor people, especially older men and women and disabled people in all woredas reported that they had very little information about WaSH services because they had limited contact with Woredas, or in the case of Somali region, with woreda WT or other service providers. In all three regions, low rates of participation especially for women in WaSH planning and decision-making was a major concern. FDG participants who were not in WaSHCOs did not feel they had a voice in decision-making, planning and post-implementation maintenance of WaSH services. Women and in particular poor and older women felt isolated from WaSH provision. All the women in FDGs reported that they had never been consulted and that they did not feel their interests were fully addressed. There were no women on the WaSHCO in SNNPR and no WaSHCOs in Somali. Disabled people, also reported being left out of consultation processes across all the regions. All participants in the FGDs felt accountability mechanisms could be strengthened. Poor adults, the elderly and disabled participants also voiced their concern that they risked retribution from more powerful community members because the existing complaint procedures did not protect poor people if they voiced their issues and concerns. Improvement Suggestions: Participants in the FGDs had a number of suggestions for strengthening programme implementation under Own-P (WaSH II). These related to affordability, transparency and accountability, quality and sustaining WaSH services; equitable inclusion in planning and decision-making and adapting WaSH facilities to context and need. Across all three regions, poor and vulnerable people, especially women, suggested considering subsidy mechanisms for the poorest and vulnerable social groups, including disabled people. Widows and underserved women groups in Gambella and WaSHCOs in SNNP suggested that OWN-P should give first priority to underserved communities residing in the remote and inaccessible areas and the poor and vulnerable living in those communities For all participants, improving information flows between the Woreda and the WaSHCOs and between the WaSHCOs and community members was seen as fundamental

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 8

to improving and sustaining coverage of WaSH services. For all participants, ensuring the quality of the water was essential, but methods used needed to be low cost and simple and monitoring of water quality needed to be strengthened. In all regions, the WWT, WaSHCOs, men groups, poor/elder women groups and men with disabilities suggested that there should an institutionalised mechanism for ensuring the voices of different social groups and user communities within woredas, such as disabled people, widows, poor men and women, people living in remote locations, were fully represented in the planning, implementation and post- implementation processes of OWN-P. Across the regions, Girls and adult women felt more needed to be done to ensure that women could actively participate in planning and decision-making at all stages of the OWN-P. Across the regions, men and women wanted better accountability mechanisms and processes of complaint and redress. All disabled people consulted said that OWN-P needs to introduce standardised designs for water supply and sanitation which ensured WaSH services were accessible to people with mobility issues. This suggestion was also made by older people including widows in Gambella.

Potential Risks and Challenges to OWN-P Implementation Findings from the sector review of key social and institutional issues affecting OWN-P (WaSH II) and the stakeholder consultations identified the following risks and challenges.

Cross-cutting Issues . Affordability of WaSH services by poor, vulnerable and under-served populations not fully addressed in the design and risks excluding these groups from coverage as well as sustained access to services. . Processes and strategies for developing understanding, awareness and respect, as well as building capacities to address the diverse needs of underserved populations and vulnerable groups only partially addressed in the design. . Steps and Mechanisms for harmonising and aligning partners’ cost-effective and good practice approaches in relation to equitable and inclusive community-based WaSH provision not addressed in the design . Staff/technical support requirements for social safe guarding and/or social aspects of WaSH provision only partially addressed in design . The needs and voice of disabled people largely invisible in practice and in design Component 1: Rural and Pastoralist WaSH . The mass mobilisation strategy, a key activity for WMP, as yet not aligned with CLTSH and does not have explicit guidelines for promoting women’s leadership or reaching and engaging hard to reach vulnerable groups . There is a risk that existing heavy workloads of HEWs, particularly in under-served pastoralist regions, will undermine efforts at alignment/harmonisation of WS and sanitation/hygiene activities . Low participation of women, poor people and pastoralists in general, in WaSHCOs Component 2: Urban WaSH . Cost-recovery processes disproportionately negatively affect poorer households . Targeted provision of safe and accessible communal/public toilet blocks in urban and peri-urban areas essential to ensure vulnerable groups can access WaSH services . Community -demand for woreda/community-supported WaSH-based O&M IGA for poor people not addressed in OWN-P design . Same participation issues as component 1. Component 3: Institutional WaSH . Menstrual hygiene management practices and needs not fully addressed; . Design and guidelines of institutional WaSH provision does not address the needs of all vulnerable groups, especially people living with disabilities and HIV/AIDs Component 4: Programme Management and Capacity Building . Own-P’s proposed communication strategy not fit for purpose with underserved populations and vulnerable groups because of existing low media coverage (electronic and print) and literacy rates, especially for women. . Capacity building measures for gender mainstreaming, heavily dependent on gender and do not address the institutional barriers to mainstreaming . Capacity building measures missing opportunities to address the range of capacities national, regional and woreda staff will need, to ensure equity and inclusion issues are mainstreamed. . Opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of GRM/accountability mechanisms not fully addressed in design

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 9

. Gaps in guidelines, systems and processes of WASHCOs for a) encouraging the active participation and leader of women and vulnerable groups and, b) ensuring the interests/needs of women and vulnerable groups are incorporated in the plans and implementations . Existing monitoring systems not sufficiently disaggregated to track coverage in relation to underserved populations and vulnerable groups. . There is a gap in the available data and MIS for tracking usage at household and sub-household levels.

Recommendations The recommendations outlined in table A below address the risks and challenges identified in relation to the cross-cutting issues as well as the specific access and equity issues relating to the 4 components of OWN-P

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 10

Table A: Summary of Recommendations OWN-P Recommendations Cross-cutting . Establish mechanisms for increasing affordability of WaSH services for the poorest and most vulnerable groups. A number of interventions will need to Issues be considered including: Fee-waivers in both rural and urban areas Use of community-based targeting to establish eligibility for fee-waivers; assess the potential of using water fees to cross subsidise sanitation and pilot the approach in selected low-income under-served areas; establish policy and guidelines with regard to: who will receive subsidies and cost waivers post-implementation; introduce targeted information dissemination on standard WaSH costs, social tariffs and any other introduced cost waiver mechanisms to the poorest and vulnerable households and, commission studies on life cycle costs and affordability of rural, peri-urban and urban water and sanitation services for the poorest and vulnerable households and individuals. . Develop an overarching policy and implementation framework to guide equitable access to WaSH provision for underserved populations and vulnerable groups, by the end of Phase 1. The equity principle underpinning the policies and strategies across the different implementation ministries involved in OWN-P suggests the need to harmonise/align policies and procedures in relation to addressing social disparities across Ethiopia and within underserved populations. There is also a need or overarching and explicit guidelines across the whole sector. The flexibility of the design of OWN-P and the acknowledgement that there may be changes in policies, strategies and targets post-2015 allows for these adjustments. . During Phase 1 undertake an Equity and Inclusion mapping and review of the systems, mechanisms and practices of the different implementation modalities (WMP, CMP and NGO) in relation to a) equitable and inclusive access of underserved populations and vulnerable groups and b) social accountability/GRM. The aim of the assessment is to identify good practice with the potential of going to scale of a) cost-effective mechanisms, processes and strategies for provisioning and sustaining WaSH services to underserved and vulnerable groups and b) processes and mechanisms that support equitable inclusion of under-served populations and vulnerable groups in decision-making, planning and implementation of WaSH activities and GRM/social accountability mechanisms. . Strengthen actions to ensure people with disabilities benefit from WaSH services under OWN-P. including, standardised designs for accessible latrines, training for officials, WaSHCOs etc. on disability issues and WaSH needs; low-cost adaptations of WaSH facilities; enhanced consultation with people with disabilities and WaSH job opportunities for people with disabilities . Incorporate a full social assessment, including analysis of trends towards the social sustainability of WaSH interventions, into the planned comprehensive MTR. Component 1: Rural WaSH Rural and . Review and Revise the mass mobilisation strategy. The mass mobilisation strategy (2008) needs to be brought up to date and guidelines included which Pastoralist address how to reach and include underserved populations and vulnerable groups, especially women, in the planning, provision and management of WaSH WaSH services. . The assessment of the post-construction management and technical support to WASHCOs should include explicit social development technical support for: strengthening capacities of WaSHCOs to promote women’s leadership and that of representatives from vulnerable groups. The impacts of this type of technical support on the sustainability of WaSH interventions can be tracked through the KPIs (see below, and annex 4). The equity and inclusion review, proposed under this SA, will also support OWN –P identify appropriate and inclusive processes and systems for the WASHCOs. Pastoralist WaSH . The process for expanding WaSH services to pastoralist areas is already planned be flexible, demand-led and responsive to different contexts. In developing the pastoralist WaSH strategy, specific attention needs to be given to women and poorer and vulnerable pastoralist individuals and households. The M&E indicators developed will need to be disaggregated by age, wealth status and gender and aligned with the KPIs suggested in this assessment. . OWN-P will need to assess any risks or opportunities to its delivery from the CDP process and integrate measures as appropriate. In addition, the half annual and annual performance reports, should where regionally appropriate, include a section for reporting on the specific programme progress and challenges within the new villages established under CDP. Component 2: . Build explicit strategies for reaching under-served and vulnerable groups into the planned urban strategy and approach to urban sanitation. It is vital that

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 11

Urban WaSH the strategy clearly identifies who the underserved and vulnerable groups and tailors implementation strategies to ensure access. The strategy will need to be developed in close collaboration with residents from informal communities, including the poorest and most vulnerable women and men. It is expected access and equity results from implementation of the strategy will be tracked through the results framework (results area 4), and this will need to be clarified with the results framework. Component 3: . Standardise disabled accessible hard ware designs within school and health services provision to ensure specific needs of people living with disabilities Institutional and HIV/AIDs are addressed. WaSH . Include latrine designs for people with mobility constraints within hardware WaSH options for production and distribution, within support envisaged for expanding market supply chains. . Introduce menstrual hygiene management practices materials in WaSH institutional information packages. . Integrate WaSH within the accountability mechanisms of the education and health sectors. Component 4 Capacity Building Programme . Review the social science human resources within the WaSH sector and adjust proposed TA requirements, under OWN -P to include social Management inclusion/impact and accountability assistance. and Capacity . It is essential that methods of knowledge/ practice exchange, envisaged under OWN-P, such as FLOWs and horizontal learning explicitly include, and Building budget for, components focused on gender equality and equity/inclusion knowledge ad practice. Recommendatio . This SA endorses the recommendations of the capacity building review (EoD, 2013) to apply the methodology of Horizontal learning or peer-to-peer ns under learning more systematically, in order to embed new knowledge and practice in institutional mechanisms and systems. Within the first 12 months of Component 4 OWN-P conduct a study visit of selected key stakeholders, (gender parity in study tour participants a prerequisite). are divided . Integrate gender and social inclusion issues into the proposed capacity building assessment forms and the subsequent capacity building strategies. between: Annex 4 provides an example of an Equity and Access Capacities Assessment Matrix which assesses the cross-cutting issues of OWN-P against the four main Capacity dimensions of programme management capacity. building; Communication Strategy Communication . Address communication needs of underserved populations and vulnerable groups within the proposed communication strategy, to be developed with Strategy and the support of UNICEF. M&E, including . Track the impacts of the communication strategy through the OWN-P, half-annual and annual performance reports. accountability Monitoring and Evaluation including GRM/Accountable Mechanisms mechanisms/GR . MIS/Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The KPIs have been reviewed, as required under the ToRs. The suggested amendments, with justification for the M. change, is contained within annex 3. . The baseline survey and data analysis proposed under Results area 4, needs to be disaggregated by age, gender, wealth status and establish a baseline of the WaSH needs of people with disabilities . Track progress in expanding access of WaSH services to under-served populations and vulnerable groups through the half annual and annual performance reports. . Strengthen and harmonise GRM/accountability mechanisms, within the implementation framework and M&E indicators by the end of phase 1. Different accountability mechanisms across the modalities need to be harmonised and aligned with each other and within government systems across the 3 implementing ministries.

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 12

1. Introduction

The OWN-P (WaSH II) social assessment was commissioned as part of the finalisation of the OWN-P design and Implementation strategy. The primary focus of the social assessment was on the Woreda managed project modality of OWN-P (WaSH II). WaSH II is a continuation of WaSH I and also the largest operational modality within OWN-P. The social assessment contributes to actions by the GoE to ensure that implementation of OWN-P is inclusive and equitable for all citizens in Ethiopia. The National WaSH Coordination office within the Ministry of Water and Energy coordinated the implementation, review and reporting of the Social Assessment Team. The purpose of the social assessment was to: a) assess the potential impact of OWN-P’s (WaSH II) proposed project components on the under-served populations and vulnerable and disadvantaged social groups in Ethiopia and, b) identify strategies for mitigating risk and adverse impacts.

1.1 Objectives of the Social Assessment There are three main objectives to the social assessment. These are: . Describe and analyse the socio-economic characteristics of vulnerable and social disadvantaged social groups and underserved populations across Ethiopia who will be most affected by Own-P (WaSH II); . Participatory stakeholder consultations with WaSH service providers and users in selected under-served regions and woredas and, . Operational guidance and recommendations to support the integration of social development issues into project design and implementation arrangements.

1.2 Social Assessment Methodology The process of designing the OWN-P began in March 2013 and the social assessment is an integral part of this process. The OWN-P design process has been characterised by extensive free, informed and in-depth consultations with all levels of stakeholders including: sector ministries, government officials at Woreda, regional and national offices, donors and civil society organisations. The social assessment methodology continued the participatory design approach taken by the NWCO. It also built on the methodology of the recently completed social assessment for GEQIP II.

Guided by the MoWE/NWCO, and development partners, priority in this SA was given to addressing data gaps in relation to:

. Good practice and lessons learnt about equitable benefits of WaSH service provision in WaSH I project areas and, . The WaSH needs of socially excluded and vulnerable populations and groups within Ethiopia, as well as, opportunities for, and barriers against accessing affordable, adequate and appropriate WaSH services.

There were two main components to the methodology (see inception report for full details):

. Review and synthesis of existing data sources in relation to the key social and institutional issues affecting poor, vulnerable and underserved individuals, households and populations and; . Rapid participatory stakeholder consultations in 3 regions and selected woredas.

The stakeholder consultations were not representative at a national level: they were purposive and targeted. Consultations focused on gathering the perceptions and suggestions for improvements from service deliverers and communities, within regions and areas, which are under-served and

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 13

where there are significant spatial disparities in WaSH coverage. These are the emerging regions and regions with large populations of pastoralist and ethnic minority populations (Afar, Somali, Gambella, Benshangul-Gumuz and parts of Oromia and SNNPR). These are also the regions with the highest levels of disadvantage and poverty (EDHS, 2011).

This social assessment is complemented by the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) prepared as a guide and mitigation measures related to land acquisition and distubances affecting livelhoods and restriction to access that may have negative social impacts. This social assessment also benefited from other social assessments conducted for other projects such as PCDP3, SLMP, and GEQIP2.

The focus of the stakeholder consultations was on three specific areas:

. Needs assessment of WaSH services and the existing barriers to accessing safe, affordable, services of adequate quality which are adapted to culture and context (see Box 1 below for full explanation); . Assessment of potential improvement opportunities and strategies, under OWN-P, for progressing greater equity in access to WaSH services and, . Rapid assessment of the extent to which WaSH I (WSSP) has equitably benefited communities; this was done in order to contribute to lesson learning.

The key consultation instrument was Focus Group Discussions using semi-structured interviewing in combination with a simple participatory analysis tool. A separate check list of question areas was prepared for the Regional/Woreda level discussions and the community level discussions (see Annexe 2).

Box 1: Making Wash Available and Safe, Accessible and Affordable, of Acceptable quality and Adapted to context – the 4 As

In relation to WaSH, improvement in services means that improvements are made in all aspects of service planning, provision, management, delivery, use and monitoring. It also means that improvements will be sustained over time and will lead to improvements in economic and health status1, and improved wellbeing of service users. The agreed human rights standards are based on the requirement that services must be available and safe, accessible and affordable, of acceptable quality, and adaptable and culturally sensitive, also known as the 4 As.

Available and safe: the right sorts of WaSH services are equitably located within acceptable reach of all users. This may mean that reconsideration of investment is necessary to ensure that geographical disparities are addressed and that isolated areas receive services or are reliably linked into them. Sanitation must effectively prevent human, animal and insect contact with excreta. Water must be available for good personal hygiene and facilities for safe wastewater disposal must be in place. Accessible and affordable: describes the ease with which users can reach services and use them. It also refers to the removal of socio-cultural and economic barriers which prevent people from using WaSH facilities – for example, certain groups of people not being able to use the same public facilities as other groups; local elite capture of public works, including sanitation; or lack of secure environments meaning it is unsafe for certain people to use sanitation facilities (at night, for example). Access to WaSH, including maintenance, must be affordable, without reducing individual and household capacity to meet other basic needs such as food and health services. Acceptable quality: WaSH– in households and in public places – meets national and internationally agreed technical quality standards. For example, equipment meets regulations and is properly maintained, etc. Adaptable and culturally sensitive: conforming to national standards, yet flexible enough to meet the needs of particular population groups in particular contexts. For example, flexible separate public facilities for men and women to ensure privacy, dignity and safety; a range of different types of water sources and latrine to meet different cultural needs (use of

1 The link between improved WaSH, health and economic status is proven. See, for example, Kememy, 2007: Bartram and Cairncross, 2010 and the first High Level Meeting of the Sanitation and Water for All initiative (UNICEF and World Bank 23rd April 2010) where it was stated that investments in sanitation and water deliver economic returns of over 5 times investment, with an annual rate of return of over 20%.

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 14

water for cleansing, etc.); adapted opening hours and good security for shift workers in urban areas. It is expected that a full understanding of all the different cultures and sensitivities in the population, as well as the social dimensions which affect when, where, why and how users from different backgrounds and needs access WaSH services, will inform the development of policy and practice. Source: Crawford, S. CR2 Ltd.

At Regional Level, separate FGDs were held with the regional and woreda WaSH Teams. Within in each selected community/kebele separate FGDS were held with WaSHCO members, poor and disadvantaged men and women, including people living with disabilities, from pastoralist communities and other under-served populations. All groups were disaggregated by gender and age. A total of 78 FGDs were conducted across the 3 regions involving 701 people: 353 women, 346 men, of which: 25 FGD, were held in SNNPR, (143 men and 97 women) 26 FGD in Somali (114 women and 99 men) 27 FGD in Gambella (114 men and 142 women). A separate report contains all the regional reports and the breakdown of the sample size/focus group discussions. Regions and Woredas Consulted NWI (2011) and EDHS (2011) data was used to select Gambela, SSNPR, and Somali regions for the stakeholder consultations. This gave a purposive sample of regions with below average coverage of WaSH services and significant populations of under-served groups (pastoralists/agro-pastoralists and other minority groups; high percentage of households and individuals living below the poverty line - as a proxy for vulnerability and disadvantage - and with locations where villagisation has taken place). The 3 regions were considered a sufficiently robust sample; given the existing availability of data and the time constraints affecting the stakeholder consultations. In each Region, two woredas were selected, both of which had been part of the WaSH I project in Somali and SNNPR and one of which was a WaSH 1 project area in Gabella). In all woredas selected, one woreda was showing access levels above the national level and the other, with access levels below national levels. This enabled a degree of comparative analysis in relation to: a) what is currently working in progressing equitable and inclusive access to WaSH, b) the possible skills and capacities needed to deliver on the objectives OWN-P and, c) reaching and consulting with a wide range of vulnerable and under-served social groups within selected communities. Table 1 below sets out the regions and Woredas consulted. Table 1: Consulted Regions and Woredas Region Woreda Gambela: An emerging region with above average access to water Abobo: A Wash 1 woreda and an area where the supply (66.4% compared to 54.3% national average, NWI, 2011). commune development programme (villagisation) has Although this figure, masks considerable disparities in access been implemented. Selected as an area with high water coverage (72%) and a WaSH 1 woreda. between populations and locations. Institutional coverage (schools Gambella Town: Not A WaSH 1 woreda. Water supply etc.) is lower than average. Commune Development Programme installed by Woreda. Ethnically diverse population, mix on-going. Low capacities within Regional and Woreda WaSH teams of settlers, agro-pastoralists, pastoralists and pastoralists drop-outs. SSNPR: Large pastoralist populations and very low WaSH Both woredas are in the Sidamo Zone coverage. Commune development Programme is on-going. Low Shinbedindo: Selected by the regional as an area with WaSH service delivery capacities, particularly in rural areas. high WaSH coverage. Declared ODF in 2011. The Disparities in institutional coverage: remote rural areas and majority of the population are Sidama, in the peri-urban informal settlement areas poorly covered. areas, thenpopulation is more diverse. Malega: A newly established woreda, with lower than average WaSH coverage. The majority of the population are Sidama. Somali: An emerging region. NWI data is not yet available. Existing Harshin: Selected as an area where, according to the data suggests that WaSH coverage in Somali is considerably lower regional officials there was better coverage than other than in other areas of Ethiopia (compared to 54.3%). There are districts. Majority of population pastoralists. Oxfam

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 15

disparities of access within and across Woredas; water-related works in the Woreda. conflicts (access, supply, ownership etc.) and regular provision of 150 km to the north of Jijiga and borders Somalia. emergency water supplies. Institutional WaSH coverage is low, as Gursum: A WaSH I woreda, identified by the regional WT as having low WaSH coverage. The majority of the are capacities in WaSH service provision. population are Agro-pastoralists. Gursum is about 50 Km from Jigiga and the border with Oromia. It is a conflict area, subject to emergency WaSH provision. Afar, Oromia, Benishangul Gumuz : used literature review and Afar: Engages in pastoral and agro pastoral economy past social assessments. Existing data suggests that WaSH activities as main sources of livelihood. Borena Zone— Teltele, Yabelo: Borena is a zone in the Oromia region coverage in these regions is low. There are disparities of access with unique cultural characteristics and are pastoralist within and across Woredas; water-related conflicts (access, supply, and agro-pastoralist. Benishangul Gumuz—Mao-Kamo ownership etc.) and regular provision of emergency water supplies. are two minority groups and most underserved group in Institutional WaSH coverage is low, as are capacities in WaSH western Benishangul Gumuz. service provision.

1.3 Outline of the Report

Following this section, Section 2 outlines the institutional and social context for OWN-P. Section 3 reviews the progress made, and the extent to which the equity and inclusion lessons have been incorporated into the design of OWN-P. Section 4 presents the key messages from the stakeholder consultations. Finally, Section 5, identifies gaps in with respect to equity and inclusion and outlines a series of recommendation aimed at strengthening implementation.

2. The Institutional and Social Background to OWN-P (WASH-II)

Improving access to WaSH services is a key development strategy for Ethiopia. There has been substantial progress in extending the provision of WaSH services. From a very low base, in 1990, of 19% for water supply and 3% for sanitation coverage (MoWE, 2013), the overall access - rural and urban- to water supply and sanitation facilities, by 2010, had expanded to 52% and 63%, respectively (NWI, 2011).

Notwithstanding these significant improvements, there are considerable disparities in WaSH provision. Only about half of the population of Ethiopia have access to an improved source of drinking water, In 2010, Ethiopia accounted for about 46 million people without access to an improved water supply and is considered off-track on progress towards the MDG target on drinking water (57%). Access to improved sanitation2 remains low. Ethiopia has the highest number of people -36 million practicing open defecation, of any African country3 and is off-track on the sanitation MDG target, with about half of the population practising open defecation, (MoWE, 2013). The 2011 DHS showed that only 8% of households in Ethiopia used “improved” toilet facilities, whereas 46% used unimproved or shared latrine coverage with 38% open defecation. MoH data on latrine coverage is higher at 60% (2010). However, similar surveys (e.g. WSP, 2006) have found that only 20-30% of these would qualify as “improved sanitation” as required to safety separate faeces from the environment4.

The current coverage of institutional WaSH, particularly water supply, is also low at about 31%. Data on progress in institutionalising hand washing as a cultural and social norm – a critical hygiene

2 Facilities that ensure hygienic separation of human excreta from human contact 3 UNICEF / WHO Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation, 2012 Update. Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation 4 That is: (i) hygienic cover (smooth, crack free, cleanable) (ii) covered hole to prevent access of flies, (iii) superstructure for privacy, (iv) hand washing facility with water and soap or ash.

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 16

practice is limited, but qualitative studies suggest that minimum levels of hand washing are as low as 7%5. The number of people in Ethiopia following the safe drinking water chain from source to mouth is thought to be as low as 8%6. Institutional WaSH service coverage is also poor. Only 32.3 % of schools and 31.4% of health centres and posts have a water supply. The GoE also estimates that as much as 80% of health facilities are without adequate sanitation facilities and 97% are without hand washing facilities (MoWE, 2013). The lack of improved water in health facilities affects the ability of health workers to conduct clean and safe deliveries, control against infection and conduct routine medical procedures. It contributes to the poor quality of care and may be partly explain why so few women deliver in health facilities (Aboma, 2013c).

The Growth and Transformation Plan (2010 – 2015) reaffirmed GoE’s commitment to extending WaSH services to under-served households and populations. Functioning and effective WaSH services for all citizens are fundamental to its pro-poor and sustainable growth strategies. The Universal Access Plan (UAP), in line with the GTP has set ambitious goals for the WaSH sector: . 98.5% access to water supply, and reduction of proportion of non-functioning facilities to 10%; . 100% sanitation access, and 77% of the population to practice hand washing at critical times, safe water handling, and water treatment in the home, and . 80 % of communities to achieve ‘open defecation free’ status (MoWE, 2011).

However, as the coverage date indicates, there are significant challenges which the OWN-P is seeking to address. The overriding issues of equity and inclusion, recognised by the GoE are, that for a number of disadvantaged and vulnerable groups and regions, there are differing levels of welfare and opportunities to participate in, and benefit from the extending and improving of WaSH services. Functioning WaSH services are more likely to be located in urban areas and in the more developed regions. The emerging regions, which comprise 10% of the population are significantly underserved by Wash services in relation to the other regions. The poorest and most disadvantaged households and individuals, especially women, in all regions are less likely to access functioning WaSH services of adequate quality, either within their communities or in education and health provision (GoE, 2013).

2.1 Characteristics of Vulnerability and Exclusion from WaSH Services

Vulnerability and social inclusion are highly complex and context-related. Whilst, they do not always overlap, individuals and households who are excluded or underserved by WaSH services, for example, are also more likely to be highly vulnerable to situations and events, (for example, reduced quality of life; livelihood and educational opportunities, compromised health status and threat of disease), which compromise their well-being and compound their social exclusion (see Box 2). Key factors affecting people’s abilities to access WaSH services include poverty, gender, and spatial disparities.

Poverty: Wealth status is a determining factor in individual’s and household’s capacities to secure water supply and sanitation that is accessible, safe, affordable and of adequate quality (Satherwaite, 2012, WaterAid, 2011). Overall, in sub-Saharan Africa people from the poorest wealth quintile are 20 times more likely to practice open defecation that those from the highest wealth quintile (AMCOW, 2010). Wealthier households pay less proportionately of their income to access quality WaSH facilities of adequate quality (WaterAid 2011). Water security, especially in times of emergency and drought is compromised by poverty. In Ethiopia, studies have highlighted the extra costs and burdens poorer households face in getting and storing water: their health already compromised by poverty and malnutrition limits their physical capacities to collect water from long distances; they cannot afford to buy extra water containers; have less resources to mobilise labour and transport to carry

5 Sanitation and Hygiene Strategic Action Plan- part 2, 2011-2015 and for example, WSP, 2011 6 ibid

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 17

the water and have few places to store the water hygienically (MacDonald et al, 2011). Water constraints and inequalities in access can also cause social costs in the form of disputes and violence7.

Poverty, also results in individuals and households, even when safe water points are within the national standard distance for access, choosing to use contaminated water sources. This can be: a) for convenience or; b) because they cannot afford the user fees or c) the opportunity costs to use clean water are too high – e.g.: loss of income, lack of labour; fear of violence; limited social networks and intra-household tensions (Dessalegn et al., 2013). Low access to WaSH services, is for poor people, especially poor women, underpinned by social exclusion from decision-making and planning processes for extending WaSH facilities, ( Hughes et al, 2008; Teferra and Gebremedhin, 2010). Access to information channels communicating safe WaSH practices is a major constraint for poor people, especially in pastoralist areas. In Somali and Afar, for example, most poor people communicate by word of mouth. Few access the radio or print media- the main media for transmitting WaSH and health messages (Ward and Ayalew, 2011).

Gender disparities: Lack of access to water supply disproportionately affects women as they are the ones who are responsible for collecting water. In Ethiopia, it is women or girls who usually collect water in over 78% of households with over half spending 30 minutes or longer each round trip, losing time that could be spent on productive activity and reproductive care (EDHS, 2011). Lack of WaSH facilities make women more vulnerable to violence both within the household and outside, because of the time taken from their childcare and domestic responsibilities and the physical hazards they face in collecting water or finding safe and private places to defecate or deal with menstrual flow (Tesfu, n.d., UNFPRA, 2010).

Gender disparities are exacerbated by low participation in planning, implementation and post- implementation maintenance of WaSH facilities, of women, especially of poor and socially excluded women (Teferra and Gebre Medhin, 2010). As a consequence, planned facilities aren’t necessarily adapted to the specific needs of women, such as menstrual hygiene, or safety and acceptable levels of privacy in latrine design and location. Women’ leadership in WaSH is limited; whilst the majority of HEW are women, there are few WaSH engineers or technical staff. Women’s leadership in WashCos tends to be confined to acting as treasurer (World Bank 2013)

7 Reported by The Ethiopia Technical Working Group Agriculture Report; Siti Zone Research Visit reported on a community

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 18

Box 2: Vulnerability and Social Exclusion Social exclusion describes a form of discrimination whereby certain groups are denied access to rights such as basic services – WaSH, Health, Education - or to opportunities such as markets or jobs. Social exclusion is a root cause of deeply entrenched poverty transferred from one generation to another. Social exclusion can occur within the household, within communities or through public sector systems and services such as legal system or health services. Social exclusion can take place on the basis of race, caste, religion, age, disability, gender, HIV status, migrant status or geography. Often, people are affected by multiple discriminations, such as disabled people from a particular ethnic group, or women living with HIV. These multiple forms of exclusion are particularly damaging to people’s lives and can make them highly vulnerable to extreme poverty and deprivation (a). Vulnerability is the extent to which people are exposed to the damaging effects of periodic disasters and the negative conditions in their social, economic and physical environment. Vulnerability describes the factors which both make people more exposed to the negative impacts of their living circumstances and less resilient to coping with these impacts. Economic poverty is an obvious vulnerability. Other factors include sudden shocks such as: economic collapse or natural disasters (e.g. price hikes, sudden conflict or prolonged drought); a lack of adequate understanding and awareness (for example because of insufficient or inappropriate communication of information and ideas); embedded social and cultural attitudes and practices which discriminate against, disadvantage or give precedence to certain people on certain grounds (such as gender or age, ethnicity or religion,); attitudes towards people carrying out certain behaviours (such as chewing chat) or reactions to people with different health status (e.g. people living with HIV, people with disabilities) within societies (b). Source: a: Room 1995, b: Brocklesby et al. 2010

Age disparities: Older people and children are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of lack of WaSH facilities. Children are most vulnerable to WaSH related diseases. In Ethiopia 277,000 children under five years old died in 2010 (106 deaths per 1,000 live births); pneumonia and diarrhoea being two of the most major diseases causing these deaths, with diarrhoea causing 14% (1% new born, 13% U5) or 38,534 of the deaths. Ethiopia has made progress in reducing under-five mortality levels since 2000 (in 2000, over 376,000 children under-five died). Over half of the attribution to this progress has been the reduction of deaths due to diarrhoea (comprising 28.2% of the reduction) and pneumonia -comprising 27.8% of the reduction (EDHS, 2012).

Lack of WaSH facilities in schools can affect children’s, especially girls’ attendance and drop-out rates, impacting on educational achievement rates (MoE, 2010). Water collection times can affect school attendance of adolescent girls. A World Bank study in four countries showed that girls’ attendance at school increases significantly for every hour reduction in water collection (van de Walle, 2010). There is also some evidence that lack of menstrual hygiene facilities affects girls’ attendance. A baseline line study by (SNV, 2011) found that 70% of adolescent school girls miss 2-3 school days each month due to concerns about embarrassment and shame over leakages. The SNV programme also found a significant reduction in school absenteeism after support for menstrual hygiene management had been provided.

Older persons, particularly elderly poor people, experience significant difficulties in accessing WaSH facilities that are available and safe and affordable due to: reduced mobility; physical challenges and costs (Patkar and Gosling 2010). Poor elderly people, especially women who are often widowed, are still economically active but invisible within communities and rarely consulted about basic service delivery (Ebb, 2011). Perceptions of service providers can be prejudiced and ill-informed about the livelihood concerns and care burdens of older people. Over 40% of orphans for example receive primary care support from grandparents, and older women with husbands are often the sole carer of

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 19

their sick or fragile partners (Ebb, 2011). These factors have implications for older person WaSH needs which are rarely addressed by WaSH services (HelpAge International, 2006). On the contrary, older people can be perceived as too old to adapt to new conditions. Health Extension Workers, have reported, for example, that it is often the elderly that are often the most difficult to reach in terms of behavior change (Joint Technical Review field visit, 2012).

Spatial disparities: In broad terms, people living in rural areas, in urban slums and informal settlements, in the emerging regions and pastoralist areas are underserved by WaSH services. The Social Inclusion and Gender Equality Analysis for the Protection of Basic Services programme8 highlighted the determining role of residence in terms of access to service with indicators for the lowland areas of Afar and Somali being the worst, and rural areas faring worse than urban areas (Hughes et al, 2008). While the majority of the population (83%, 2010) lives in rural areas, only 34% of the rural population has access to improved water sources, compared to 97% of the population in urban areas (WHO/UNICEF, 2010) The highest urban-rural gap is in Dire Dawe where urban residents are three times more likely to get access to water than rural residents (EEA and WAE, 2010). Spatial disparities are also reflected in WaSH data with the lowest regional water supply access rate of 37% recorded for Afar (NWI, 2012) The technical challenge and high cost of enabling access to water in semi-arid conditions is compounded by issues of low government and private sector capacity, remoteness and some conflicts within these areas. Whilst, urban areas appear better served than rural areas, there are wide disparities between formal residential areas and informal and slum areas. Data for WASH coverage in urban areas is limited and skews towards formal settlements and the higher wealth quintiles (UNhabitat, 2008). This leads to the impression that urban areas are relatively “well-off” in terms of service provision when, in fact, large numbers of urban dwellers are living with limited or compromised access to WaSH services (UNhabitat, 2008, WaterAid, 2011). It is estimated that 76.4% of the urban population of Ethiopia lives in areas designated slums9. In Addis Ababa, for example, the majority of residents in informal areas have no access to improved latrines and almost all have no regular access to hand-washing facilities. Residents of informal areas are also more like to have to pay higher costs and a higher proportion of their income for potable water (UNHabitat, 2007).

There is also increasing evidence that the issue of spatial inequality is not just one of comparisons between regions. Research by Water Aid (EEA and WAE, 2011) and the NWI data (2011) both show large variations between woredas in the same Region and between kebeles in the same woreda, even those which are being served by existing WaSH programmes. The reasons for this are a complex mix of environmental, social and institutional factors that have yet to be fully analysed.

2.2 Underserved and Vulnerable Groups The GoE, under the constitution and in the various policies and strategies stemming from these constitutional rights, including the GTP, also recognises a number of disadvantaged groups who face particular challenges in accessing their rights and entitlements as citizens, including basic services. (MoFED 2010, WaterAid, 2013). These include pastoralists and other designated disadvantaged nations and people living with disabilities or HIV/Aids

8 In terms of WaSH services, Benishangul Gumuz (59.9%) and Gambela (66.4%) have above the average access to a drinking water supply (54.3%). Although this is not typical in terms of overall access to basic services, it is also not unexpected - these regions have relatively favourable rainfall and hydrogeological characteristics (NWI, 2011).

9 Ethiopia dashboard 2012 http://public.tableausoftware.com/views/UNITAIDEthiopiaCountryProfile/DashboardEthiopia

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 20

Disadvantaged Nations, Nationalities and Peoples, Pastoralists, and National Minorities: The Ethiopian Constitution10 recognises the presence and rights of many ethnic groups, as well as vulnerable groups, including Nations, Nationalities and Peoples, pastoralists, and national minorities. Article 39 recognizes the rights of groups identified as “Nations, Nationalities and Peoples” and defines them as “a group of people who have or share a large measure of common culture or similar customs, mutual intelligibility of language, belief in a common or related identities, a common psychological make-up, and who inhabit an identifiable, predominantly contiguous territory.” This represents some 75 out of the 80 groups who are members of the House of Federation, the second chamber of the Ethiopian legislature. The Constitution recognizes the rights of these Nations, Nationalities and Peoples to: self-determination, including the right to secession; speak, write and develop their own languages; express, develop and promote their cultures; preserve their history; and, self-government, which includes the right to establish institutions of government in the territory that it inhabits and equitable representation in state and Federal governments. In addition, as a signatory of the African Charter of Human Rights, Ethiopia has committed to protecting the rights of all peoples to progress social, cultural and economic development of their choice in conformity with their identity (Articles 20 and 21)11. A significant proportion of these groups live in the emerging regions and locations which are particularly underserved by WaSH services (NWI, 2013).

The Government of Ethiopia recognises another group called “national minorities”. Article 54 of the Constitution explains that: “Members of the House (of Peoples Representatives), on the basis of population and special representation of minority Nationalities and Peoples, shall not exceed 550; of these, minority Nationalities and Peoples shall have at least 20 seats.” These groups have less than 100,000 members and most live in the Developing Regional States and pastoralist areas. This is the case for the Opuo and the Komo in the Gambella region, and the Bacha and the Birale in SNNPR. The WaSH sector does not disaggregate data by ethnicity, only by geographical area. It is, therefore, difficult to be precise about the extent to which these groups are under-served by WaSH services. However, by location, NWI data (2013) indicates below average provision of WaSH services to these groups.

The Ethiopian Constitution also recognises the rights of pastoralist groups (Articles 40 and 41). This includes the right to “free land for grazing and cultivation as well as the right not to be displaced from their own lands” and the right to “receive fair prices for their products, that would lead to improvement in their conditions of life and to enable them to obtain an equitable share of the national wealth commensurate with their contribution. This objective shall guide the State in the formulation of economic, social and development policies.” Additionally, Article 89 of the Constitution states that the “Government shall provide special assistance to Nations, Nationalities and Peoples least advantaged in economic and social development.” This includes people in the emerging Regions, as well as the social and spatial peripheries of two developed states (SNNPR and Oromia).

The pastoralists comprise approximately 12-15 million people that belong to 29 groups of Nations, Nationalities and Peoples12. Pastoralist regions/areas recognized by the government are: Afar; Somali; Borena Zone and Fentele Wereda (Oromia); South Omo Zone, Bench-Maji Zone, and parts of Decha Wereda in Keffa Zone (SNNPR); and, Nuer Zone (Gambella). Whilst government policies have strengthened and resource allocations increased over the last decade13, pastoralist areas are still

10 10http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=234349 11 http://www.humanrights.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/African-Charter-on-Human-and-Peoples- Rights.pdf

12Pastoralist Forum Ethiopia, http://www.pfe-ethiopia.org/about.html 13 PASDEP (2005 -2010), the previous five year poverty reduction plan to GTP promoted more targeted

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 21

amongst the least served by WaSH services, as the discussion above on spatial disparities highlighted. The environmental challenges in securing water on a continuous basis are compounded by poor infrastructure and low institutional capacities. Particularly in Somali and Afar where water resources are considered the highest priority development activity, due to both the scarcity of water in the region and the importance of water to the livelihood of pastoralist communities (Nassef et al., n.d). Access to water is contentious: it can trigger or feed other conflicts such as disputes over land or grazing and can exacerbate tensions during periods of drought or water stress. (McGregor et al, 2012). People living with Disabilities: An estimated 15 million people in Ethiopia, or 17.6% of the population have a physical disability, the vast majority of whom live in rural areas (ILO, 2012). People with disabilities are largely invisible to WaSH service providers and significant physical, environmental, social and institutional barriers limit their access to WaSH facilities (WaterAid 2013). The specific needs of disabled people, for example: the need for water above average demand, because of frequent falls, illness or difficulties in reaching WaSH facilities; Their dependency on care- givers for water supplies because of distance to water points and the daily compromises to their safety, dignity and self-respect as they try and meet their WaSH needs, are rarely considered in WaSH planning (Satherwaite, 2012, Mathewman, 2006). People with motor disabilities, for example can face almost insurmountable challenges in accessing sanitation. For those who have to crawl, entering a poorly maintained latrine on hands and knees is a health risk as well as a humiliation. Institutional WaSH facilities such as latrines at schools and health facilities are often inaccessible to people with disabilities due to poor design with respect to those with compromised physical mobility or those who are blind (Mathewson, 2006).

People living with HIV/Aids: The number of people in Ethiopia living with HIV/ AIDS is estimated at about 1 million with urban prevalence higher than rural14. People living with HIV/AIDs, face stigma and discrimination with communities. They are often denied access to WaSH services and community facilities, because it is widely believed that HIV/AIDs is transmitted through sharing latrines and water facilities. Recent research, highlighted that WaSH provision can be a major source of distress, (Tesfu and McGrath, 2008). About one third of the people living with HIV/AIDS said they found they had reduced access to water and sanitation facilities due to their illness making them weak and also due to the fear, discrimination and prejudice of others (locking them out of facilities). Over 75% of the interviewees said their need for water and sanitation for HIV, and especially during the symptomatic phase increased. Around two thirds of HIV positive individuals said they suffered from diarrhoea so needed frequent latrine visits. They were drinking more water as frequent diarrhea made them dehydrated, and to reduce the side-effects of the anti-retroviral treatment. Increased bathing helped prevent water-related opportunistic infections. Tackling discrimination through community counselling and mass media is considered as important as ensuring the provision of physical WaSH facilities (Tesfu and McGrath, 2008; 2006).

2.3 Socioeconomic and cultural profile of some underserved communities

Most communities in Ethiopia, especially those in the drier parts of the country, rely upon exploitation of ground water resources for year-round drinking water. As population pressure grows and demands for water resource increases due to domestic, small scale farming and large scale agriculture use, it is becoming apparent that sustainable fresh water supplies will become increasingly difficult to secure. Many hand dug wells and springs, and even shallow drilled wells, already stopped working during the dry season, particularly in some parts of Somali, Afar, and Tigrai

assistance to underserved areas – the emerging regions and pastoralist/agro-pastoralist areas (MOFED 2010). 14 Federal HIV/AIDS Prevalence and Control Office – FHAPCO 2007

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 22

regions where water resources are barely sufficient to meet projected needs15. The government is now seeking long-term economic solutions for the underserved communities, which go well beyond the WASH program, to realize the full economic potential of these areas. The following are background assessment conducted on the bases of economic and sociocultural profile of underserved groups, within the six regions, including the five regions already screened for the underserved features. This social assessment also benefited from other social assessments conducted for other projects such as PCDP3, SLMP2, and GEQIP2. The findings indicate their unique sociocultural characteristics and level of vulnerability and have significant implications to wider population of underserved been targeted in this project, given that some of these communities have similar characteristics required in OP4.10 and face the same risks and impacts as those not assessed. The economic and sociocultural characteristics of these groups, including how their social organizations and cultural characteristics could assist in water delivery are discussed briefly below.

Afar Region Afar is one of nine regional states situated in the north-eastern part of Ethiopia, it borders Oromia region in the south, Tigray region and Eritrea in the north, Djibouti and Somali region in the east, and Amhara region in the west. The altitude of the region ranges from 1500 m.a.s.l. in the western highlands to -120 metres below sea level in the Danakil/Dallol depression. Afar is characterized by an arid and semi-arid climate with low and erratic rainfall. Temperature varies from 20’C in higher elevations to 48’C in lower elevations. Rainfall is bimodal throughout the region with a mean annual rainfall below 500 mm in the semi-arid western escarpments decreasing to 150 mm in the arid zones to the east.

The major sources of water for pastoral and agro-pastoral communities and their livestock are rivers, ponds, and stagnant water during rainy season, springs, birkads, hand-dug wells, motorized deep wells and elas. The quantity and distribution of existing surface and ground water supply schemes developed in the region are insufficient to meet the demand. According to UNICEF, more than 30% of the schemes are not functioning due to technical and management reasons. Efforts have been made by both government and NGOs working in the region to mitigate the problems but due to lack of coordination and adequate planning among concerned parties, identification of sustainable solutions have been limited. As per the National WaSH Inventory (NWI) done in 2011 the potable water supply coverage of the Afar region is 37.4% (82% urban and 34.8% rural) . Some woredas likeAsayita and Elidar of zone 1, Awash Fentale, Amibara, and Gewane of zone 3, and Gulina of zone 4 have higher coverage, while woredas like Erebti, Magale, Dallol, Berhale, Afdera, Argoba, Teru and Yalo still have relatively few potable water supplies.

Overall, community management of water supply schemes are at their infant stage in some places, and non-existent in many places. Hygiene and sanitation activities seem to be limited, with about 55% of the households in the region having access to sanitation facilities. The proportion of households using open defecation in 1996, 2000, and 2004 was reported to be 84.4%t, 83.3%, 81.5% respectively. Access to potable water within 1.5 km (15 litres/capita/day) is reported to be 37.7%. The sources of water include: rivers; lakes; unprotected wells; springs; public taps and privately owned taps (UNICEF, 2012). Due to the shortage of water, poor sanitation and limited hygiene, the region has been repeatedly attacked by Acute Watery Diarrhea (AWD), from 2006- 2009. According to government report on the epidemic made by the Regional State Health Bureau in 2009, there were 6,583 suspected cases and 183 deaths (FMoH, 2011). The report also indicated that the capacity of government departments to implement projects or coordinate those involved in the sector is limited. NGOs involved in the development of this sector (i.e., water supply, sanitation, and irrigation) in Afar region are also insufficient in number.

15 UNICEF (2012)- Investing in Boys and Girls in Ethiopia:Past, Present, and Future

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 23

Demographics of Afar region According to the 2007 Population and Housing Census, the Afar Region houses 1,390,273 people, comprising 775,117 men and 615,156 women. The Central Statistics Agency (CSA) data in July 2011 indicates that the region population has reached 1,559,001people with 867,999 men and 691,002 women. In Afar regional state, about 95% (1,324,854) of the people are followers of Islam. Other ethnic groups found in the region are; Afar (90.03%), Amhara (5.22%), Argoba (1.55%), Tigre people (1.15%), Oromo (0.61%), Wolayta (0.59%), and Hadiya (0.18%).

Livestock management is central to the Afar economy. In fact, about ninety percent of Afar inhabitants derive their livelihoods from livestock production. Pastoralists are predominantly nomadic with approximately 80 % practicing transhumant pastoralism. Pastoral livelihoods have evolved over many centuries as a rational response to low and erratic rainfall and the human and animal mobility ensure maximum sustainable use of the available grazing resource. The agro- pastorals in Afar region are located mainly in the woredas adjacent to the neighbouring highland regions, specifically in Argoba, Dulecha, Fursee, Semurobi, Abala and Afambo woredas and their livelihood is based mainly on crop production (Sorghum, maize, Teff and cotton), honey production and livestock production.

Afar People Afar region is home for the Afar ethnic group of Ethiopia. The group constitutes 90% of the people that reside in the region. The Afar ethnic communities are differentiated from the neighbouring communities because of their cultural features and customary life style and the nature of the ecology. They are predominantly pastoral in their way of life. The Afar communities have an original, distinctive information exchange system called Dagu and possess an oral, interpersonal communication/ritual which they perform when one meets another. In Afar region, Dagu is a common form of information sharing among various segments of the population.

Religion and clan/family membership are the key social ties keeping the social cohesion of the pastoral peoples. They are a polygamous society and favour living in extended family group. The communities are organized in clans (Mela), local community (Kaido), lineage group (Afa), extended family (Dahla) and the household (Burra). As one of the key clan based institution, marriage, divorce and resource sharing are governed by Islamic principles. The Kadis and Shekas implement Islamic religious rules, regulations and teach the faith.

The Afar practices exogamous marriage and polygamy in accordance with Islamic laws. Marriage, divorce and inheritance are determined by their religious beliefs. Women do not have equal rights over resources, during marriage, at divorce, and inheritance at the death of their spouse. It is uncommon for women to speak and share concerns and life experiences in Afar without the permission of male clan members. They shy away to speak, as they consider their male counterparts as their spokesperson. This is also reflected in the leadership positions in formal and informal institutions, in the area of participation and memberships of clan institutions.

The Afar people engage in pastoral and agro pastoral (along the riverbanks) economic activities as their main source of livelihoods. They draw their main livelihood from rearing animals such as camel, cattle, sheep, goats and donkey. In some woredas where there is access for water, they practice both crop farming and livestock rearing to support their livelihood. Agro pastoral households produce sorghum along the riverbank using traditional irrigation methods. The communities are chronically food insecure. Further, the region exhibit vulnerable characteristics in terms of the various forms of shocks, seasonality and trends affecting the lives and livelihoods of people. Water shortages, frequent drought, shortage of grass/fodder, outbreak of human disease, malaria and livestock disease, among others, are the source of vulnerability that affect the lives of Afar people.

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 24

Traditional institution for managing resources in Afar The Afar people administer themselves through their traditional administrative system of Madaa and Adaa, which handles all economic, social and political issues at the local level. Madaa is the traditional legal system for the Afar, which is considered as a base for other administrative system and a constitution for Afars. It has a hierarchical structure starting from a head of a household (BuraHaba) to clan leaders at top level (KedoHaboti). The Madaa is the highest decision making body of all the clans and encompasses every aspect of legal issues and the system is not subject to alterations. For example, wildlife is protected by the Act of the Madaa. If someone kills a wild beast for the first time, there is a fine of ETB 150. If the same person does it for the second time, the fine will rise to ETB 300. If that goes for the third time, there will be a serious imprisonment. There are also protected areas under the Act of the Madaa system. The fines vary according to the type and extent of damage caused by respective individuals and/or groups.

Payments of fines are also effected by two ways known as Foor and Katii. The Foor enforces payments to take place in live animals as much as possible, and Katii which is flexible considers payments in combining both live animals and equivalent cash money, and even approves payments in equivalent monetary values when payments are difficult and/or impossible in live animals. The Katii also re-assesses the monetary value of livestock in light of developments in the market.

When there is conflict between the Madaa system and the local governmental administration, for example, if the police arrest any person for some wrong doings, this is taken as an offence by the community (Madaa system). The police and the respective clan will be accountable to the Madaa system for the arrest and it is only if this is impossible, then local government will intervene. The latter one is very unlikely to happen because under the Madaa system, there is the Fataha proclamation (last and final decision given by the highest body of the Madaa), which is respected and accepted by everybody, including the government.

Adaa is a cultural mechanism for aplying various rules and regulations within the madaan system such as resource management, marriage arrangements, conflict management, external relations, etc. The Adaa respects the rules and regulations of the Madaa, and the Adaa does not have any structure, it is just a functional mechanism within the pastoral and agro-pastoral production systems and has been in use since time immemorial. The Adaa rules also govern every day’s life situations; for example, if some families do not have enough to eat they have the right to get food from the others who do have enough. Committees such as Woger Habaa and others are assigned and make decisions at any time whenever appropriate with regards to natural resource management, conflict resolution , etc.

During drought incidences, energetic young men are selected within the community by WogerHabaato assess the condition of grazing and water locally known as Edo before deciding where to move the animals. In the case of movement in particular, the pre-assessment of different areas on the availability of water and pasture are evaluated and the committee decides to which area to move. The communities assisted by Madaa members also plan on how to economically utilize the resources. The number of livestock and length of time to stay on the particular spot will also be decided by the Madaa and Adaa. They pass resolution to protect and even have more Kalo (grazing reserves) and temporarily protected dry season grazing land (this is used where most of the grazing lands that are far away from the water sources are depleted). They rationally plan and make economical use of the Kalo. Weakened livestock will be allowed to feed on the nearby Kalo and drink from the nearby water source.

To manage water, water resources will be categorized for the purpose of rational planning. These

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 25

categories are ponds, Ela (wells), rivers and springs during mild and average drought. Strong camels and donkeys will be selected to fetch water from distant places during average drought situations for domestic use. As women are responsible for fetching water, they are most affected. They travel long distances to fetch water for domestic use during mild and average droughts. Women might walk for about 6 hours to find water for domestic use.

During average drought crisis, the Ela serves the livestock only in the morning and the people late in the afternoon. In the case of springs and rivers, people will have direct access whereas livestock queue on first come first served basis. Rationing of water is practiced during the average drought conditions. This is executed through the Madaa and Adaa system. The livestock will be allowed to drink water for survival only, basically, at two or three day interval. Searching and finding perennial water resources during the average drought period and keeping few animals around watering points at the acute drought period are customary within the Madaa and Adaa system (Fasilet al, 2001)16.

It has been shown that the Afar community has a dynamic culture and norms to manage resources in general and water specifically. These traditional approaches are socially inclusive to all community members in sharing resources and resolving conflicts. Thus, the WaSH-II project needs to appreciate these traditional practices and incorporate them during its implementation process, particularly in managing water resources and ensuring the sustainability of project outcomes.

Somali Region

Somali Region is one of largest regions of Ethiopia. The region comprises of nine administrative zones and categorized into 17 livelihood zones. The climate is mostly arid/semi-arid in lowland areas and cooler/wetter in the higher areas. Annual rainfall ranges from 150 - 600mm per year. The region can be divided into two broader rainfall regimes based on the seasons of the year: Shinile and Fafan zones to the north, and the remaining seven zones to the south. The rainfall pattern for both regimes is bimodal but the timings differ slightly.

Somali People CSA has estimated the 2013 population size of the region to be 5,318,000 of which 2,957,999 (55.6%) are male and 2,360,001 (44.4%) are female. Out of these, 82.4% of the population is estimated to be rural inhabitants, while 17.6% are urban dwellers. Somali Region is characterized by linguistically and religiously homogeneous population – Ethiopian Somalis accounted for 98.2 % and other ethnic groupd account for 1.8% (Census 2007). The majority of the citizens are Moslems.

The society is highly structured, anchored in the system of clans and sub-clans that bind people. The core social institution and norm of traditional Somali society, including personal identity, rights of access to local resources, customary law (xeer), blood payment groups (diya), and support systems are anchored on the clanship. Each community within the clan system is differentiated and unique, and tend to live in extended families, sharing resources for basic subsistence; and well established social capital and network, which is used to support needy individuals—which is either obligatory (religious duty or clan obligation) or voluntary (helping others out of benevolence).

The community has strong social capitals based on traditional relationships within the community that entirely depends on kinship ties, marriage relationship and other social obligations. The clan and religion leaders are responsible in resolving conflicts through norms and traditional laws. However, such kind of social interdependence is being restrained or in decline due to the limited overall assets base of households.

16FassilKebebew, DiressTsegaye and GrySynnevåg (November 2001)-Traditional Coping Strategiesof the Afar and Borana Pastoralistsin Response to Drought, DCG Report No. 17.

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 26

Four generic livelihood types exist in the region: pastoralism, agro-pastoralism, farming (sedentary and riverine) and urban. Pastoralism is the most prevalent, comprising about 60% of the region’s rural population. Agro-pastoralism comprises about 25% of the total rural population, and is a mixture of extensive livestock rearing and rain-fed crop production; some may be better described as pastoralists with opportunistic farming activities – as in Fik and some parts of Liban Zone. The remaining 15% of the rural population comprises sedentary (Jigjiga zone) and riverine (Shebelle and Dawa-Ganale) farmers. Both farming and agro-pastoral groups keep some livestock but farmers’ herds do not migrate and are sometimes hand-fed, only migrating with other groups if there is a severe drought (DPPC/SCUK, 2008).

Major water sources used by both human and livestock in the region are Rivers, Birkas, Hand dug wells and traditional ponds and local streams. Quantity and quality of available water largely depends on the amount of rainwater received, and the seasonal water sources, which is expected to deplete within a short period of time, it is also expected that the depletion will aggravate the vulnerability of the community. In addition, the availability of functional water points is a critical challenge that compromise households access for safe drinking water. Under this situation of scarcity and limited opportunities, many communities depend on water rationing interventions to survive.

An inventory of water sources in Afder zone indicates the existence of about 11 boreholes, 13 shallow wells, 51 hand-dug wells installed with hand pump, and 248 traditional improved hand-dug wells as well asabout 201Birkas, 6 river intake and 55 Ponds in the zone. Out of the above water sources, only 4 boreholes, 3 shallow wells, 35 hand pumps, 163 hand dug wells, 169 Birkas and 3 river intake are functional. The average water coverage of the entire zone is 14%, while the actual functional water sources is about 57% and the the total water coverage are only dependable during rainy season and usually dry up immediately after the rains are over. Past experiences indicate that as much as 30% of the water from the river is mud, not good for drinking, and consequently, the region is susceptible to acute watery diarrheal outbreak.

Similarly, there are 74 motorized boreholes in Fafan (Jigjiga) Zone of which 60 are functional and productive, while the remaining 14 boreholes or 19% are non – functional due to various technical and mechanical problems. Likewise, in Shinile zone, there are 84 boreholes and 108 hand-dug wells and 11 shallow wells. Out of these schemes, 19 boreholes, 54 hand-dug wells and 5 shallow wells are currently not functional. The major problems are: lack of operational and maintenance budget, lack of trained/skilled maintenance staff, lack of machineries like crane and transportation facilities. According to the multi-agency regional assessment made in 2012, there were 360,041 households in 161 hotspot kebeles of Somali region that are supplied water using water tankers.

With regard to hygiene and sanitation, many water supply sources are not protected, including traditional hand dug wells, Birkas and Ponds; the urgency of water availability in the region has been overshadowed by the compromise on hygiene and sanitation issues. People directly drink from water sources that collect surface run-offs, including animal carcasses and other human wastes, which cause waterborne diseases that increase community vulnerabilities. According to the National WaSH inventory survey (NWI) report, about 58% of schools and health facilities have basic water supply and sanitation facilities. In order to improve hygiene and sanitation in Somali Region, an urgent action needs to be taken in the provision of water supply.

Community participation on hygiene and sanitation need to be intensified in water supply areas; water points should be fenced to avoid free access by using local materials that can be made available by community members through community mobilization. Interventions in this direction

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 27

would reduce the risk of being affected by water borne diseases such as Acute Watery Diarrhoea (AWD).

HarshinWoreda

According to the 2007 National Census, this woreda has a total population of 80,244, out of which 43,869 are men and 36,375 women. While 8,226 or 10.25% are urban inhabitants, 48.95% or 39,275 are pastoralists, and its citizens are predominantly Muslim. This woreda is primarily inhabited by the Arap and HabarAwal, sub-clans of the SomaliIsaaq clan. HarshinWoreda falls within the lowland area, largely arid and there are no rivers or other permanent water sources in Harshin.

Based on the discussions held with woreda officials and the community, the study team learnt that people have no access to water and solely use rain water from Barkad (water reservoirs) and or ponds, including woreda town dwellers. The data obtained from Woreda WME office (2011/12 report) indicates that there are a total of 4,189 cisterns (rain water collection reservoirs) which was constructed by private/individuals, Government and NGOs of which 2,571(61%) are functional. In addition, there are 5 ponds constructed at the different location of the woreda, where 2 of them were non-functional at the time of the assessment.

Similarly, the information from the Woreda WASH Team indicates that there are no latrine in the rural areas except very few in the Woreda capital. The pit latrine which is available at schools and health facilities do not provide appropriate services to the students and the community due to lack of water. The team also learned that, there were no health extension workers or services in the woreda.

Generally, it can be said that WaSH services at Harshin is very poor, and the majority of the people in the Woreda are forced to buy unsafe water from local venders by paying up to 30 ETB for 200L of water during rainy season and tremendously higher prices during dry season. There is an experience of water trucking/rationing in the Woreda during the drought year. According to the information obtained from the Woreda officials, though there are organizations supporting the WaSH sector, the impact so far in solving the water problem of the woreda are minimal.

GursumWoreda

According to the 2007 National Census, the woreda has a total population of 27,510, out of which 14,815 are men and 12,695 are women. About 10.8% of the population live in urban area and the rest are agro/pastoralists in rural areas. Further, about 98% of the population is Muslims. This woreda is primarily inhabited by the Gadabuursi, ReerMuse clan and GursumDarod clan of the Somali people.

Agro Pastoralism is the main source of livelihood and despite their proximity to the regional capital, the woreda people are inadequately provided with basic services including water, health and educational services. There are few potable water outlets for human consumption in these rural communities, and people depend on unclean surface water (e.g. ponds and rivers); piped water supply are intermittent at the distance of 11 km for the average users. The health center at Gursum town is connected with the water supply line but suffers from irregular supply; and schools use pit latrines without water supply. The rural dwellers use unsafe water from the rivers and travel 3-4 hrs every day to collect water.

Water resources Management practice in Somali community Customary rules and regulations modulating water access and use exist among different pastoral groups across the country. Water use systems in Somali differ according to location within the region,

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 28

and are differentiated by dry season water resources and how they are used. In most arid parts of the region, water is often only obtainable from birkado in the dry season. As birkado are generally privately owned, water access is usually against payment. The private ownership of birkado means potential exclusion from water access for those with no means to pay (or for other reasons), which in turn means exclusion from surrounding grazing (for those birkadowhich are also used for watering livestock), forcing herders to seek out other birkado with more agreeable owners or provoking conflict over access. Birkado are usually owned by wealthier individuals (or sometimes groups) who have the means to pay for the considerable construction costs. Those who cannot afford to construct their own birkado have to pay for access, where the price of water is negotiated on an individual basis and depends on the season, at its highest in the dry season (Devereux, 2006)Devereux, S. (2006) Vulnerable Livelihoods in Somali Region, Ethiopia. Research Report 57, Instituteof Development Studies (IDS).

In areas of adequate groundwater, hand dug wells are common. These usually belong to clans, but are sometimes owned individually. When water is plentiful, clan owned wells are open access to other clans living in the area and for those migrating in search of water. Water is free, and water sale is not a usual practice. However, access to water follows an established hierarchy, which is strictly enforced especially in times of scarcity. The person who constructed the well and his family are first in line to the water, followed by clan members, and non-clan members last.

As stated above water resources in Somali region are managed by individuals or clan members. Access for individually owned water points are very difficult for poorer households as water prices are negotiated individually and prices vary across seasons. Therefore, to ensure accessibility of the poor for the service, WaSH II intervention should prioritize involving these community members in planning process. Besides as the clan members have strong ties in managing water points, the project need to formulate these experiences during implementation process and as well to sustain the out puts of the project after phase out. Operation and maintenance activities of water schemes developed through WaSH II project could easily integrated with these traditional system so that project impacts could be sustained for long. Though water access with in clan members is not limited at normal times, there is hierarchy in times of scarcity based on contribution of members for construction and maintenance. The involvement of the underserved people and households should be ensured in WaSH II schemes so that exclusion of the poor will be minimized.

Oromia Region Oromia is one of the nine ethnically-based regional states of Ethiopia. Oromia National Regional State is the largest Regional state in the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. The total area of the Region is 363,136 km2, accounting for about 34.3 percent of the total area of the country. Administratively, the Region is divided into 18 administrative zones, 304 woredas (out of which 39 are towns and 265 rural woredas). According to the population and housing census report of CSA (2007), the total population of Oromia National Regional State is 27, 158,471million, which accounted for about 36.7% of the total country’s population. In Oromia National Regional State the rural population is 23,788,431 or 87.8% of the total population of the region, while the urban population is 3,858,567 or 12.2%. Women constitute about 49.6% of the population, while men constitute 50.4%. According to the 2011 NWI report, about 52% of the total population had access to safe drinking water, of which about 49.8% in rural areas do not have. Though sedentary agriculture is the main source of livelihood for the majority of rural population in the region, pastoralism and agro- pastoralism livelihood system is common in low land areas of the region. There are 33 pastoral and agro-pastoral woredas in the region, distributed in 6 zones (Borana, Guji, Bale, east Hararghe, east Shewa and west Hararghe). The pastoral and agro-pastoral areas of the region covers about 152,170km2, accounting for about 37% of the total area of the region. Its total human population

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 29

size is estimated to be about 4 million whereas about 30% of the livestock population of the region is found in pastoral and agro pastoral areas.

Borena Zone

Borena is a tribe as well as one of the zones of the Oromia Region of Ethiopia. Borena is bordered on the south by Kenya, on the west by the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples Region, on the north by Guji and on the east by the Somali Region. Based on the 2007 Census conducted by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (CSA), this Zone has a total population of 962,489, of whom 487,024 are men and 475,465 women; with an area of 45,434.97 square kilometers, Borena has a population density of 21.18 people per square kilometre. While 84,328 ( 53.88% ) are urban inhabitants, a further 23,158 or 2.41% are pastoralists. A total of 182,258 households were counted in this Zone, which results in an average of 5.28 persons to a household, and 174,474 housing units. The three largest ethnic groups reported were the Oromo (88.78%), the Gedeo (4.42%) and the Konso (3.17%); all other ethnic groups made up 3.63% of the population. Oromiffa was spoken as a first language by 90.94%.

Teltele Woreda

Teletele is one of the woredas in the Borena zone, located in the southwest corner of Oromia Region. It is bordered on the southwest by Kenya, on the west and north by the Sagan River, the only river in this woreda, which separates it from the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples Region, on the northeast by Yabelo, and on the southeast by Dire woreda. The 2007 national census reported a total population for this woreda to be 70,501, of which about 36,246 are men and 34,255 are women; and about 6.91% of the population live in urban area. The majority of the inhabitants (68%) are traditional beliefs, while 14% are Protestant, 7.66% are Ethiopian Orthodox Christians, about 7% are Muslim and 2% are Catholic. The report also indicated that about 26.6% of the rural dwellers and 13.9% of the urban population have access to drinking water.

Yabelo Woreda

Yabelo is one of the woredas in the Borena zone of Oromia Region. The altitude of this woreda ranges from 350 to 1800 meters above sea level. There are no rivers or streams in Yabelo. A survey of the land in this woreda shows that 10% is arable or cultivable (7.5% was under annual crops), 60% pasture, 10% forest (5.5% state forests), and the remaining 20% is considered swampy, degraded and unusable. A notable local landmark is the Yabelo Wildlife Sanctuary.

The 2007 national census reported a total population for this woreda to be 102,165, of which about 51,418 are men and 50,747 are women; and about 17% of its population are urban dwellers. The majority of the inhabitants (60%) are traditional worshippers, while 15% are Protestant, about 15% are Muslim, 8% are Ethiopian Orthodox Christians and Catholics are 1%. The report also indicates that about 41% (rural dwellers) and 58.1% of the urban dwellers have access to drinking water.

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 30

Oromo People and Culture The Oromo have rich culture and a well-developed age-based system upon which the religious, political, economic and social life of the people are organized. Among others, the Gada system which organizes Oromo society into age groups and rotates leadership in every eight years is a remarkable egalitarian democracy. The Gada institution is still functional in different part of Oromia region in general and Borena zone in particular and works very well along with the modern administration system. In the Gada system, elders are considered to be wiser and are responsible for teaching, resolving conflicts, and nurturing Oromo culture. Seniority is thus an important factor in Oromo relationships. The system helps to exercise democracy, participatory government and leadership. Before the expansion of Islam and Christianity, the Oromo had their own traditional religion called Waaqeffannaa, the belief in Waaq(the supreme God). The religion teaches safuu(do's and don'ts) for Oromo and helps them to live together in peace, prosperity and faithfulness to each other.

Traditional resource management mechanisms of Borena Traditional resource management practices of the Borena people are based on complex customary administrative structure of the gaada system that applies the customs and laws of the Borana (adaseera). The full process is presented as follows according to Magda and Mulugeta17----the smallest territorial unit among the Borana is the warra, which constitutes a Borana household. A group of warra with associated cattle enclosures constitutes an olla, or village. Clan affiliation is not necessary to ensure cooperation within a village where several clans may exist, and warra members cooperate based on being Borana and sharing territory. Adjacent villages together constitute the next territorial unit up, the ardaa. At this level, a council of elders (jarsaardaa) is nominated to deal with the management of communal pasture, and intervenes when there are signs of pasture depletion. Decisions are made at this level regarding lactating stock (loon warraa), which graze around the villages, and dry stock (loon fooraa), which has to be grazed further away to avoid pasture depletion in the vicinity. Neighboring ardaa together constitute a reera, with no rigid boundaries between them. At this level, there is cooperation to mobilize labor for important occasions, and also cooperation on the use of ponds. The next level up is the maddaa, which consists of several reera and is commonly named after a permanent water point. A collection of maddaa together makes up the largest Borana unit, the dheedha, which together make up the entire Borana territory.

Being Borana technically entitles any Boran to graze anywhere, and different controlling mechanisms are put in place by the different territorial units to make sure that pasture is not overused (limiting where and when people can settle, restricting grazing by stock type, establishing calf reserves or kaloo whose location changes from year to year to avoid overgrazing, and establishing wet and dry season grazing locations). However, access to water, especially dry season water, is the decision of clans who manage permanent wells. Therefore clan-based decisions on water influence which pasture can be used when and by whom.

Ethiopia’s Borana have some of the most elaborate water control and management systems in the country. For ponds and pools which fill up in the rainy season, anyone can use these structures as long as they contribute to their maintenance. However, reera members are expected to use ponds within their own territory and are discouraged from using those in other reera to avoid overusing neighboring resources. If water levels in ponds drop too fast and it is feared that the supply is overused, precedence is given for the domestic use of the closest ollas, adult cattle are excluded in favour of calves, and if necessary, even calves will not be allowed access. The animals denied access must then be moved to other ponds or wells (Bassi, 2005). Ponds and other surface catchments are

17Magda Nassef with MulugetaBelayhun (ND)- Synthesis of Existing Knowledge and Experienceon the Provision of Water Supplies to PastoralCommunities in Ethiopia, Version 1

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 31

usually constructed by reera families, and management and maintenance of the water point is communal at this level.

For traditional wells, which ‘belong’ to clans, access and use is managed much more strictly, as considerable labor inputs are needed both for construction of the well and extraction of water from the well. An individual instigates the digging of a well, called the konfi, who must recruit assistance for well excavation. This is usually from within his own clan, but also from other clans and lineages, who provide the labor and the cattle to sustain the digging crew during the construction work, and thereby earn permanent access rights to the well. The well is however managed by the clan or lineage of the konfi. The konfi is considered the ‘father of the well’ or abbaaellaaa nd is the person responsible for it. This does not translate into absolute ownership, but the abbaaellaa does have access priority and makes decisions concerning the well. He is closely observed by clan elders who make sure that the konfi makes decisions in line with the customs and laws of the Borana (adaseera). Traditional regulations dictate that access to the well is structured by day and position in the queue for that day, and those clans or lineages who contributed to construction have right of access (Bassi, 2005). However, Borana who have not contributed to well construction are also extended temporary access rights in times of need. Turns at the well are decided by the ‘father of turns’ or the abbaaherregaa, who is chosen by the abbaaellaa, and the number of positions in the queue are restricted by the amount of water available and by the rate of water seepage.

A well council, or coraellaa, composed of those with permanent rights of well usage (primarily those who have contributed to its construction), has overall authority over the well and decide who gains access; a decision informed and guided by the adaseera. Gaining access to a well critically depends on the contribution of labor commensurate with the herd size to be watered, and on “establishing and legitimizing links with the well council [where] the organizational units of Borana society, such as the lineage organization, the Gada system, the age sets and the relationships between them, provide a grid of potential links among individuals”. Failure to provide labor requirements or to adequately convince the well council of claims to water will result in exclusion, and water must then be sought elsewhere.

The traditional water management of the Borana people is very interesting and almost similar with modern water committee management activities. The emphasis given by the system for access of community members, maintenance activities and users right, though are not written has been passing from generations traditionally and are still functioning very well. Thus, such experiences can be formulated and shared in other areas to manage water resources. The experiences of the Boranas can be incorporated in WaSH II components so that these valuable practices can be incorporated in different manuals and guidelines the project develops in its implementation process.

To sustain water supply the Borenas’ have designed a mechanism in which user rights might be denied if members do not provide labor in cleaning the wells. To create ownership for the schemes, WaSH-II will have to develop and ensure management of maintenance activities and put in place appropriate mechanism by consulting all community members.

SNNPR South Nations Nationalities and People Regional State (SNNPR) occupies an area of 105,887.18 sq km which is about 10 percent of the country’s total area. The region has 14 zones, 4 special woredas and 135 woredas. Administratively, each Woreda is structured to have executive council represented by the people, judiciary organs and security entities. Based on the 2007 Census, the SNNPR has an estimated total population of 14,929,548, of which 7,425,918 are men and about 7,503,630 are women; about 13,433,991 or 89.98% of the population are rural inhabitants. The population is concentrated mostly in eastern, northern and central parts while the western and southern part of

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 32

the region is sparsely populated. The SNNPR is the most ethnically diverse region of Ethiopia with about 56 ethnic groups (with distinct languages, culture and traditions). The 2007 census reported that the predominant five ethnic groups of the region include:Sidama (19.38%), Welayta (10.59%), Hadiya (7.98%), Gurage (7.54%), and Gamo (7%).

According to the NWI, 43.4% of the population has access to safe drinking water, out of which 42% live in rural areas and 65.1% are in urban area; and only 55% have access to latrine facilities. However, there is high variation among woredas in the region, with the Pastoralist areas posing a unique challenge in terms of health service delivery in general and hygiene and sanitation in particular. Overall, access to good toilet and hygiene practice is low; and the citizens are highly susceptible to health risks.

Shebedino woreda Shebedino woreda was one of the 224 program woredas under WaSH – I. It covers an area of 197.07 sq km with a population density of 1329/sq km and has a total population of about 262,091 (132, 294 for male and 129797 for female). The woreda has 35 kebelesand only 10 kebeles are under the WaSH intervention. The 2011, National WaSH inventory survey (NWI) indicates that the woreda water supply coverage is 68% (with 30% are motorized, 13% are hand pump, 25 in protected springs). Out of the total of 9 Health centers and 32 health posts in the woreda, only two health centers and four health posts have access to safe water supply. On Educational facilities, out of the 40 education facilities, only 16 have potable water supply.

Malga woreda Malga woreda was selected because of the critical water challenge facing the worada. It has an area of 206.74 sq km and a population density of 593.8/sq. Km. The woreda has a total population of 122,765, of which about 62,267 are male and 60,498 are female. It has 25 (23 rural 2 peri urban) kebeles, of which only 10 kebeles are participating in the WaSH program. The water supply coverage in the woreda is estimated at 32% in 2012/2013. There are 5 health centres and 19 health post of which 2 of the health centres and all the health posts have no access to safe water supply. Moreover, of the 25 schools in the woreda, only 4 (15%) have safe water.

BenaTsemay Woreda The total population of the Woreda is 66,941, out of these, female accounts for 47.7% and male are 52.3%. There are four ethnic groups in this Woreda: Bena accounting 65%,Tsemay28% and Birayle 0.2%. The remaining 6.4% consists of other ethnic groups like Konso, Wolayita, Ari, Male, etc. The social relationship of Bena and Tsemay minority ethnic groups are differentiated from the others because of their livelihood vulnerability, conflict, gender inequality, lack of awareness, and serious shortages of water, etc and above all, they are among the most underserved communities.

The intra-ethnic relations were found to be cooperative, though Bena and Tsemay are considered out-castes. Polygamous marriage is common among Bena and Tsemay ethnic groups; and the traditional marriage practice is called “koyita”. It is the system of marriage that requires a man to transfer a huge amount of property, about 20 cattle and other small ruminants, to the girl’s family in the form of dowry.

TheBena-TesmayWoreda indicates that pastoralists account for 87% of the total population, and the remaining 13% are agro-pastoralists. Sixty-five percent of the community members are dependent on animal production, 30% on crop production, and the remaining 5% both on animal and crop

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 33

production including bee- keeping, petty trade, and others.

The Benna ethnic groups are predominantly agro-pastoralists. They produce crops like maize and red sorghum, and fruit crops like mango and papaya from which they derive income. On the other hand, Tsemay ethnic groups were mainly dependent on livestock and are predominately pastoralists. There are some community members among the Tsemay ethnic groups that practice farming and bee-keeping as supplementary activities. The main types of crops grown in the area are maize and red sorghum. The pastoralists also cultivate root and fruit crops such as sweet potato, papaya, pumpkin, and oil seeds like sun flower.

“Denb” is the cultural institution whereby certain traditional practices among the community are publically condemned as harmful acts. It is an institution with multiple social, cultural, and legal functions in the day-to-day life of the pastoral communities. So far, the institution of Denb has been used effectively in fighting harmful traditional practices and mobilizing the community on such social issues as early marriage, polygamy, the dominant rules of patriarchy, gender biased property inheritance system, and so on. The use of community level formal and informal institutions will be mandatory during the implementation of the projects because it saves time and enables the project to easily mobilize more resources from the community.

Dassench Woreda The total population of the Woreda is about 56,176, out of which male accounts for 49%, whereas female accounts for 51%. The dominant ethnic groups in the woreda are Dassench, accounting for 97.1% of the total population and the remaining 2.9% comprises other ethnic groups, mainly non- pastoralists like Amhara, Oromo, etc.

Pastoralism is the predominant livelihood strategy and other supplementary income generating activities of the community are farming, fishing, daily laborer, making charcoal, and sale of fire-wood and Bee-keeping. Dassench ethnic groups practice farming on the alluvial soils around Omo valley when the river over flows on the edge of Omo river.

The traditional socio-political institutions among the pastoral and agro pastoral communities are “balabat”(founders and leaders of most of the villages in the area) , “denb”, and the division of some ethnic groups into segments for management purposes, such as Jerbla and Awawa among the Dassench ethnic groups.

Traditional water resources management practices of Pastoralists in SNNPR A study conducted in South Omo zone on different pastoralist groups (Terefe, et al., 2010)18 identified that, periodic assessment of conditions of the rangeland is part of the traditional natural resource management practices on which the welfare of the pastoralist community is based on. From the

18TerefeAdmasu, Ebro Abule and ZeweduTessema (2010)- Livestock-rangeland management practices and community perceptions towards rangeland degradation in South Omo zone of Southern Ethiopia

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 34

communities included in the assessment, 89 % of the Hamer, 83 % of the Benna and 90 % of the Tsemay pastoral groups replied that they make periodic assessments on the condition of their rangeland. This assessment, which is mainly based on the availability of grasses, water, free of animal and human disease, suitability to the different livestock species and security to the herders can be unconditional or be carried out on an individual or group basis. In general, greetings (day to day meetings) in these pastoral groups mean holding discussions about water, rainfall, rangeland condition, and welfare of their animals (ibid). Tracking of water for livestock is one of the major occupations for pastoralists and is the key determinant of pastoral movement and migration. The sources of water for animals in the districts include permanent rivers, boreholes, hand pumps, ponds, lake, and water extracted from temporary rivers beds (river beds). Water resource use control are very loose for the members of the community, i.e., there is no control over the use of the natural water, deep boreholes and hand pumps made by government and non-government organizations (NGOs). The sources of water for animals and human beings are the same (Terefe, et al., 2010).

In these areas, there was no problem of water in the wet season as they can use water from all sources around their settlements such as permanent and temporary rivers, ponds, and deep boreholes, but there is a critical shortage of water during the dry season (December and January). During these periods, they travel long distance to get water for their animals as major alternative and using river beds water to overcome this problem. In addition they adopt various frequency of watering of animals to cope with the problem. In the dry season, those herders, particularly owning cattle, graze their animals for two consecutive days and move their animals on the third day to the watering points. In the wet season, however, because of the availability of water everywhere animals drink water depending on their need.

The social relationship of the ethnic groups was assessed based mainly on intra- and inter-ethnic interaction. The intra-ethnic relation was found to be cooperative. The inter-ethnic relation identified conflicts among the different pastoral groups to be common in the study districts. The main cause of the conflict was livestock theft or raiding among the neighbouring ethnic groups and conflict over use of a specific area for grazing and the lack of respect for the grazing rules set by the elders. Therefore, the different pastoral groups are armed in order to defend their families and properties. The pastoralists in the study districts use two mechanisms to prevent, manage and resolve conflicts. These are either through the traditional (the negotiation of elders) or modern mechanisms (through government law). At times, depending on the nature of the problem, they use a combination of the two mechanisms (ibid).

In developing water schemes in pastoralist areas, it is relevant for the interventions to contribute for the sustainable livelihood of the community and consider the socioeconomic contexts of every single community. In the past, water points were developed for specific purposes; either for domestic consumption, livestock use, or for agriculture. However, pastoralists use water for multiple purposes, regardless of the intended purpose of the water point. This is beginning to be recognized by many practitioners who now often construct troughs intended for livestock watering attached to water points that were initially planned for domestic use. Thus, WaSH II interventions also need to incorporate these trends in the implementation phase to create sustainable impacts. Moreover, WaSH II has to incorporate some relevant experiences from other projects based on the lessons learnt. For

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 35

instance, in SNNPR, the head of the water bureau mentioned that positive responses to the PCDP’s participatory approach has been observed at grassroots level, and technical experts in government are beginning to learn from and adopt elements of this approach (Magda and Mulugeta, ND)19. Thus, in setting pastoralist WaSH strategy, WaSHII should include the community in the project planning, implementation and monitoring process as well as ensure that underserved groups are included and their voice are heard.

Gambella Region Gambella Region, one of the nine regional states of Ethiopia, is located at a distance of 777 km from Addis Ababa in the south west direction. The Region is divided into three zones (Anuak, Nuwer and Majangir), 13 woredas (one special woreda) and Gambella Town Administration. According to the 2007 Census conducted by the Central Statistical Authority (CSA), 307,097 people live in Gambella Region. Out of the total population, women account for 52% and men 48%; of whom 75% of the population lives in rural areas. Gambella Region is a home to five native people, namely, Nuwer, Anuak, Majangir, Komo and Oppo ethnic groups. The main ethnic groups of the region include Nuwer (46.7%), Anuak (21.2%), Amhara (8.4%), Kaficho (5%), Oromo (4.8%), and Majangir (4%).

Gambella People’s National Regional State is endowed with large volume of ground and surface water sources including rivers, lakes, reservoirs, ponds and huge floodplain areas. The region has four main rivers: Baro, Gillo, Alwero and Akobo. These main rivers have originated from the highlands of Oromia and Southern Ethiopia Peoples’ Regional State and have tremendous tributaries originated from the region and outside the region and generally these rivers flow from east to west direction. According to Baro-Akobo master plan study, these rivers have a total length of 1,157km and catchment area of 85,738 square km (table 2). In addition, the region has two main lakes; namely: Lake Tatta in Gog Woreda and Lake BishanWaqa in Godere Woreda, and numerous ponds.

According to One WASH National Program data Gambella Region’s water service coverage reached 81% (rural 78% and urban 90%) while access to sanitation services reached 68% (rural 65% and urban 87%) in 2012/13.

Gambella Town Gambella Town is the seat of Gambella Region Administration and set up as a city administration which is divided into five kebele administrations currently. Gambella Town has become a center of attraction for burgeoning investment opportunities in the region. The town also serves as a strategic trade and transportation link between Ethiopia and the newly emerged South Sudan.

According to 2007 Census, Gambella Town has a population of 38,994, out of which 20,766 or 53% are male and 18,228 or 47% are female. The largest ethnic groups in Gambella Town are Anuak, Oromo, Amhara, Nuwer, and Tigrie.

According to available data, there is one sand filtering water supply system, which was established on the Baro River in 1999, with a design capacity of serving 67,000 people over the next twenty years. Unfortunately, Gambella Town has been suffering from formidable problems of water shortage and weak sanitation services.

19Magda Nassef with MulugetaBelayhun (ND)- Synthesis of Existing Knowledge and Experienceon the Provision of Water Supplies to PastoralCommunities in Ethiopia, Version 1

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 36

Abobo Woreda Abobo Woreda is one of the five Woredas of Anuak Zone and is is divided into 16 rural kebeles and 2 urban kebeles with the total land mass of about 4,020 square km. According to 2007 Census, the woreda has a total population of 15,741, of which 8,184 are men and 7,557 women. The majority of the Abob population --about 71.41% are Protestants, while 10.77 % are Catholic, 9% are Orthodox, 6.12%, are traditional worshippers and 0.83% are followers of other religions (CSA, 2010b). The ethnic groups in Abobo are Anuak, Kembata, Amhara, Oromo, Tigrie, Majangir, Wolayita, Hadiya, and Tembaro.

The Abobo woreda has benefited from WSSP I, including 34 hand pumps, 56 shallow drilled wells and 3 deep wells were provided with the assistance of IDA and DFID. The water supply coverage of the woreda is 72%.

The people in Gambella region

Anuak People The Anuak people accounted for the largest ethnic proportion of the study area (CSA, 2010b). The Anuak are Nilotic people who inhabit the Gambella region and the land across the Ethio-South Sudan border. Most of Anuak live in the South-western part of Ethiopia in Gambella Region, whereas a minority of them live in South Sudan. Anuak villages are thinly populated. These small, independent villages are spread out up twenty miles apart, oftentimes with swamps and rivers between them. The Anuak are divided into clans. A strong sense of unity exists among clan members since most live in the same village. Intermarriage between clans is common. The Anuak are polygamous society and favor living in extended family groups in settlements established in isolated pockets on the banks of the Baro River, in front of their agricultural fields. A grass-roofed main hut for sleeping, a smaller version for grain storage, and chicken coops comprise typical Anuak family holdings. Like many other Nilotic people, Anuaks have a complicated age-system in which different generation groups bear names that signify major happenings in their past.

Every Anuak settlement has a headman who is in charge of village ceremonies and possesses the village drums and ancient Anuak relics. He is given allegiance and respect by the villagers who cultivate his land and bring him gifts of meat and fish. If the headman loses the villagers' support by being a weak leader, he will be expelled from the village, taking nothing with him but his wives.

The Majenger Inhabiting the thickly forested slopes of the south-western edge of the Ethiopian plateau, between the Anuak of the plains and the Oromo of the highlands, and belonging to the Nilo-Saharan linguistic group, the Majanger have a population of 12,280 (6,036 male and 6,244 female). They reside mainly in the Majenger Zone, in Mengshi and Godare woredas. Leading a non-sedentary way of life, the livelihood of the Majanger is mainly based on beekeeping, especially wild bee in the forest. Other livelihood activities include hunting and gathering and shifting cultivation, with lifestyle highly attached to the forest and forest products.

The Majenger have no political leaders, the only individuals of any authority being ritual leaders whose influence is restricted. Domestic groups tend to farm plots adjacent to those of friends or kin, but the settlements remain small and constantly changing in composition (as well as in location). In resource management and land use, the Majanger have indigenous institution called Jung. They also have traditional forestland-related dispute settlement mechanisms, which they call Guten comprising of elders and religious leaders who play important role in this regard.

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 37

The Nuer The Nuer people, who live on the plains around the Baro River in the Gambella region of Ethiopia, are traditional cattle herders, although they sometimes resort to small farming, hunting, and fishing. Their language belongs to the Nilo-Saharan African language family like their neighbors the Anuak. The Nuer people are largely livestock dependent and are mostly found in Akobo, Jikawo and parts of Itang woredas. During rainy seasons, Akobo and Jikawo become flooded and the people therefore migrate to the highlands with their cattle until the riverbanks recede. According to the 2007 census, the population of the Region is about 300,000, and 46% of which are the Nuer.

The Nuer are preeminently pastoral, though they grow more millet and maize than is commonly supposed. They not only depend on cattle for many of life’s necessities but they have pastoral mentality and the herdsman’s outlook. Cattle are their dearest possession and they gladly risk their lives to defend their herds or to pillage those of their neighbours. The attitude of Nuer towards, and their relations with, neighboring peoples are influenced by their love of cattle and their desire to acquire them.

The Nuer living pattern changes according to the seasons of the year. As the rivers flood, the people have to move farther back onto higher ground, where the women cultivate millet and maize while the men herd the cattle nearby. In the dry season, the younger men take the cattle herds closer to the receding rivers. Parallel to territorial divisions are clan lineages and they trace their lineage through the male line from a single ancestor. These lineages are significant in the control and distribution of resources, and tend to coalesce with the territorial sections. Marriages must be outside one's own clan and are made legal by the payment of cattle by the man's clan to the woman's clan, shared among various persons in the clan. The Nuer are egalitarian people with no single individual holding power, but rather political authority is loosely bestowed on informal council of married men.

The role of men and women from one ethnic group to the other is similar in most respects. According to the Socio-economic Survey Report (2008), there is a division of labor between men and women—it is the responsibility of the men to take care of cattle, cultivation of crops, constructing huts, whereas the women take care of the household chores such as child care, coking food, milking cows etc.

Traditional conflict resolution mechanisms in Gambella Though insignificant in its nature and causality, inter-group conflict between the Anuak and Nuer can be traced as far back as the early 20th century. Livelihoods pursued by these two groups are one of the major causes for conflict. As mentioned above, while Anuak are primarily cultivators, the Nuers are mainly pastoralists. Traditionally, the two groups have reciprocal arrangements whereby the Nuers have access to grazing land and the Anuak benefit from milk and some cattle provisions. Whenever small conflicts arise, elders from both groups gather to arrange for blood payments made in the form of a certain number of cattle as compensation for lost of human lives. Elders break weapons such as spears symbolizing that fighting and revenge will not take place. Traditional conflict management mechanisms are known as ‘Wilok’ by Nuers and as ‘Carlok’ by Anuak.

Gradually, however, these traditional conflict resolution mechanisms have started to erode for various reasons. According to some elders, Ethiopian State administration took conflict management responsibilities from clan and group leaders and placed it in the hands of the local ‘Kebele’ administrations.

Benishangul Gumuz region

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 38

The 2007 Census indicates that the Benishangul-Gumuz Region has a total population of 784,345, consisting of 398,655 men and 385,690 women; and the urban population is about 13.51% of the population. The region has an estimated area of 49,289.46 square kilometers, and estimated density of 15.91 people per square kilometer. The ethnic groups include: the Berta (25.41%), Amhara (21.69%), Gumuz (20.88%), Oromo (13.55%), Shinasha (7.73%) and Agaw-Awi (4.22%). On religion, about 49% of the population is Muslim, 33% are Orthodox Christians, 14% are Protestant, and 7% are traditional believers. The Strategic Plan of the Water, Mines and Energy Resources Development Bureau (WMERDB) in 2013 indicates that water supply coverage in BenshagulGumuz is 32.18% and sanitation 20%; about 84% of rural dwellers defecate in the open; 19.1% of the inhabitants are in the lowest wealth quintile; adult literacy for men is 47.4% and for women 23.2%; and the Regional infant mortality rate is 84 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, which is greater than the nationwide average of 77; and at least half of these deaths occurred in the infants’ first month of life.

The people in BenishangulGumuz region

The Mao-Komo The Mao Komo lives in the special zone/woreda of the Benishangul-Gumz Region. Mao and Komo are two minority groups speaking Nilo-Saharan language. Some Mao lives in Mao Komo woreda, while others reside in Begi of Oromia region and Bambasi woreda of Assosa zone. The populations of Mao-Komo are estimated at 51,330 (43,535 Mao and 7,795 Komo). 19,208 of these live in Benishangul-Gumz and 24,626 in Oromia.

Historically, the Mao and Komo are the most underserved group inhabiting the western Ethiopia. Due to their small population size, they have only 2 seats out of 99 in the regional state council.

The major livelihood activity for the Mao and Komo is agriculture, and the food crops produced include teff, maize, millet and dagusa, and the livestocks are goats, sheep and cattle, while coffee and khat20 are the main cash crop. Mao-Komo people also are engaged in traditional gold mining in their area. The Mao and Komo have customary conflict management institutions, referred to as Shumbi, which settle conflicts or deliberate and adjudicate dispute issues, in line with which the council of elders decisions.

The Gumz Metekel is one of the three administrative Zones of Benisahngul-Gumz Regional State, located in Western Ethiopia. The other two administrative Zones are Kamashi and Assosa. Metekel Zone comprises six woredas: Bulen, Dangur, Wombera, Dibate, Guba, and Mandura.

Originally, most of Metekel was occupied by the Gumz people, a cultural group that belongs to the Nilo-Saharan language family. The Gumz people practice shifting cultivation with the use of hoes as means of production. A single family often has a number of fields, sometimes at considerable distance from its living quarters. Shifting cultivation (also called slash-and-burn agriculture or horticulture) is a system of production common in topical forest environments and savannas, where clearing the land requires extensive labor. In order to clear a plot of land for planting, the Gumz cut down or slash bamboo trees and bushes beginning in November and then burn them immediately before the rainy season begins in April. The Gumz grow a variety of crops such as cereals, oil seeds, legumes, and root crops. The most commonly grown cereals include finger millet, sorghum and maize. Finger millet and sorghum are staple crops. Sesame and niger seed are oil seeds often used as cash crops. Depending on the type of soil, plots are cultivated for a few years (often 3-4) and then allowed to lie fallow for several years (often 5-7 years) for the restoration of soil fertility. During this

20Khat, Cathulaedulis, is a narcotic plant chewed as a stimulant.

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 39

period, the Gumz move to other places to practice shifting cultivation there. In times of food shortage, the Gumz resort to the more ancient practices of hunting, fishing, and gathering. They also engage in honey collection (apiculture).

The land tenure system of the Gumz has been a ‘controlled access’ system, combining individual possession with communal ownership. Members of the society enjoy equal access to communally owned land, such as cultivable virgin lands, forested areas, grazing and/or browsing land, and riverbanks as a matter of right. Thus, according to tradition, these resources are owned by the Gumz society in general. Gumz settlements are comprised of dwellings clustered together, with pastureland outlying the clustered villages and farmland situated away from residences. In most cases, settlements are compact and the number of households may range from 20 to 100. The nuclear family, consisting of married couples and their children, constitutes the basic unit of Gumz society.

Traditional conflict resolution mechanisms of Gumuz people The ‘arbitration or reconciliation by elders’ is widely used indigenous mechanism in resolving conflicts in many parts of the country. Although the term has different name among different ethnic groups it has a common feature –the involvement of elders. For instance, among Gumuz ethnic group, the ‘Mangima’ is the most important traditional institution for preventing, resolving and managing ethnic conflicts of different scales and levels in different parts of the region. Through the application of the mangima institution, the inter-ethnic conflict between the Gumuz and other ethnic groups that are settled in Metekel are usually resolved.

2.4 Vulnerability, Exclusion and Underserved Populations: Implications for Universal Coverage

There is a risk that focusing policies and programmes on broad-based understandings of underserved populations and vulnerable groups will lead to overlooking inequalities between individuals within these populations and groups. (Crawford, 2011; WaterAid, 2013). Vertical inequalities within populations and groups (e.g. pastoralist communities, children, and kebeles within woredas) are often larger than horizontal inequalities between populations and groups (e.g. rural-urban populations). A focus on vertical differences within underserved populations and vulnerable groups means WaSH policies and interventions can better address the different needs amongst people who are under-served and better target resource-constrained services to those not currently accessing WaSH services. Defining individuals as members of vulnerable groups also overlooks the fact that many vulnerable individuals are part of more than one group and experience Multiple Vulnerabilities: e.g. a pastoralist women with mobility issues or an urban poor man living with HIV/AIDs have experiences, vulnerabilities and needs that reflect their whole identity and life experiences. Those multiple vulnerabilities compound a person’s abilities to access and use WaSH services. For, example, pastoralist women and men, who have dropped out of pastoralism as a way of life and are living on the periphery of towns, often in informal areas, are least likely to access and use safe, secure WaSH services of adequate quality or other avenues of support and information which could lead to their different interests being included within WaSH management decision-making and planning (Brocklesby et al, 2010, BASES, 2013). The current sector data collection and monitoring system for the WaSH sector has yet to consider the full range of vertical differences within underserved populations and vulnerable groups. It does not capture coverage, access and use data below the household level. There is limited data on differential access and use by age, gender and disability. The OWN-P opens up opportunities for the WaSH sector to progressively address these gaps and support more effective targeting as it moves to universal coverage of basic WaSH services.

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 40

Moreover, there is emerging evidence in the WaSH sector, to suggest that universal coverage may best be achieved by an equity approach, explicitly targeting the hard-to-reach within under-served regions and populations, that is the most disadvantaged in terms of WaSH coverage, (Satherwaite, 2012; UNICEF, 2010c; Patkar and Gosling, 2010). Recent UNICEF models on sanitation have shown that an equity-focused approach will accelerate progress towards the sanitation MDGs faster than the current path, and second, it will be considerably more cost-effective and sustainable than the current path in all country typologies (UNICEF 2010 a & b). Working to achieve equity gives better results and returns on investment than a “business as usual” approach. 2.5 The Legal and Policy Context for WaSH

Constitutional rights, policies and programmes in Ethiopia support and promote the equitable coverage of WaSH services to vulnerable groups and underserved populations. Constitutional Rights The Right to Water and sanitation is enshrined within the Constitution of Ethiopia which provides for a range of fundamental rights for its citizens including: the right to equal and effective protection without discrimination (Article 25) as well as special attention to the rights of Women (Article 35) guaranteeing affirmative action to address inequality and discrimination and to the equal rights of nations and nationalities within the Ethiopian state (Article 39). Additionally, Article 41 (5) provides for the conditions of equal opportunities and full participation of people with disabilities and those living with HIV/Aids. Article 90.1 outlines principles of state policy in relation to WaSH. To the extent the country’s resources permit, all Ethiopians are guaranteed access to public health and education, clean water, housing, food and social security in a manner that is free from any religious influence, political partisanship or cultural prejudices. (Article 90: Social Objectives Constitution of Ethiopia 1994)21. Article 44, guarantees that: “all persons have the right to a clean and healthy environment”, which is reinforced by Article 92.1 which states that the “Government shall endeavour to ensure that all Ethiopian live in a clean and healthy environment”.

Ethiopia is a signatory to the 2010 Human Right to Water and Sanitation22 . Ethiopia is also a signatory to CEDAW23, CRC24 and the CRPD25 and is strongly committed to the rights-based MDGs and the Sanitation for All Goals (MoWE, 2013; MoFED, 2010). Proclamation No. 676/2010 ratified the UN CRPD providing protection for the equal opportunities and full participation of people with disabilities and/or living with HIV/Aids. Additionally, Building Proclamation No. 676/2009 provides for accessibility in the design and construction of any building to ensure suitability for physically impaired persons. These Human Rights instruments and constitutional rights signify a legal entitlement of all citizens, irrespective of their age, status, ethnicity or gender to water, sanitation and public health provision. They are the basis of the laws, policies and strategies governing the provision of WaSH in Ethiopia which is the shared responsibility of the MoWE and the Ministries of Health and Education.

21http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=234349 22 http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/d_res_dec/A_HRC_16_L.4.pdf

23 Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 1979 24 Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990 25 Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities 2006

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 41

Table 2: Key Policy Provisions for Equitable and Inclusive WaSH Provision Date Policy Key WaSH Equity and Inclusion provisions Issues 2000 Water Resources Management Law governing water supply provision, installation, operations, maintenance, cost recovery. A technical law and regulation which do not include articles proclamation and regulation addressing the social dimensions of WS. 2001 Water Sector Policy Social equity in provision a guiding principle, ensuring coverage to poor communities. Special Universal coverage approach which does not explicit identify attention to the needs of Pastoralists vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. 2002/ Water Sector Development Provision for Social impact assessments to mitigate against negative impacts and land/asset loss Vol I does not provide clear definitions of who are and what Programme (Vols 1 & 2) that WS installation might cause to poor and vulnerable groups – SIA currently being updated characterizes poor and vulnerable groups. (vol I) Vol II identifies vulnerable groups as: poor people, the elderly, Vol II states that provision of WS should not compromise social equity and provision for social young people, unemployed, women and ethnic minorities. This tariff (subsidies for the poor to cover O&M) is stand alone and not a clarification of vol. I 1993 Health Policy Explicit attention to improving the health status of poor and disadvantage groups including No provisions for addressing WaSH needs of the vulnerable women children pastoralist communities and the urban poor. Sanitation provision guided by groups identified social equity principles. 2011 - Health Sector Development GTP WaSH targets. Institutional WaSH targets. Special attention to women, the emerging No specific WaSH strategies for the highlighted groups. WaSH 2015 Plan IV regions and pastoralists. Principle of social equity in health provision. needs of disabled not addressed. Wash key measure of well-being & health 2004 Health Extension Programme Rural: 16 health extension packages of which 7 address hygiene and sanitation and includes a HEW’s face significant barriers in working in informal settlements sub-section addressing Menstrual Hygiene Management and specific components for child well- and slums (UNHabitat, 2010). No explicit guidelines and training being and hygiene. on how to tailor packages to the diverse needs of vulnerable Urban: 15 preventive health packages of which 4 are dedicated to environmental health. groups. 2005 National Hygiene & Sanitation Not formally adopted or implemented but identified as main policy in sector. Identified need to Rural focus, policy was not replicated for urban areas, as such no Strategy (NH&SS) reach vulnerable groups – people living with HIV/AIDs and paraplegics – through consultation. clear strategy for reaching urban poor, vulnerable and Menstrual hygiene management not addressed. disadvantaged groups. 2006 National Hygiene & on-site Provision of latrines, water supply and promotion of hand washing. Commitment to meeting Replicates NH&S strategy and therefore no clear identification of Sanitation Protocol the special needs of pastoralists, women, and other groups with special needs. 8 step plan, specific strategies to meet the needs of groups with special emphasizes participation, cooperation, empowerment of local communities and enforcement. needs. 2011 Education Sector Development Identifies: girls, child labourers, drop-outs, O&VC as vulnerable groups Specific WaSH provision for children with disabilities not – Plan IV School WaSH, hand washing components in the curriculum. Commitment to ensuring clean addressed 2015 water sources and separate latrines are available for boys and girls. No mention of Menstrual Hygiene Management for female teachers and girls 2006 National strategy for Strategies are highlighted in the policy for addressing demand side constraints to education for No mention of WaSH facilities for Children with disabilities, or Alternative Basic Education out of school children including, ensuring water resources and separate latrines are available for menstrual hygiene management for boys and girls. (ABE) girls and boys. ABE Centres are a key strategy for reaching pastoralist children 1998 HIV/AIDs Policy Identifies specific groups at risk and strategies to target them, e.g. sex workers, truckers WaSH not identified as one of the priority issues for the policy 2011 - 2nd Strategic Plan & HIV/AIDs: Clear identification of disadvantaged and excluded groups including older people, No attention to ensuring access to WaSH facilities for people 2015 Management of HAPCO women, youth, people living with disabilities and displaced persons needing living with HIV/AIDs or for vulnerable groups within this category 2010 National Plan of Action on Focus on equal opportunities for people with disabilities in education and employment, and No guidance or provision for adapting WaSH facilities to the Disability 2012 -2021 broad health needs needs of disabled people

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 42

2.6 National Policy Framework for WaSH Provision

Policy Definitions of Under-served Populations and Vulnerable Groups The GoE has developed a robust legal and policy framework for addressing the deficits in WaSH provision at household and institutional levels. Equity and inclusion principles have been incorporated into water supply, hygiene and sanitation and institutional WaSH by the responsible ministries (MOWE, MoH and MoH/MoE respectively) for well over a decade (see table 2, above).

As table 2 indicates, there is a consensus that women poor and pastoralist communities constitute underserved populations. However, there is a wide range of understandings of who and what characterises vulnerable groups. Many policies, but not all, do not address, for example, the needs of disabled people. There is no clear definition of the term vulnerable group. The principle of social equity in WaSH service provision is at times highlighted, for example in the water sector policy, or sanitation provision under the health policy, but no policy document defines what is meant by this term, other than suggest that it is ensuring equality of opportunity and access in relation to service provision. Equally, in accordance with the constitutional rights of Ethiopian citizens, there is an implicit assumption that there will be non-discrimination in service provision.

As Box 3 highlights, social equity means meetings the needs of different social groups in order to ensure there is equality of access to services provided. It implies not only the availability of the service, but also the ability of individual to make use of the service provided. For example, a water supply may be available to a women or a disabled man, within a reasonable distance, but it they cannot use the water source because, for the woman it is not safe to do so, or for the disabled person, their disability stops them from getting the water from a source into a container, the water source is not fully accessible.

In the Ethiopian context access to water supply is defined using the following three parameters (i) Quality: Water supplied from improved sources should meet the Ethiopian drinking water standard: (ii) Quantity: The yield from the scheme during the driest day of the year should have a capacity to provide at least 15 litre and 20 litter per capita for rural and urban residents respectively, that meets the Ethiopian drinking water standard. (iii) Accessibility: The maximum distance for water supply scheme should be within 1.5 Km for rural and 0.5 Km for urban resident from the farthest delivery point. The social equity principle governing the access provisions of the 2001 Water Policy commits the MoWE to progressing towards universal coverage, as in envisaged by the GTP. However, there are significant challenges in operationalizing a social equity principle, in relation to access, if policies and the subsequent strategies do not define vulnerable or disadvantaged groups or clearly address the specific barriers which stand in their way of accessing WaSH services.

Box 3: Definitions of Non-Discrimination, Equality of Opportunities and Social Equity

a Non-discrimination and equality of opportunities The prohibition of discrimination is embedded in the idea of dignity being a right of all human beings, and it is in every human rights treaty, including the Right to Water and Sanitation. The principle of non-discrimination legally obliges states to realise the rights of all people, regardless of their origin, age, gender, mental or physical health, ethnic or religious affiliation, or other social status. Non-discrimination means that, even when government or development cooperation resources are limited, they must be used in ways that reduce discrimination and work towards access for all people to governmental services and infrastructure. This is particularly important in relation to access to social infrastructure, such as, water and sanitation, Health and Education and the legal systems. All of these usually exclude or discriminate against some people in some way. This may be intended or unintended, and is based on deep-seated, institutionalised social and cultural assumptions (for example in relation to gender, age or ethnicity), which will often lead to unfair allocation of resources. Human rights treaties oblige states to work for social change to end this exclusion and to ensure that existing discrimination in national laws is diminished.

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 43

Social Equityb Social equity, is based on the principles of non-discrimination and equality of opportunities. It implies that services are provided fairly and in accordance with needs. Social equity involves recognising that people are different and require specific support and measures over the specific barriers that stand in the way of their being able to access and use services sustainably. Source: a) German Institute for Human Rights, pers. comm., 2007 and b) adapted from JMP Equity and Inclusion working group report, Satherwaite, 2012

Meeting the Goals of GTP: The Implementation Framework In line with the GTP the GoE produced the Universal Access Plan, based on the rights approach (UAP, 2010) and designed to achieve its ambitious target of almost 100% coverage by 2015. The UAP (which incorporates the National Hygiene and Sanitation Strategic Action Plan) also includes WaSH facilities in schools, health facilities and prisons. The UAP reaffirmed WaSH sector targets in relation to access, quality and equity. Separate strategies are outlined for urban and rural WaSH as well as institutional WaSH and special attention is given to Pastoralism communities and the mainstreaming of gender equity concerns.

To support the UAP targets the GoE has developed a WaSH Implementation Framework (WIF) that acts as a guiding document for the implementation of an integrated one WaSH programme and sets out roles and responsibilities in the WaSH sector. Responsibility for WaSH targets is shared between the Ministry of Water and Energy (leads on water supply), the Ministry of Health (leads on Hygiene and Sanitation) and the Ministry of Education (leads on school sanitation and WaSH clubs). Lastly, the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED) has a critical role in terms of financing and financial management.

A major feature of the WIF is that it has the leadership of the four government Ministries. In November 2012, through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), these ministries pledged to support an integrated WaSH program that addresses the needs of individuals, communities, schools and health posts more holistically and reduces bureaucratic compartmentalisation of services. The OWN-P operationalizes the MoU and the WIF.

Roles and Responsibilities of the Implementing Ministries MoWE at Federal level is responsible for Water policy, coordination and monitoring. Implementation is decentralised to Regional, Woreda and in the some cases community level. In general the design and contracting of piped water schemes are managed at Regional Water Bureau level, before handing over maintenance responsibility to local Woreda level. The implementation of less technical schemes such as hand-dug wells or spring catchments is managed by Woreda Water Offices, or communities (in the case of Community Managed Projects). In some Regions, some responsibility for WaSH activities is starting to move from Regional to Zonal level to bridge some gaps in capacity.

Over the past five years, under the existing WaSH programmes, community WaSH Committees (WaSHCOs) have been established and trained to operate and maintain the community water schemes. Recently there has been legal registration of these associations, which under the OWN-P opens up significant opportunities for greater involvement of communities in the planning and management of WaSH services.

The MoH’s Health Sector Development Plan IV to achieve the health MDGS by 2015 is implemented by the regional health bureaux. It aims to dramatically scale up the provision of primary care services through the health extension programme and health clinics at district level. Over 34,000 health extension workers (HEWs) have been trained and deployed to rural health posts. The health extension workers work directly with communities to encourage behaviour change that includes use of improved sanitation and hygiene promotion. In some Regions the government is creating Health Development Armies by training women in the community to mobilise their neighbours to adopt

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 44

good health seeking behaviour and increase service utilisation. Under the National Sanitation and Hygiene Action Plan, CLTSH is bein rolled out through the HEWs and the Health Development armies. The approach and its targets are incorporated into OWN-P.

The MoE’s Education Sector Development Plan IV prioritises WASH provison in Schools as a key strategy in reducing demand-side barriers to participation in education, especially for girls. Designs for Child/Girl friendly toilet blocks have been drawn up in conjunction with UNICEF which outline the minimun standards required within all primary schools and ABECs. Provisions were also made for introducing modules on sanitation and personal hygience. School WaSH clubs are being introduced across all regions and a modified form of CLTSH –School-led total sanitation and hygiene (SLTSH) is being introduced to catalyse behaviour change within schools and within the families of participating students.

Non-government Actors Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) also play a key role in the WaSH sector. They deliver water and sanitation services, pilot new approaches, and support learning and knowledge sharing. GoE and CSOs active in WaSH share the common goal of water and sanitation for all, and so are aligned with the GoE Universal Access Plan. The contribution of CSOs is recognised in the WIF framework.

The Water and Sanitation Forum is the Ethiopian civil society network of WaSH NGOs, and now has 79 members. It is recognized by GoE as the representative institution for WaSH civil society and takes part in national level decision-making and coordination mechanisms. Another network, the WaSH Ethiopia Movement is a voluntary coalition of representatives of government organizations, non-government organizations (NGOs), civil society organizations (CSOs), donors, the media, the private sector, faith-based organizations and individuals. The movement was established in 2004 and is coordinated by WaterAid. The movement has established regional chapters to help it to work nationwide.

There is close collaboration between GoE WaSH ministries and WaSH CSOs. Experienced CSOs in the sector join in the sector processes such as the Joint Technical Review, the annual Multi-Stakeholder Forum, and the Forum for Learning on Water and Sanitation (FLoWS). In addition the WaSH Media Forum was established in 2008 to trigger and maintain discussions between the media and WaSH and to outline how the sector can increase its engagement and partnership with the media.

There are few CSOs working on disability issues within the WaSH sector and national data on projects which incorporate components addressing the specific needs of people in WaSH provision is not available. Data from other sectors, indicate that most support is highly localised, varies from region to region and is left to small, underfunded NGOs and religious groups, (see for example Jennings et al, 2011). At a national level, the Ethiopia Centre for Disability and Development, a national NGO established in 2005, supports more inclusive design, and provision of WaSH services (see below). WaterAid Ethiopia is the key WaSH CSO working to mainstream disability issues into WaSH service provision. It works to raise awareness of disability issues in the public and private sectors and has mainstreamed disability into its projects and work with partner organisations as well as contributed towards the development of standard design of WaSH facilities in health institutions. Other disability associations playing a key role in the disability equality movement include Ethiopian National Disability Action Network; Ethiopian Women with Disabilities National Association and the Tigray Disabled Veterans Association (ILO, 2012). Although these organisations are not actively involved in supporting inclusive WaSH provision for people with disabilities.

Complementary Programmes Supporting WaSH Access, Equity and Inclusion There are a number of programmes which complement and support OWN-P. These are:

Promotion of Basic Services (PBS): PBS, now in its third phase has, since 2005, supported year-on-

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 45

year increases in funding flows to the woredas via un-earmarked block grants (supported by the Protection of Basic Services Grant since 2005). Woredas then allocate these funds to the basic services sector, including WaSH; currently 6% spend is on water and 15% spend on Health sector. The expenditure is mainly on salaries and, in terms of WaSH, supports the Woreda Water staff and the HEWs. Additionally, PBS-3, through 3 inter-related Citizen Engagement sub-programmes, aims to strengthen the government system, of all three WaSH ministries, as well as the capacity of local users to work together in an increasingly transparent, responsive and accountable manner. These sub-programmes are: a) Social Accountability - providing citizens, as public service users, with the means to assess and monitor the planning, delivery and quality of services, and voice their needs and preferences - PBS-3 works in 170 woredas; b) Financial Transparency and Accountability supporting the "supply side" of citizen’s engagement, promoting information and communication activities with citizens on expected service standards, budgets and budget use, and public education on budget processes and, c) the Grievance Redress mechanism strengthening the impartial review of citizens’ complaints of maladministration related to the provision of public basic services and the provision of redress where appropriate. PBS-3 provides technical assistance to national and regional levels of government to develop a common standard of grievance redress procedures; train grievance officers and sensitise citizens on the opportunities and procedures for grievance handling in the regions.

Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP): The PSNP provides resources to food insecure households via payments to able-bodied members for work on labour intensive public works (including some basic water supplies and major soil and water conservation activities which raise the water table for domestic and agricultural use) and via Direct Support to incapacitated households. In drought, prone areas

CoWASH: The Community Led Accelerated WaSH Project is supported by the Government of Finland. It was established, by the Go,E in 2011 to support the development of OWN-P as defined by WIF and to support the scaling up of the community-managed approach to WaSH provision. CoWaSH will close before implementation of OWN-P begins. However it has been instrumental in promoting the transparent and participatory process that has characterised the development of OWN-P. CMP is one of the modalities for delivery under OWN-P.

Peace through Development: A DFID-funded bi-lateral programme headed by a consortium of NGOs, (Save the Children UK, Mercy Corps and Islamic Relief) which works in the Somali region to support GoE GTP objectives for basic services including WaSH. It will align itself with OWN-P objectives in pastoralist areas.

Ethiopia Centre for Disability and Development’s INCLUDE programme, funded by the ILO-IrishAid Partnership programme, works to ensure people with disabilities are engaged in the planning, design, implementation and evaluation of public services and development programmes, including WaSH. ECDD has trained and employed facilitators, disability trainers and accessibility surveyors, the majority of whom are women and all are people with disabilities. Currently, it works in Addis Ababa, Amhara, Oromia, Tigray and SNNPR. ECDD has supported WaterAid develop appropriate latrine designs for people with motor impairments.

2.7 The building blocks for Universal Acess

In relation to accelerating the progress towards the GTP WaSH targets the GoE has put in place a number of building blocks. These are:

. The Universal Access Plan: backed by key stakeholders in the sector and enabling increased resource mobilization from both government and donor sources.

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 46

. Progress made towards harmonization of fragmented donor finance and review processes under the emerging Sector Wide Approach agenda, and its Annual Multi- Stakeholder Forum and Joint Technical Reviews. . A decentralised implementation structure: Ethiopia has implemented a decentralised system that gives more responsibility to lower tiers of government to allocate finances and plan for improvements. Progress has also been made in recent years to improve the transparency of local government budgets and provide opportunities for citizens to give feedback. 100% of woredas have posted budgets in public places; more than 3,000 local government officials have been trained in tools to explain budgets and solicit citizen feedback and more than 80,000 citizens have received budget awareness training. However representation of women and other vulnerable groups in this process has been low especially in the rural areas and in underserved regions (Tadesse et al 2010). . Introducing greater transparency and accountability into the WaSH sector through the Multi- stakeholder fora (MSF) and the WaSHCOs: The national and regional MSF bring together government and other sector stakeholders enabling greater sharing of information and transparency in the sector. The WaSHCOs are supporting improved levels of citizen-service engagement between the woreda, Kebele and local communities. These mechanisms are still in the early stages of institutionalising processes and systems for accountability. However, they provide the basis for developing broader based and nationally endorsed accountability mechanisms. Furthermore, a Grievance Redress Mechanism has also been instituted by the GoE that is aimed at strengthening the impartial review of citizen complaints in cases of maladministration related to provision of public basic services and the provision of redress where appropriate (Randolph and Edjeta, 2011). . The success of the WaSH I programme in supporting progress towards institutionalising cross- sector coordination in delivering WaSH targets. . Deployment of over 34,000 Health Extension Workers nationally, whose mandate includes significant sanitation and hygiene promotion activities and who are considered to have made a significant contribution to accelerating provision of basic sanitation and hygiene services since 2004 (Shorima Management Consultants,2013). However, the policy and implementation linkage between HEWs, and the local WASHCO(s) has not been established. As a result, WASHCOs tend to focus on water supply rather than WASH (MoFED & UNICEF, 2012). . Social Impact Assessment framework and policy, currently under revision, which provides safeguards for poor and vulnerability groups before and during the installation of WSS. . Development of an M&E framework, and data collection under a national water supply, sanitation, and hygiene inventory process. . Recent increases on GoE investment in the water sector, particularly through MoE’s l MDG fund for capital.

Challenges in relation to meeting the needs of under-served Populations and vulnerable groups Although the identified building blocks represent significant progress, a number of challenges remain. Some are generic to the sector including: capacity and human resource issues, high government staff turnover, limitations in private sector capacity to meet demand, geographical inequities, operation and maintenance issues, ensuring sustainability, ongoing limitations in M&E and slow financial utilisation rates for some donor funds (UAP, 20 MoWE, 2013). Other challenges relate directly to progressing equitable access to WaSH services for under-served populations and vulnerable groups. These include: lack of awareness by service providers (government and CSOs) of the legal and policy framework supporting equitable access (WaterAid, 2013); inaccurate and non- existent data on the numbers and characteristics of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups within Ethiopia (Teferra and Gebremedhin, 2010)26; limited social science capacity at Regional level, particularly in pastoralist areas, to address the social dimensions of WaSH provision (WB, 2013); inconsistencies in WaSH policies and strategies in relation to identifying and targeting vulnerable

26 See also, for example, MoE and UNICEF, 2012 on data gaps in relation to vulnerable children.

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 47

groups, as described above and, as yet, no overarching and shared understanding across the sector of the issue (WaterAid 2013).

Notwithstanding these challenges, the review of the policy, and the institutional and implementation framework for OWN-P indicates that there is a committed enabling environment supporting OWN-P meet the ambitious goals laid out in the GTP and UAP. The GoE has moved on a number of fronts – strategies, financing, strengthened coordination mechanisms and improved data flows to address the immediate constraints affecting progress towards universal WaSH coverage.

3. OWN-P (WaSH II): Supporting Equitable and Inclusive Access to WaSH

OWN-P is the GoE’s main instrument for achieving the goals and targets of increased coverage of water supply and sanitation established in the GTP. It is a 7 year programme designed to be implemented in two phases: Phase 1 - 2013 -2015 and Phase 2 – 2015 -2020. Phasing allows for adjustments, after 2015, in line with changed GoE priorities, policies and strategies post the GTP, MDGs and UAP. OWN-P is prepared in line with WIF. In order to attain the Government’s close to 100 % target for WaSH service improvement, the draft OWN-P estimates the resources needed to be about US $2.47 Billion (MoWE, 2013). The programme will be implemented as a multi-sectoral SWAp involving all 4 ministries, who signed the sector MoU (MoFED, 2013a), non-government actors and the private sector.

OWN – P (WaSH I) builds on the achievements of WaSH I and other implementation mechanisms operating prior to OWN-P. The emphasis in Phase 1 is on harmonisation and alignment of partners’ plans and strategies to OWN- P and to expanded WaSH coverage to meet GTP targets by 2015. Institutional arrangements and implementation modalities for Phase II will be determined after the Mid-Term Review in 2015. In response to the operational, data and capacity challenges, within the sector, capacity building at all sub-national levels (regions, zones, woredas, kebeles and communities), levels will be prioritised.

This section briefly summarises: the guiding principles and strategies of OWM-P; the equity and inclusion achievements of WaSH I and, the extent to which the current design of OWN-P has built on these achievements and applied the lessons learnt.

3.1 Principles and Pillars of OWN-P

The WIF sets out the four guiding principles for the OWN Programme around with the GoE and development partners have agreed to work. These are: (i) Integration; (ii) Harmonisation; (iii) Alignment and, (iv)Partnership. OWN-P’s activities will stem from three overarching Pillars: 1) creating an enabling environment, 2) maximising availability and efficient use of human resources to create demand for better WaSH services and, 3) capacity development for improved delivery of WaSH services, Implementation, of OWN-P, through all 4 implementation mechanisms, will be in line with these principles and pillars and will entail working towards:

. One planning system – with linked strategic and annual WaSH plans at each level . One budgeting system – reflecting all WaSH-related investments and expenditures27 . One financial management system – with consolidated accounting and reports

27 In allocation of regional WaSH funds to the woredas the WIF states that Regions shall try to follow the policy of 30 % for hygiene and sanitation and 70 % for water, but the actual annual budget at woreda level will be defined based on the needs and demands during the annual planning stage. There will be an explicit budget line and tracking of funds expenditure to hygiene and sanitation under the OWN Programme.

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 48

. One procurement system – with agreed common standards and procedures aligned to the government system . One information system – with essential data updated and accessible at each level . One monitoring & evaluation system – with common indicators and consolidated analysis

No explicit guiding principle or pillar was developed with regard to equity and inclusion in WaSH service provision. However, implicitly, all partners and stakeholders are expected to implement according to the sector policies and strategies outlined in section 2. The OWN-P, like the majority of policies and strategies within the WaSH sector, does not identify or define specific vulnerable groups, needing special attention, within the WaSH sector, (such as people living with disabilities or the elderly) or elaborate specific strategies to reach these groups.

Additionally, the WIF identified four alternative implementation mechanisms for the rural WaSH interventions under OWN-P of which the Woreda Managed Project (WaSH II) is the largest, (see Box 4 below). Urban WaSH Interventions are implemented through town water boards following guidelines and procedures laid out in the WIF.

Box 4: Modalities of Implementation

Woreda Managed Project (WMP) – The largest implementation mechanisms and an expansion of WaSH I. Woredas are responsible for the administration and funding of WSS as well as supervising WaSH facilities construction. Kebeles, WaSHCOs and Institutional WaSH Committees are directly involved in planning, implementation, O&M and signing-off of installations. The Woreda hands over to the community once installation is complete. Community Managed Programmes (CMP) – The community owns and manages the WaSH project and is responsible for the planning, managing, implementation and O&M of WaSH facilities. Funds are authorised and transferred through the woreda. There is no handover by the woreda. NGO Managed Projects – NGO projects are those managed by NGOs without recourse to the public finance systems. WaSH projects are managed either directly by NGOs or communities, funds administration is through the NGOs. Self-Supply Projects – These are off-budget and financed and managed by user communities with limited external support (mainly technical advice, training or facilitating market access to hardware and services). They will be integrated into Kebele plans and outputs as well as WaSH inventories. Source: GoE 2013a:11

3.2 WaSH-I Progress towards Equitable Access to WaSH Provision: Lessons learnt

Under the WASH I Project 224 rural woredas, (including one woreda in Dire Dawa City Administration), 87 small and 37 medium size towns benefited from financial and capacity-building support for expanding WSS coverage.

Gender Equity and Inclusion WaSH I included an explicit focus on gender. Attention was paid to strengthening the inclusion of women in WaSH service provision and planning. Capacity building and training, at WaSHCO and Woreda levels included gender and social inclusion issues. WaSH 1 contributed to gender mainstreaming within the sector, particularly through its support to establishment and training of WASH Committees (WASHCOs), where normally 40-45% of WASHCO members are women: above the 35% target of programme design. Women community members were consulted separately for their views on design and implementation process. Women were highly valued and respected as trusted cash controllers or treasurers of WSS projects. Nevertheless, promoting women to leadership position s was challenging; women were under-represented in leadership. There is no formal data available on the wealth status, age or educational status of the women who were leaders. Its capacity building activities at regional, woreda and town levels have mainly benefitted men, as most WASH employees are men, especially those in decision-making positions (EoD, 2013).

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 49

Additionally, gender mainstreaming was supported through WaSH I’s Its training of TVETC/HSC teachers and the conduct of at least one training course for regional WASH staff on gender mainstreaming (EoD, 2013). However, overall WaSH I was deemed to show a lack of attention, knowledge and skills related to gender mainstreaming (EoD, 2013).

Investments in the WaSHCO, building ownership, capacities and competences to cooperation with the woreda increased overall community ownership and willingness to pay but not necessarily post- implementation maintenance of installed facilities (EoD, 2013; WB, 2013).

Reaching Underserved Populations and Vulnerable Groups Results show that 5.73 million rural people gained access to improved water sources under WaSH I (MoWE, 2013). The fact that Ethiopia has made significant progress in improving access to water in under-served rural areas, albeit from a low base, has been largely attributed to WaSH I, (AMCOW, 2012).

WaSH I developed special guidelines for WaSH provision for pastoralists in the Somali and Afar regions. The use of these guidelines, has not been evaluated, but does provide a basis for strengthening woreda Pastoralist WaSH provision under OWN-P.

WaSH I did not addressed the differentiated needs of vulnerable groups within beneficiary communities. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that generally the elderly, disabled and extreme poor people were exempted by the community from contributing to the required 5% cash cost of the scheme. In some areas, those who could not contribute cash contribute in-kind labour or crops to ensure general participation and sense of ownership28.

Institutional Capacity Building Impact A recent evaluation of capacity building interventions under WaSH 1 found that the level of regional and woredas WaSH coordination has increased as a consequence of the capacity building provided (EoD, 2013). Government staff turnover has, however, reduced the impact of some of the capacity building aspects, and the improvements in sanitation are mainly in the increase in basic latrine coverage and reduction in open-defection, with more limited impact on improved sanitation.

WaSH I’s substantial support for the development and roll-out of the National WASH Inventory (NWI) has made a significant contribution to developing the baseline as well as an enabling environment for the systematic and focused alleviation of social disparities in WaSH provision.

3.3 Integrating Equity and Inclusion into the Design of OWN-P (WaSH II)

In terms of equitable access, OWN-P’s goal explicitly seeks “to reduce regional and social disparities in access to safe drinking water and sanitation” (MoWE, 2013:41). It will do this through a range of implementation modalities, strategies and targets. These are.

. A dedicated component for pastoralist WaSH reflecting a commitment to address the specific environmental and social conditions in pastoralist areas. Additionally, it is noted that OWN-P will operate in areas where the GoE has implemented the Commune Development Programme (CDP) in Afar, Somali, Gambella and Benishangul Gemuz Regions. CPD involves the movement of scattered populations into villages with the stated aim of improving service delivery. In pastoralist areas such as Afar and Somali Region, the CDP is based around providing alternative livelihood options through irrigated crop agriculture for those transitioning out of pastoralism. Here, GoE will provide WaSH services to people in the

28 World Bank Aide Memoire July 2013 and Pers. Comm August 2013

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 50

region, whether in new villages or elsewhere. OWN-P does not constitute direct support to the CDP. It aims to deliver WaSH services to unserved populations, without discrimination as to where they reside. . Mainstreaming gender equality approaches throughout the programme, including gender disaggregation of data in the MIS and results framework, as an integral part of the 4 guiding principles. The Gender Directorate of the MOWE is currently undertaking a gender audit of WaSH service provision under the WMP modality. The results of which will be fed into the implementation strategies of OWN-P . Using NWI data to identify and target areas with low access to water supply and basic sanitation differentiating between regions, woredas and between kebeles within woredas. A significant refinement of current practice, and one which is likely to contribute to accelerated coverage of WSS to under-served populations. . Giving priority (financial and human resource allocations) to acute water and sanitation “hotspots” including those in conflict zones, informal settlements of migrant labourers and other emergency WaSH situations. It is estimated that over 2 million people are affected by WaSH related hazards. . Recognising that in reaching under-served populations in hotspots and pastoralist areas, where there is an overlap between development and emergency WaSH provision, there will need to be close collaboration with emergency WaSH structures and activities. This will involve: including emergency WaSH into the co-ordination and reporting structures of OWN- P; integrating emergency preparedness and response Unit within the NWTT and ensuring coordination with regional, zonal and woreda emergency structures, especially in pastoralist regions. . Committing to, and prioritising demand-led and community based approaches in all implementing mechanisms in order to promote a) full participation of communities in WaSH provision and b) post-implementation maintenance and sustainability. . Provision of a resettlement policy framework (RPF) describing legislation and regulation and due process for compensation if land acquisition is needed or productive assets are lost.

Table 4 below highlights the specific provisions made, within the current OWN-P design, to integrate equity and inclusion lessons learnt from WaSH 1 and other implementation mechanisms into OWN- P. Table 4: OWN-P: Addressing Access for Under-served Populations and Vulnerable groups OWN-P Component Design Responses to WaSH I Challenges Component 1: Rural and Pastoralist Rural WaSH Wash . Water supply in drought prone areas prioritised to reduce i) to construct community water dependency on tanker-delivered water, also likely to contribute supply schemes and institutional to reducing inter-community tensions sanitation facilities (ii) to promote . Health Development Armies - training women in the improved hygiene and sanitation community to mobilise their neighbours to adopt good health practices in beneficiary communities seeking behaviour and increase service utilisation. (iii) to strengthen and sustain . Women and youth-led entrepreneur groups to be established capacity of beneficiary woredas to and linked to suppliers effectively plan, implement and . Scaling up of CLTSH in order to reach under-served populations manage their R-WaSH (iii) to . Working with the private sector to strengthen sanitation and strengthen and sustain the capacity hand pump supply chains in rural areas. of beneficiary communities to . Subsidies for communities that can not pay effectively plan, implement and . Implementation of the Mass mobilisation strategy (2008) manage their water supply and Pastoralist WaSH sanitation facilities . Requirement that all interventions are aligned to, and contribute to sustainable livelihoods of pastoralist communities . Working through clan-based structures and local informal leaders . Siting water sources in places that are compatible with human

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 51

and livestock needs . Emphasising the need for flexibility, innovation and partnership with NGOs as a socially sensitive and cost-effective approach to universal coverage Component 2: Urban WaSH . Provision of subsidies to communities that cannot afford to pay (i) to improve the water production . Committed to decentralised community-based provision and distribution system, (ii) to involving all stakeholders support the preparation of urban . Extending sanitation provision and hygiene activities into sanitation strategy and informal areas thereby extending WaSH provision to the implementation of priority sanitation poorest, underserved urban populations. investments in beneficiary towns, (iii) to strengthen the capacity of participating water boards/committees and operators to effectively manage their water supply and sanitation facilities. Component 3: Institutional WaSH Health Wash Support to improving WaSH facilities . Prioritising expansion of WaSH facilities in health posts in and practices at health institutions underserved areas rural, peri-urban and informal settlements through regional and city health (as identified in the national hygiene and sanitation action plan) bureaus, and Schools through School WaSH regional/city education bureaus. . Develop gender and age sensitive curriculum on sanitation and hygiene . Standardising guidelines for WaSH needs of school students . Girl friendly toilets to a standardised design . Promoting children as agents of change and establishing school WaSH clubs Component 4: Programme . Promotion of women into leadership positions in WaSHCO, Organisation and Partnerships Kebeles and Woredas Support to the MoFED, MoH, MoE . Strengthening devolution of service delivery to lower-level and MoWE to: build the capacity of institutions in order to increase community involvement, regional health, education and water ownership and sustainability of WaSH interventions bureau as well as Woreda WaSH . Including social accountability mechanisms into monitoring offices BoFEDs and WoFED personnel . Mainstreaiming of the learning by doing participatory and regionally-based consultants to: approaches to WaSH service provision piloted by WSP (i) support program implementation, . Mainstreaiming of the GLOWs principles and learning by doing (ii) refine policies and program participatory approaches, piloted by WSP, to capacitating implementation arrangements, (iii) WaSH service provision monitor and evaluate the program, . Adapting low-cost hard ware to local context equip water quality testing and . Re-introduction of gender training modules for MoWE staff training centres, (iv) improve . Establishing national communication strategy to expand information availability and flow. awareness, knowledge and ownership amongst public which in turn opens up the space to build effective service-citizen cooperation for WaSH.

4. Equitable and Inclusive WaSH Services: Key Messages from the Consultations

This section analyses the perceptions and key messages from the community members and service providers contacted during the stakeholder consultations. There are four elements: service user and community perceptions of the benefits from existing WaSH 1 services; community needs in relation to WaSH; barriers to equity and inclusion under OWN-P (WaSH-II), and improvement suggestions. A separate annex presents the full consultation findings from each of the three regions visited.

4.1 Community Perceptions of Current WaSH Benefits

In all regions, people consulted in the woredas, emphasized the importance of WaSH services to

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 52

themselves and their families. Of the six woredas visited, there were 5 woredas that were supported through the WaSH 1 programme (Abobo, Shinbedindo, Malega, Harshin and Gursum). All people within 16 of the 17 kebeles in Abobo reported significant benefits from increased access to water and sanitation facilities, under the WaSH I programme. Water points have been installed across the Woreda, including the kebele where villagisation took place. Households have dug and started using pit latrines and have year-long water supply from three shallow wells installed in the Woreda. In the new commune, residents –men and women- valued the range of WaSH services available to them. They felt they had particularly benefited from the Health Extension Worker (HEW), active in their community. Adolescent girls valued the installation of water and girl only latrines in their school. They no longer needed to feel embarrassed or worry about lack of privacy. Having latrines, made school more accessible to them. However, people in the Lumtak kebele of Abobo, the most remote and difficult to access area of the woreda, did not feel satisfied with WaSH provision. Clean water supply is not regular and sanitation services have not been extended throughout the kebele.

In Shinbedindo, people were pleased that water supply had been extended to the Woreda, but for poorer people, women and men, the high cost of supply and the poor functionality of some of the water points meant they did not perceive any tangible benefits from the programme. Poorer people and women reported that they did not feel any real ownership of the programme; they had not been consulted by the WaSHCO and there were no women members on the WaSHCO. In Malaga, because, coverage was low and a number of water sources no longer functioning, neither men nor women felt they had gained any real benefits under WaSH 1. Poorer men and women did not feel consulted or connected to the WaSHCO and the women consulted, felt that water points were further than 1.5km away from their household. This meant that they still spent between 11/2 and 3 hours per day fetching water. Both men and women from the Leku community within Malega Woreda felt excluded from the benefits of WaSH I. Girls in Shinbedindo did not feel they had benefited from WaSH I as their schools did not have fully functional and private WaSH facilities.

In Somali, people in the two woredas (Harshin and Gursum) could not identify any direct benefits from the WaSH I Programmes. WaSHCOs were not functioning in either woreda. Women, consulted, in particular, were unaware that there had been a water supply programme in their area. At the Woreda and Regional levels the WaSH teams in Somali expressed their concerns that finances were not transferred in line with scheduled disbursements, delaying implementation and undermining their efforts to engage with communities.

4.2 Community Needs in Relation to WaSH Services

In all Woredas people consulted highlighted affordability as integral to sustained access. Availability of WaSH provision after implementation was a major concern. Communities also raised issues relating to: adequate quality of water supply and sanitation; the need to adapt WaSH services to their particular location as well as the needs of certain groups as significant concerns.

Accessibility and Affordability: For the majority of participants in the FDGs access to water could not be separated from being able to afford the water. Affordability was determined by location and wealth status. Poor men and women in all woredas reported that as a percentage of their income, they felt they paid more for water than better off residents in their woreda. Globally, there is limited knowledge about how much poorer and vulnerable households pay as each month for WaSH services as a percentage of their household expenditure and how this varies over time (Satherwaithe et al 2011, IRC and WUSP, 2012). Nor is there substantive information on what would constitute an equitable percentage of household costs for O&M. In Ethiopia, research suggests, that lifecycle costs29 and affordability of rural water supply suggest that that the flat rates paid by the average

29 Estimating cost of WaSH services as a percentage of overall Household costs/expenditures is considered a more realistic and equitable method of assessing affordability because it looks at household budgets and

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 53

household accounts for 2% of total household costs. (WaterAid, pers comm.). This is well within the African standard which estimates that if water charges are within 5% of household income, they are affordable (Bannerjee et al. 2008). However, the lifecycle costs calculation does not cover contributions to O&M and there appears to be a data gap in relation to the percentage of WaSH costs in relation to poor and vulnerable households and those living in underserved areas. There are a number of other factors affecting affordability, especially for poorer households, including convenience, safety and security of the service, quality, time spent in queuing, and livelihood needs, such as water supply for livestock in pastoralist areas. These factors shaped the extent to which individuals and households perceive WaSH services to be affordable (Dessalegn et al, 2013, Crawford, 2011). Findings from the stakeholder consultations suggest affordability is a critical concern for poor and vulnerable groups and under-served populations.

In Malaga all men and women, highlighted the benefits of having an affordable water supply, (1 Bir per month per household). However, in Shinbedindo, also in SNNPR, the fact that water was pumped to the surface using a diesel powered machine meant that the overall cost per household, (50cents for a 20-25 litre jerry can) was seen as prohibitive for poorer households who had returned to using contaminated water sources. In Gambella town, poor women, especially widows, and girls pointed out that water and sewage services cost money, and they often did not have the money to access the town’s piped water supply so went elsewhere to unimproved water sources. Poor women and widows also reported that they could not afford to pay for the construction of their own sanitation facilities. This was frustrating because they recognised that they had benefited from awareness raising about sanitation and hygiene but could not put their knowledge into action.

Affordability was a big issue in Harshin, Somali, for all FDG participants. When water supply was improved for the woreda, the local government was providing low-cost chemicals for water treatment. This service stopped 2 years ago. Now most of the population cannot afford to buy chemicals to treat the water and have reverted to unsafe water sources or buying, what they consider to be high cost water from water trucked into the woreda. In Gursum, women and men felt that poorer households paid more for water supply, not only because the trucked water costs were high, but also because they could not afford to invest in cheaper or alternative technologies. They could not, for example, afford to invest in rain water harvesting equipment like the better off households. Neither could they afford water storage containers which limited their home water supply. Accessibility and affordability of water sources for livestock was also a major concern, especially for men, in Harshin, because loss of livestock, a perennial problem during the dry season detrimentally affects their livelihoods and well-being.

In all regions, the poorest reported the most difficulty in accessing safe water or useable latrines leading to a dependence on informal and generally higher-cost water sources. In Gambella Town, it was pastoralists who had left pastoralism and agro-pastoralists who were living on the edge of town in semi-formal settlements and not connected to the town water supply. They were forced to use polluted water supplies from the Baro River and Jajabe stream or buy form water sellers. For older and disabled people in these communities, even this was not an option. These groups reported that, not being able to access direct the town water supply, they had to pay 2-4 Birr for 20 litre jerry cans of water. A price too high to allow them an adequate water supply. In Malega, it was the Leku, potter community, socially excluded within the woreda who relied on hand-dug wells and had no access to any other WaSH services. In Gambella Town, the homeless, disabled and elderly were concerned that the communal toilets were not functional and there was not enough of them in the town making it difficult for them to access safe sanitation.

Available and Safe: In all woredas, disabled people reported that, even when there was an improved

expenditure priorities and not just levels of income within the household (IRC and WSUP, 2012 and Satherwaite 2011).

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 54

water supply, it was difficult for them to use it. In Gambella Town, for example, disabled men reported that water is not available continuously and in their part of the woreda a safe water supply is only available during the night, (at 2 a.m. onwards). Their disability prevented them collecting the water. In Shinbedindo, which had been declared ODF a year ago, some of the poorer households had reverted to open defecation because their pit latrines were full and they did not know what to do with the waste and felt they were no longer safe to use. An issue echoed by poor men and women, especially elderly adults in Gambella town who reported that lack of money and information about how to keep their latrines safe, meant the latrines were not maintained for long after installation. In Gursum, all FDG participants had only intermittent access to a clean water supply, although a traditional water source was available for some. However, for the elderly and disabled, the walk down to the water source was too steep and difficult for them to negotiate. They had to ask others to collect water on their behalf or wait for the arrival of trucked-in water: often too expensive for them. Women also reported that they were the main collectors of water but often experienced difficulties, (for example, minor accidents, increased tiredness, increased time spent collecting the water), in accessing water safely from the steeply sloped access points to the water holes.

Adequate Quality: Access to water of adequate quality was an issue in all woredas. (Although in Gambella, the issue was affordability not the availability of clean water). The poorest in Gambella town, felt forced to use dirty water from nearby rivers because they could not afford the clean piped water. All FDG participants in Gambella town also reported that the frequent breakdown of the town water system due to water pump damage, also affected continual supply of water of an adequate quality. In Abobo, community members reported that water quality was an issue throughout the year and especially during the rainy season when water supplies in the shallow wells became polluted. Across all regions, maintaining basic latrines or improving them was extremely difficult for poor households, the elderly and disabled people. Functionality of sanitation services (home and communal) and water points was a major concern for all FDG participants. There were two main reasons for this: broken or dis-functioning water points/taps or latrines, lowered the quality of WaSH services but also often detrimentally increased costs in accessing WaSH services. Users turned to higher cost water sellers , for example because they water points are out of use. In SNNPR, and Gambella town, WaSH services stopped being used because they were broken (water points) or overflowing (latrines) and no longer of an acceptable quality.

Adapted to Context: Disabled men and women did not feel that WaSH services had been adapted to their particular needs. Although one disabled man in Gambella Town pointed out that because the school latrines were on the ground floor, he could use them, despite there being no special adaptations. Women and girls in all woredas but Abobo, felt that more could be done to meet their WaSH needs. They received limited information about female hygiene and sanitary practices. Latrines in health posts or schools were not functional, because of lack of water or privacy, which meant they felt uncomfortable in using the facility. In Gambella Town, Anyuak Women reported not being able to use household latrines because they were being used by the males in the household. In the Anyuak community, culturally and traditionally women are not allowed to use the same sanitation facilities as men but as they had not been consulted, this had not been taken into account in the design and planning of WaSH facilities.

4.3 Barriers to Equitable and Inclusive WaSH

Access to Information: Access to information was a major concern for all participants in the FDGs and especially for women. They felt they did not know what they could expect from WaSH providers to help they sustain access to affordable water supply and sanitation of adequate quality. Nor did they think they were getting adequate information about what they could do to maintain access to safe WaSH services, particularly in relation to hygiene and sanitation. For these issues, information was hard to come by. HEW’s, for example, were not present in Harshin and Gursum and in Gambella

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 55

town and Malega, poorer men and women, especially older people said they had very little contact with HEWs, although, they knew they were working in their communities. However, the women in Harshin woreda, acknowledged the importance of WaSH awareness raising and teachings in school. Their only source of information about improved sanitation and hygiene practices was from their school-attending children. In Gambella Town, women pastoralists living on the edge of town reported that they got information about hygiene and sanitation when they were sick and visited a health post, otherwise they had no access to WaSH information. Poor people, especially older men and women and disabled people in all woredas reported that they had very little information about WaSH services because they had limited contact with Woredas, or in the case of Harshin and Gursum, with woreda WT or other service providers.

In Somali and SNNPR, Woreda and Regional WT reported that information flows between the WaSHCOs, kebeles and Woreda and between the woreda and the Regional WTs needed strengthening. High turnover in staff meant it was difficult to embed new knowledge and practice within the system or maintain continuous information exchange between the different levels. There was low understanding about the provisions of existing policies in relation to equitable and inclusion WaSH provision, such as social tariffs, or involving poor members of communities in planning. Regional and local government staff also reported challenges in accessing information from the national level.

Participation in Planning, Decision-making and Post-Implementation maintenance: In all three regions, FDG participants who were not in WaSHCOs did not feel they had a voice in decision- making, planning and post-implementation maintenance of WaSH services. Women and in particular poor and older women felt isolated from WaSH provision. Women’s lack of power and voice in the household and their under-representation in public fora, in general are known barriers to active participation in service delivery processes, (UNFPA, 2008; Teferra and Gebremedhin, 2010).All the women in FDGs reported that they had never been consulted and that they did not feel their interests were fully addressed. There were no women on the WaSHCO in Malega and Shinbedindo and no WaSHCOs in Somali. Disabled people, also reported that they felt left out of consultation processes across all the regions.

Accountability and Grievance Redress Mechanisms: All participants in the FGDs felt accountability mechanisms and complaint procedures could be strengthened. In Somali, community members, both men and women, felt that woreda WTs were not accessible and did not respond to their queries or complaints. In SNNPR and Gambella town, community members were discouraged from reporting problems with WaSH provision because of the lack of response or action in solving the problem. In Malega, for example, women reported that they had reported a broken tap at one water point some 3 months previously but had no response. Malaga’s WaSHCO, all men, in contrast, observed the tap had only been broken for 15 days and admitted, they had not, as yet, been able to repair it because of lack of spare parts. In Gambella town, poor men and women said that, they had limited confidence in woreda and kebele WT because in their experience, woreda WT rarely responded to their requests. Poor adults, the elderly and disabled participants also voiced their concern that they risked retribution from more powerful community members because the existing kebele and woreda complaint procedures did not protect poor people if they voiced their issues and concerns. These finding resonate with the Peace through Development BASES baseline survey, in Somali Region, which also reported that community members did not perceive that Woreda WT officials were responsive to their requests, (BASES, 2013). They also echo, broader findings across Ethiopia that poor, vulnerable and underserved populations face significant challenges in engaging woreda or kebele councils and/or service providers in accountability mechanisms (Tadesse et al. 2010; Brocklesby et al 2010, Teferra and Gebremedhin, 2010). As Box 5 below, indicates functioning accountability processes and accountability mechanisms involve transparency, answerability and enforceability. Information about GRM and/or accountability mechanisms is not easily available and, although there have been improvements under PBS-2, woreda/kebele councils and service providers

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 56

still have limited capacities to response effectively and take action with regard to the concerns of poorer citizens, especially women (Tadesse et al, 2010; Randolph and Edjeta, 2011). Furthermore, underserved populations, particularly in pastoralist areas, are distrustful of external organisations, including government bodies and public services, because they do not perceived their voices will be heard and acted upon (Brocklesby et al, 2010, Hughes et al, 2008; Teferra and Gebremedhin, 2010).

Box 5: components of functioning accountability processes and Grievance Redress Mechanisms Functioning accountability processes and GRM involves three aspects: . Transparency – information about how to complain and the procedures followed in addressing the complaint readily available and in a format that is understood by everyone . Answerability – systems in place through which a user can make a complaint about a service provision and expect a response from the WaSH service provider . Enforceability – The decision made to uphold a complaint and the system of redress used to deal with the complaint are enforceable either through local by-laws, social contract or government regulation. Source: adapted from Crawford et al, 2011, Brocklesby et al 2010 and McGee and Gaventa, 2010

4.4 Improvement Suggestions

Participants in the FGDs had a number of suggestions for strengthening programme implementation under Own-P (WaSH II). These related to affordability, transparency and accountability, quality and sustaining WaSH services; equitable inclusion in planning and decision-making and adapting WaSH facilities to context and need.

Affordability of WaSH Provision: Across all three regions, poor and vulnerable people, especially women, suggested considering subsidy mechanisms for the poorest and vulnerable social groups, including disabled people, to enable them to benefit from the improvements in access to safe, adequate and sustainable water supply and sanitation services under OWN-P. Women’s groups in SNNPR suggested that sanitation subsidies for poor and vulnerable households should be available under OWN-P as it would be the most realistic way of supporting these households move up the sanitation ladder. In Somali and Gambella Town, adult men and women suggested that more could be done to train women and young men in servicing and maintaining water points and communal toilets, including those in health posts and schools. This would have two advantages. Firstly, it provides those supported with the money to access WaSH services. Secondly, it contributes to sustaining improved WaSH facilities. The work done by trained community members could be paid for through the existing cost recovery mechanism, which community members would be more willing to pay because they could be confident that services would be maintained and available for use.

Transparency and Accountability: For all participants, improving information flows between the Woreda and the WaSHCOs and between the WaSHCOs and community members was seen as fundamental to improving and sustaining coverage of WaSH services. For the woreda WT and the Regional WT in Somali and in SNNPR, improving information flows between the national level and regional WaSH services was also felt to be important. In Gambella Town, Abobo and Malega women older and disabled people highlighted the need for information about sanitation and hygiene that was easy to understand for people who could not read – often the poor and most vulnerable in communities. All reported, a need for easily available information about what WaSH services were available, what they could expect from WaSHCOs and what their own responsibilities were in maintaining WaSH services in their communities. They also wanted clear and easy to understand information about how to complain and how to hold service providers to account, if they did not respond in a timely manner to concerns raised.

In all regions, men and women thought that improving feedback between the WaSHCO and the

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 57

wider community and between the WaSHCO and the woreda WT was fundamental to strengthening accountability. In Gambella, men and women thought training and awareness raising for community members about their WaSH entitlements and ways in which to raise concerns or complaints would encourage WaSHCOs and Woreda WT to take action in response to their concerns.

Quality and Sustaining WaSH Services: For all participants, ensuring the quality of the water was essential, but methods used needed to be low cost and simple and monitoring of water quality needed to be strengthened. When water quality declined, they argued, people stop using improved water sources which affects both affordability and the capacity of the woreda to maintain the water points. In Abobo, for example, where there was the highest satisfaction with current WaSH services, the WaSHCO and male participants called for the treatment of water quality problem using “wuha agar” tablets. This would help maintain usage and contribute to better health of the residents. WaSHCOs, as well as community members in all three regions thought that OWN-P needs to consider sustainable sanitation technology options as these were more likely to ensure that open defecation was eradicated. WaSHCOs in Gambella and SNNPR suggested strengthening the monitoring system for WaSH services both for institutions and households. For all community FDG participants, sustainability of WaSH services was seen as a quality issue. Several WaSHCOs suggested that strengthening the capacities of community WaSH management systems was critical and that including attention to gender and social equity issues was an important part of capacity strengthening. The methods used needs to be simple such as checklists. Making operation and maintenances systems more realistic, under OWN-P, would make a significant contribution to the sustainability of WaSH services (both household and institutional).

Equitable Inclusion in Planning and Decision-making: Strengthening consultation and participatory planning processes in WaSH services was highlighted by women, disabled people and the poorest within communities across all three regions. Across the regions, Girls and adult women felt more needed to be done to ensure that women could actively participate in planning and decision-making at all stages of the OWN-P. In all regions, the WWT, WaSHCOs, men groups, poor/elder women groups and men with disabilities suggested that there should a clear mechanism for ensuring the voices of different social groups and user communities within woredas, such as disabled people, widows, poor men and women, people living in remote locations, were fully represented in the planning, implementation and post-implementation processes of OWN-P. They felt if all groups were more involved in planning and decision-making, not only would their knowledge about sanitation and hygiene improve but so would their sustained access to WaSH services.

Adapting to Context and Need: In Somali, both the woreda coordination office and communities consulted felt that OWN-P was a major opportunity to adapt WaSH provision to the specific needs of pastoralists. There was a demand for mobile WaSH services. Widows and underserved women groups in Gambella and WaSHCOs in SNNP suggested that OWN-P should give first priority to underserved communities residing in the remote and inaccessible areas and the poor and vulnerable living in those communities. Adolescent girls in Gambella Town suggested that OWN-P (WaSH II) needs to consider how to extend affordable WaSH services to the homeless and slum dwellers. They suggested building communal latrines that were accessible to all. All disabled people consulted said that OWN-P needs to introduce standardised designs for water supply and sanitation which ensured WaSH services were accessible to people with mobility issues. This suggestion was also made by older people including widows in Gambella.

5. Recommendations

This section analysis the potential social risks and challenges for OWN-P and provides a series of recommendations to mitigate against or reduce these risks. The recommendations made relate to:

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 58

. Addressing the risks and challenges in relation to underserved populations and vulnerable groups, identified by the social assessment and, . Identifying, crossing cutting, and by component, actions during design and implementation which can reduce these risk and challenges.

5.1 Potential Implementation Risks and Challenges

The table below identifies potential risks and challenges, cutting across the OWN-P (WaSH II) and within each component of the design, in terms of progressing equity and inclusion objectives for the underserved populations and vulnerable groups.

Table 5: Potential Risks and Challenges

Component Potential Risks and Challenges Cross-cutting Issues . Affordability of WaSH services by poor, vulnerable and under-served populations not fully addressed in the design and risks excluding these groups from coverage as well as sustained access to services. . Processes and strategies for developing understanding, awareness and respect, as well as building capacities to address the diverse needs of underserved populations and vulnerable groups only partially addressed in the design. . Steps and Mechanisms for harmonising and aligning partners’ cost- effective and good practice approaches in relation to equitable and inclusive community-based WaSH provision not addressed in the design . Staff/technical support requirements for social safe guarding and/or social aspects of WaSH provision only partially addressed in design . The needs and voice of disabled people largely invisible in practice and in design Component 1: Rural and . The mass mobilisation strategy, a key activity for WMP, as yet not aligned Pastoralist WaSH with CLTSH and does not have explicit guidelines for promoting women’s leadership or reaching and engaging hard to reach vulnerable groups . There is a risk that existing heavy workloads of HEWs, particularly in under-served pastoralist regions, will undermine efforts at alignment/harmonisation of WS and sanitation/hygiene activities . Low participation of women and poor people in general in WaSHCOs affecting design, implementation and O&M of WaSH facilities, pastoralists also under-represented. . This social assessment did not do a full assessment of the social dimensions of WaSH service provision in CDP areas. Component 2: Urban . Cost-recovery processes which disproportionately negatively affect WaSH poorer households risk reducing water usage and hygiene practices (hand washing, improved latrines) for poor people and vulnerable groups . Lack of safe and accessible communal/public toilet blocks in urban and peri-urban areas excludes some vulnerable groups from WaSH e.g. homeless, elderly. . Community -demand for woreda/community-supported WaSH-based O&M IGA for poor people e.g. unemployed young people or poor adult women, not addressed in OWN-P design . Same participation issues as component 1. Component 3: . Menstrual hygiene management practices and needs within design of Institutional WaSH institutional latrines not fully addressed; . Design and guidelines of institutional WaSH provision does not address the needs of all vulnerable groups, especially people living with disabilities and HIV/AIDs Component 4: Programme . Own-P’s proposed communication strategy do fit for purpose with Management and Capacity underserved populations and vulnerable groups because of low media

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 59

Building coverage (electronic and print ) and literacy rates, especially for women. . Capacity building measures for gender mainstreaming may risk not reducing the barriers (low awareness, staff turn-over, lack of good practice models and existing competences) Regional WT and WWT will face in embedding new knowledge and practice from the trainings in the systems and processes for WaSH provision, . Capacity building measures missing opportunities to address the range of capacities that national, regional and woreda staff will need, and the mechanisms required, to ensure equity and inclusion issues are mainstreamed. . Opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of GRM/accountability mechanisms not outlined in design . Gaps in guidelines, systems and processes of WASHCOs for a) encouraging the active participation and leader of women and vulnerable groups and, b) ensuring the interests/needs of women and vulnerable groups are incorporated in the plans and implementations . Existing monitoring systems not sufficiently disaggregated to track coverage in relation to underserved populations and vulnerable groups, this risks distorting financial flows, investments, installation plans and implementation processes . There is a gap in the available data and MIS for tracking usage at household and sub-household levels. There are risks that without usage data, information on coverage and functionality (in relation to who is able to use the facilities), will be inadequate in terms of a) ensuring coverage to underserved populations and vulnerable groups and b) adjusting plans and investments, to meet gaps in provision over the life of the programme.

5.2 Recommendations for OWN-P Implementation

The recommendations address two aspects of OWN-P design:

. Cross-cutting interventions and, . The specific equity and inclusion gaps within each of the components of OWN-P (WaSH II).

It is recognised that the design of Own- P is still to be finalised and that actions identified within the SA must be realistic and doable within the institutional framework outlined in the WIF and contribute to meeting the ambitious goals of UAP. In consequence, the recommendations below build on the current provisions within the OWN-P design (see table 4)

Cross-cutting Issues

. Establish mechanisms for increasing affordability of WaSH services for the poorest and most vulnerable groups. There is a need to consider post-implementation cost-waivers, in both rural and urban areas, for those individuals and households, including people with disabilities, who cannot afford to pay the user fees for WaSH services.. The provision of subsidies to communities that cannot pay under component 1 and 2 of OWN-P is an important safeguard for ensuring equitable access. However, it applies to installation of WaSH services and not to ensuring the affordability of WaSH services post-installation. The water resources management policy states the need to establish a social tariff that enables poor communities to cover operation and maintenance costs. Ensuring that this provision is both understood by WWT and WaSHCOs and consistently implemented across all woredas, and implementation linked into performance monitoring, will be an important step towards safeguarding and sustaining access to WaSH

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 60

services for poor and vulnerable households. However, it may not be sufficient to ensure the poorest and most vulnerable within communities are able to access WaSH services. There are also risks that it will be mis-targeted. A number of interventions will need to be considered.  Fee-waivers in both rural and urban areas. Fee-waivers are already being implemented in the health sector. The most vulnerable and poorest people are identified by the community and through this process given access to free health services. The same can be done in the WaSH sector and be applied to both installation subsidies and post-implementation cost waivers.  Use of community-based targeting to establish eligibility for fee-waivers. Community-based targeting is already used in the health sector and the PSNP throughout Ethiopia and has proved to be a robust mechanism for targeting the poorest within communities (ODI 2006).  Assess the potential of using water fees to cross subsidise sanitation and pilot the approach in selected low-income under-served areas. This has the potential to improve O&M of sanitation services and to extend access to poorer and vulnerable households/individuals (e.g. widows, people with disabilities) who are less able to install and maintain latrines;  Establish policy and guidelines with regard to: who will receive subsidies and cost waivers post-implementation; how they will be identified and the mechanisms for ensuring transparent and accountable disbursement of subsidies to individuals and households Responsibility for developing the policy and the allied guidelines will lie with the MoWE in conjunction with sector stakeholders. Implementation will be through the WWT and the WaSHCOs  introduce targeted information dissemination on standard WaSH costs, social tariffs and any other introduced cost waiver mechanisms to the poorest and vulnerable households. How this is done will depend on the implementation modality. Under the woreda managed project; including messages about WaSH affordability, entitlements and responsibilities in the packages for HEW and the health development army will support information transfer. High workloads, especially of HEWs will mean this intervention will not be sufficient. Complementary and reinforcing actions will be needed including strengthening social accountability mechanisms and progressively increasing the active participation of poor and vulnerable groups in WaSH service provision (see below).  Commission studies on life cycle costs and affordability of rural, peri-urban and urban water and sanitation services for the poorest and vulnerable households and individuals. These studies should examine the real costs of supply (quality maintenance; continuity of services, interventions and costs) as well as cost of WaSH services as a percentage of overall household costs30. Data from the studies can be used to adjust and refine eligibility criteria and targeting of the fee-waiver and social tariff according to location and context. the findings can also inform policy and implementation guidelines for ensuring the inclusion of poor and vulnerable groups in WaSH service provision.

. Develop an overarching policy and implementation framework to guide equitable access to WaSH provision for underserved populations and vulnerable groups, by the end of Phase 1. The equity principle underpinning the policies and strategies across the different implementation ministries involved in OWN-P suggests the need to harmonise/align policies and procedures in relation to addressing social disparities across Ethiopia and within underserved populations. There is also a need or overarching and explicit guidelines across the whole sector with regard to:  who the vulnerable groups are,  integrating the WaSH needs of disabled people, into WaSH policy and strategies,  what the barriers are for underserved populations and vulnerable groups to access WaSH services;  addressing vertical inequalities and disparities within underserved populations and vulnerable groups and,

30

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 61

 clarifying what the targets, implementation mechanisms, social tariffs or subsidies expected, (or not), will be to ensure: a) access and b) inclusion in planning and decision-making about WaSH service provision.

Developing this policy and implementation framework should be seen as part of the process of harmonisation/alignment prioritised under Phase I of OWN-P. This means it will be the primary responsibility of the NWCO/MoWE. Involving all stakeholders, in the process will need to be integral to the policy development in order to ensure consensus on priorities and a common understanding, of the issues involved. This policy reform process also enables sector harmonisation and alignment in relation to meeting the WaSH needs of people with disabilities. In the event that the definition of access, in relation to distance from water sources, is deemed inappropriate for disabled citizens, there may be a need to make adjustments, during the lifetime of the programme. The flexibility of the design of OWN-P and the acknowledgement that there may be changes in policies, strategies and targets post-2015 allows for these adjustments.

. Strengthen actions to ensure people with disabilities benefit from WaSH services under OWN- P. This will require actions on a number of fronts including:  Mainstreaming standardised adapted latrine design within OWN-P. Research in Ethiopia. (Jones, 2011) indicates that this is affordable: it costs less than 3% of the overall cost of institutional latrines to make a latrine accessible to disabled people- suggesting even low costs for household latrines;  Training engineers, private sector suppliers, WaSH promoters, including HEWs, Health development army and WaSHCOs on the needs of people living with disabilities and on the construction/maintenance of disability-adapted WaSH facilities;  Mainstreaming low-cost adaptation of water-taps. latrines, hand basins in institutional and community WaSH facilities (particularly in peri-urban and urban areas);  Increasing WaSH related employment opportunities for people living with disabilities, for example: managing of spare parts supply; pump attendants; involvement in sanitation marketing; managing of public toilets; water point attendants and, operations and maintenance services. The precise mix of opportunities will vary from region to region and from rural, urban and under-served areas. It will be necessary to set positive action quotas to ensure that disabled people can actively benefit from available job opportunities as they arise.  Strengthening the voice of disabled people on WaSHCOs and the broader WaSH planning and decision-making processes. Include disability CBOs and/or NGO representatives on WaSHCOs as standard practice. However, it needs to be recognised that these organisations will not necessarily represent all disabled people within each kebele or woreda. The Woreda WaSH plans, site selection and post-installation/maintenance mechanisms will also need integrate and fully represent the needs of disabled people.  Track inclusion of people with disabilities in WASH service provision through the KPIs (see below).

. During Phase 1 undertake an Equity and Inclusion Mapping and Review of the systems, mechanisms and practices of the different implementation modalities (WMP, CMP and NGO) in relation to  equitable and inclusive access of underserved populations and vulnerable groups and  social accountability/GRM.

There is a gap, in all proposed implementation modalities, between implementation of successful models or approaches, and an understanding of the impacts and whether/how these models can be brought to scale. The aim of the assessment is to:  identify good practice with the potential of going to scale of a) cost-effective mechanisms, processes and strategies for provisioning and sustaining WaSH services to

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 62

underserved and vulnerable groups and,  processes and mechanisms that support equitable inclusion of under-served populations and vulnerable groups in decision-making, planning and implementation of WaSH activities and GRM/social accountability mechanisms.

The review provides the evidence and baseline for scaling-up and institutionalising across all modalities cost-effective good-practice, during phase 2. Although the NWCO/MOWE will have overall responsibility for commissioning and overseeing the mapping and review, it will be important that it involves all sector stakeholders, at all levels, in the process of assessing, reviewing and incorporating the findings into sector systems and mechanisms.

. Incorporate a full social assessment, including analysis of trends towards the social sustainability of WaSH interventions, into the planned comprehensive MTR. Ensure that the ToRs for the comprehensive MTR has a full social safeguards screening and that specific objectives, tasks and outputs are agreed which address all aspects of equitable and inclusive access to WaSH for underserved populations and vulnerable groups.

Component Recommendations

Component 1: Rural and Pastoral WaSH

Rural WaSH . Review and Revise the mass mobilisation strategy. The mass mobilisation strategy (2008) of the MOWE needs to be brought up to date and guidelines included which address how to reach and include underserved populations and vulnerable groups, especially women, in the planning, provision and management of WaSH services. Data and findings from the proposed equity and inclusion review should inform the revised strategy. The up-dating of the mass mobilisation strategy needs to be tracked and reported through the results framework (A7.1:manuals and guidelines).

. Include explicit social development technical assistance (SD TA) in the proposed assessment of the post-construction management and technical support to WASHCOs. Essential TA will include:  Strengthening capacities of WaSHCOs to promote women’s leadership and that of representatives from vulnerable groups, for example, poor older persons. The more representative service user committees, such as WASHCOs are, the greater the flow of information across communities and between communities and service providers. There are also improvements in transparency, accountability and the levels of satisfaction that users have with the service provided (McGee and Gaventa, 2010).  developing and embedding simple and replicable processes (to reduce time burdens on WaSHCO members and the community), for identifying and including the interests of poor and vulnerable groups in WASH service provision during planning, decision-making and post-construction management. In order to progress WaSH coverage and sustain program achievements after implementation for all people in the area, there must be confidence that the interests of disadvantaged and under-reached users are fully addressed in local-level WaSH plans and implementations. The TA will need to be focused on.

The impacts of the SD TA on the sustainability of WaSH interventions will be tracked through the KPIs (see below, and annex 4). The equity and inclusion review, proposed above, will also support OWN –P identify appropriate and inclusive processes and systems for the WASHCOs.

Pastoralist WaSH

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 63

. Specific actions and interventions for poor and vulnerable groups including people with disabilities designed and budgeted for within the Pastoralist WaSH strategy. The process for expanding WaSH services to pastoralist areas is already planned be flexible, demand-led and responsive to different contexts. Specific actions to mitigate against the risks of excluding vulnerable households and individuals within pastoralist communities will include:  targeted actions to ensure vulnerable groups within pastoralist communities benefit from WaSH services – e.g. pastoralist drop-outs living on the edge of towns; disabled pastoralists; widows  non-literate communication strategies tailored to the word-of-mouth information flows prevalent in pastoralist communities, and especially amongst pastoralist women;  The use of mentoring and coaching and other demand-led capacity building processes to strengthen active participation and leadership of women in WaSH processes  Consideration of the potential for seasonal variations in tariff rates to take account of annual seasonality  M&E indicators, disaggregated by age, wealth status and gender and aligned with the KPIs suggested in this assessment.

. Assess risks or opportunities to its delivery from the CDP process and integrate measures as appropriate. Whilst the findings from the CDP area in Abobo, Gabella region were positive, there are likely to be geographically and context specific risks and opportunities for WaSH delivery in the newly established villages. Careful consultation between MoE and WaSH partners, coupled with clear social and environmental safeguards agreed and build into local WaSH implementation plans will be required throughout the life time of OWN-P. In addition, the half annual and annual performance reports, should where regionally appropriate, include a section for reporting on the specific programme progress and challenges within the new villages established under CDP.

Component 2: Urban WaSH

. Build explicit strategies for reaching under-served and vulnerable groups into the planned urban strategy and approach to urban sanitation. Actions include:  identifying and quantifying the underserved and vulnerable groups within low-income communities, these include homeless adults and street children, people living with HIV/AIDs,  specific strategies and interventions for people with disabilities and people living with HIV/AIDs  pro-poor cost recovery mechanisms  increasing access to WaSH facilities through provision of, for example, 24 hour access to toilet blocks and washing facilities, adaptation of toilet blocks to enable access for the mobility impaired; ensuring security and privacy for women users;  Extending WaSH based livelihood job opportunities for young under and unemployed young adults, older women and people with disabilities.  Active inclusion of residents from low-income and informal communities, including the poorest and vulnerable groups in the development and implementation of the strategy  Tracking equity and inclusion impacts of the urban strategy through the results framework (results area 4) which will need to be adjusted once the urban strategy is agreed.

Component 3: Institutional WaSH

. Standardise disabled accessible hard ware designs within school and health services provision to ensure specific needs of people living with disabilities and HIV/AIDs are addressed. . Include latrine designs for people with mobility constraints within hardware WaSH options for

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 64

production and distribution, within support envisaged for expanding market supply chains. . Introduce menstrual hygiene management practices materials in WaSH institutional information packages. . Integrate WaSH within the accountability mechanisms of the education and health sectors. This will involve:  Extending WaSH communication strategies to cover institutional WaSH including establishing an information strategy to inform users of their institutional Wash entitlements and responsibilities;  Reviewing sector strategies to ensure that information about GRM/accountability mechanisms is accessible to, and easily understood by, illiterate citizens and people living with disabilities, including the visually impaired.

Component 4: Programme Management and Capacity Building

Recommendations under Component 4 are divided between: Capacity building; Communication Strategy and M&E, including accountability mechanisms/GRM.

Capacity Building . Review the social science human resources within the WaSH sector and adjust proposed TA requirements, under OWN -P to include social inclusion/impact and accountability assistance. Not all regions have social science scientists within their WaSH teams. The absence will undermine efforts to meet social safeguard requirements and/or build capacities of Regional WT to meet the needs of vulnerable groups and underserved populations.

. Apply the methodology of Horizontal learning or peer-to-peer learning more systematically, in order to embed new knowledge and practice in institutional mechanisms and systems. This SA endorses the horizontal learning recommendations of the capacity building review (EoD, 2013). It is essential that methods of knowledge/ practice exchange, envisaged under OWN-P, such as FLOWs and horizontal learning explicitly include, and budget for, components focused on gender equality and equity/inclusion knowledge and practice.

Under horizontal learning spaces are opened up for woredas and WaSHCOs to connect with each other, within regions and across regions, to identify, share, and replicate the very best practices of their peers. Specifically, Horizontal Learning can promote peer-to-peer learning and create communities of practices for a) promoting women’s leadership and gender equality, and b) more broadly, equity and inclusion in WaSH planning, decision-making and management. It is recommended that, one stand-alone community of practice is developed for women members of WaSHCOs, HEWs, and other women service providers. This will provide a forum for team coaching and peer mentoring, through which women can gain the skills and competences to take on leadership positions with the WaSH sector.

Within the first 12 months of OWN-P conduct a study visit of selected key stakeholders, (gender parity in study tour participants a prerequisite). The aim is for the WaSH sector, as a whole, to learn directly from a successful programme about: what works; why and how and; what the impacts are of horizontal learning for building capacities. WSP has had particular experience in horizontal learning processes and can support OWN-P identify the most appropriate case study country and programme for the study visit.

Integrate gender and social inclusion issues into the proposed capacity building assessment forms and the subsequent capacity building strategies. Annex 4 provides an example of an Equity and Access Capacities Assessment Matrix which assesses the cross-cutting issues of OWN- P against the four main dimensions of programme management capacity. It is not intended to give a comprehensive view of organisational capacity but to provide a simple tool through which:

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 65

a) WaSH staff at any level –PMU, RWT, WWT and WaSHCOs- can peer assess their own capacities to address equity and access and b) OWM-P can assess the extent to which equity and access is being mainstreamed into its overall capacity building activities.

Communication Strategy . Address communication needs of underserved populations and vulnerable groups within the proposed communication strategy, to be developed with the support of UNICEF. Lack of access to information has been identified as a major barrier to accessing WaSH facilities and activities by underserved populations and vulnerable groups. This means that the envisaged communication strategy will need to be tailored to populations with limited access to electronic and print media (pastoralist and remote rural regions) and individuals and households with low levels of literacy, or individuals whose disability makes it difficult to access information.

. Track the impacts of the communication strategy through the OWN-P, half-annual and annual performance reports. These reports should include a section on the outcome of locally generated communication strategies on WWT and WASHCO plans and targets in relation to different groups within communities served. Standardised reporting should include requirements to report against gender, age (old and young), disability and the poorest within communities.

Monitoring and Evaluation including GRM/Accountable Mechanisms . Adjustments and additions to the MIS/Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The KPIs have been reviewed, as required under the ToRs. The suggested amendments, with justification for the change, is contained within annex 3. There were three broad criteria for the amendments.  Addressing gaps in the current MIS and results framework in relation to Inclusion of women and vulnerable groups in planning and implementation, post installation functionality and representativeness of the WaSHCOs,  Impact – strengthening KPIs to insure the full range of impacts from WaSH coverage are captured, e.g. the impacts of hygiene awareness campaigns  Practicality and Cost-effectiveness – the suggested KPIs can be incorporated into existing sector MIS and monitoring systems without placing undue burden on sector staff. The systems of collection and analysis of the data are likely to be the most cost-efficient way of obtaining data which can support the WaSH sector strengthen capacities to plan for and implement government targets. For example, it is more effective to track behaviour change in relation to hand-washing via the EDHS, than for the WaSH sector, to develop its own stand-alone monitoring mechanism.

. The baseline survey and data analysis proposed under Results area 4, needs to be disaggregated by age, gender, wealth status and establish a baseline of the WaSH needs of people with disabilities. The findings of which can be used to refine and strengthen both training materials and feed into the policy reform process suggested above.

. Track progress in expanding access of WaSH services to under-served populations and vulnerable groups through the half annual and annual performance reports. These should include a section on equity and inclusion: including the number of WaSH plans that explicitly address the interests of women and vulnerable groups, outcomes of campaigns, etc., reported under the disaggregated social categories, (women etc.), This information can be used by WWT/RWT to adjust overall plans and strategies.

. Strengthen and harmonise GRM/accountability mechanisms, within the implementation framework and M&E indicators by the end of phase 1. The perceived lack of response by service providers, including WaSHCO was identified as a critical challenge to both expanding coverage that is affordable and adequate and sustaining WaSH activities and facilities after

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 66

implementation. Actions to support a strengthened and transparent GRM/accountability mechanisms for the WASH sector under OWN-P include:  Harmonising and aligning the different accountability mechanisms across the implementation modalities and within existing government systems;  Closer coordination within the PBS-3 Citizen engagement sub-programmes so that mechanisms, tools and lessons learnt, under PBS-3, can be progressively institutionalised across the WaSH sector during the lifetime of OWN-P.  Training and support on GRM/accountability mechanisms within the capacity building provision for WWT and WaSHCOs. Provisions to strengthen capacities of the WWT, under OWN-P opens up opportunities for more creative use of citizen report cards, social audits and satisfaction surveys, already used across the 3 implementation ministries. These are mechanisms that are known entry points for encouraging the active participation of under-served populations and vulnerable groups, including women in basic service provision (McGee and Gaventa 2010).  The half annual and annual performance reports should include a section reporting on progress in strengthening GRM/Accountability mechanisms in WaSHCOs, Kebeles, and Woredas, number of concerns/complaints lodged by users and actions taken in response to concerns/ raised by users.  Amend KPI 8 to enable the tacking of the effectiveness of GRM across the sector. The proposed amendment is: Percentage of active, functional and inclusive WASHCOs/Hygiene and Sanitation Community Groups (rural), Water Boards (urban) with a functioning GRM linked to the WWT procedures  Additionally, the proposed equity and inclusion review will be instrumental in the development of OWN-P’s GRM/accountability mechanism.

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 67

Annex 1: Documents Consulted

Aboma, G. (2013a) Investments under food security: Focus on Local Government. Policy Brief prepared for Water Aid Ethiopia. March 2013 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Aboma, G. (2013b) Sustainable WASH Financing to Deliver Quality Education for All. Policy Brief prepared for Water Aid Ethiopia March 2013, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Aboma, G. (2013c) WASH for Quality Health Services: Focus on Health Institutions. Policy Brief prepared for Water Aid Ethiopia March 2013, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Aboma, G. (2010) Think Local, Act Local II: Impediments to Effective Financing of Sanitation Services in Ethiopia: The Case of Three Local Governments. Report Prepared for Water Aid Ethiopia, March 2010, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

AMCOW (2006) Water Supply and Sanitation: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and beyond. An AMCOW country status overview. Addis Ababa Ethiopia AMCOW, (2012) Water Supply and Sanitation updates

Arsano, Y., Mekonnen, E. and O’Meally, S. (2010) Governance and Drivers of Change in Ethiopia’s Water Supply Sector. A study conducted by the Organisation for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa in Collaboration with the Overseas Development Institute May 2010 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and London, UK

Ayele, M. and Mathewson, P. (2009) Putting Our Heads Together. Debating the Potential Strengths of Partnerships for WASH. Report prepared for Water Aid Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Bannerjee, S., Wodon, Q., Diallo, A., Pushak, T., Uddin, H., Tsimpo, C. and Foster, V. (2008) Access, Affordability and Alternatives: Modern Infrastructure services in Africa. Africa Infrastructure Country Diagnostic. World Bank February 2008, Washington Dc, USA

BASES (2013) Baseline Assessment Report. Peace and Development Programme Delivery of Basic Services Project for the Somali Regional State of Ethiopia (BASES) report. June 2013, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Bartram, J and Cairncross, S, 2010, Hygiene, Sanitation and Water: Forgotten Foundation of Health. PLoS Medicine November 2010 Brocklesby, M.A. Hobley, M. and Scott-Villiers, P. (2010). “Raising Voice – Securing a Livelihood: The Role of Diverse Voices in Developing Secure Livelihoods in Pastoralist Areas in Ethiopia.” IDS Working Paper 340. March 2010.

Crawford, S. (2011) making Systems Work for All Children and Women in Egypt, UNICEF Situation Analysis, OPM for UNICEF Egypt

COWASH (2012) Community Managed Project Approach: Sector Stakeholder Analysis Report prepared for the GoE by COWASH February 2012 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Dessalegn, M., Nigussie, L., Michago, W., Tucker, J., Nicol, A. and Calow, R. (2013) Voices from the Source, Struggles with local water security in Ethiopia. Overseas Development Institute January 2013 London, UK

DFID (2012) Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Programme. Annual Review March – May 2012 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Dhuguma, G. and Dugassa, K. (2013) Investigating WASH Financing Options. A Desk Review of Previous Studies. A Report prepared for Water Aid Ethiopia by Live International Development Consultancy. June 2013, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 68

Ebb, S. (2011) A study of old People’s livelihoods in Ethiopia. Report prepared for HelpAge International and Cordaid. January 2011, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

EEA and WAE (2011) Spatial Equity in the Provision of WASH Services. Evidence from Selected Area-Based Case- studies. Research Report prepared for Water Aid Ethiopia, October 2011, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

EoD (2013) Evaluation on WASH Capacity Building Interventions in Ethiopia: Final Report. Report prepared by Evidence on Demand (EoD) for DFID Ethiopia London, UK and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Feldman, P. R. and Tessema, E. B. (2013) An Assessment of Water Aid Ethiopia CLTSH and PHAST Experience. Report prepared for Water Aid Ethiopia April 2013, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

GoE (2013a) the WaSH Implementation Framework {WIF} prepared by the GoE to meet the targets of the GTP. March 2013, Addis Ababa Ethiopia

GoE (2013b) One WaSH National Programme. A multi-sectoral SWAp. Programme Document Draft II July 2013 Addis Ababa Ethiopia

GoE (2012) Memorandum of Understanding signed between Ministry of Water and Energy, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education and Ministry of Finance and Economic Development on Integrated Implementation of Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene Programme in Ethiopia. November 2012 Addis Ababa Ethiopia

GoE (2004) Water Supply and Sanitation Program Implementation Manual. November 2004 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

HelpAge International Ethiopia (2006) Older People and HIV/AIDs regional programme. Key Baseline Indicators for communities in Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Baseline Data. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Hughes, C.; Kerr-Wilson; Mussa and Johnson, (2008) Protection of Basic Services: Social Inclusion and Gender Equality. Social Development Direct London UK

ILO, (2012) Inclusion of People with Disabilities in Ethiopia. An ILO Fact Sheet, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_emp/@ifp_skills/documents/publication/wcms_112299.pdf (accessed August 5th 2013)

IRC and WSUP (2012) Financing Water and Sanitation for the Poor: Six Key Solutions. Discussion Paper co- published by IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre (IRC) and Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor (WSUP)

Jennings, M., BIzuaehu, E., Demissie, G. & Anteneh, G. (2011) Social Assessment for the Education Sector, Ethiopia Report prepared by Mary Jennings on behalf of DFID. May 2011 Addis Ababa Ethiopia Jones, H. (2011) Inclusive Design of School Latrines: How much does it cost and who benefits? Briefing note 1. July 2011 Water, Engineering and Development Centre, Loughborough University, Leicestershire UK Kemeny, T (2007), Sanitation and Economic Development; WaterAid Discussion Paper, http://www.wateraid.org/documents/sanitation_and_economic_development.pdf (accessed January 20th 2011) Mathewson, P. (2006) Different and the Same. Towards Equal Access, Education and Solidarity in WASH. Report prepared for Water Aid Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

McGee, R. and Gaventa, J. (2010) Review of Impact and Effectiveness of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives Synthesis Report. Institute of Development Studies, October 2010 Sussex, UK McGregor, J., Fidar, A. and Biftu, D.F. (2012) Assessment of Water Related Conflict in the Somali Region of Ethiopia. October 2012, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 69

MoE (2010) Education Sector Development Plan IV (ESDP-IV), 2010/2011 – 2014/2015 Addis Ababa Ethiopia

MoFED & UNICEF. 2012. Investing in Boys and Girls in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia MoFED (2010) Growth and Transformation Plan 2010/11 – 2014/15. Ministry of Finance and Economic Development GoE Addis Ababa, Ethiopia MoH (2012) CLTSH Verification & Certification protocol – harmonised approach. January 2012 Addis Ababa Ethiopia MoH (2010) Health Sector Development Plan IV (HSDP-IV), 2010/2011 – 2014/2015 Addis Ababa Ethiopia

MoH (2010b), National Hygiene & Sanitation Strategic Action Plan for Rural, Peri-Urban & InformalSettlements, 2011 – 2015 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

MoH (2006) National Hygiene and On-site Sanitation Protocol Addis Ababa Ethiopia

MoH (2005) National Hygiene and Sanitation Strategy Addis Ababa Ethiopia

MoWE (2013a) National Water Supply and Sanitation and Hygiene Program (WaSH) nine months report for EFY 2005. May 2013, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia MoWE (2012) Gender Mainstreaming Implementation Guidelines for the Water and Energy Sector. Ministry of Water and Energy Women’s Affairs Directorate October 2012 Addis Ababa Ethiopia MoWE (2011) Universal Access Plan in Four Parts: Rural water UAP; National sanitation and hygiene strategic Action Plan; Urban water UAP and Urban sanitation UAP. Prepared in conjunction with the MoH. December 2011, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia MoWE (2008) Universal Action Plan: An implementation manual for the ignition of mass mobilization on Universal Access Plan for Water and Sanitation program. English Translation prepared for CoWaSH from the official Amarhic version of August 2008

MoWR (2002) Water Sector Development Programme Main Report Volume I Ministry of Water Resources Government of Ethiopia, October 2002 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

MoWR (2002) Water Sector Development Programme Main Report Volume II Ministry of Water Resources Government of Ethiopia, October 2002 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Nassef, M. and Belayhum, M. (n.d.) Synthesis of existing knowledge and experience in the provision of water supplies to Pastoralist Communities in Ethiopia version 1. Report prepared for RiPPLE, SC USA, Care Ethiopia, DFID and USAID Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Owen, M. with Fikadu Haile, M. (2013) Experiences of Community Managed Projects and Community-based Management Approaches for Rural Water Supply. A review for Water Aid Ethiopia, March 2013, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Pankhurst, H. (n.d.) Finacial Sustainability Sheet 3. An Update. Report prepared for Water Aid Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Patkar, A. and Gosling, L. (2010) Equity and e in Water and Sanitation in Africa. A Regional Synthesis Report. Report prepared for WaterAid July 2011

Randoph, R.C. and Edjeta, B. (2011) Greviance Redress Mechanisms for the protection of Basic Services Programme in Ethiopia. September 2011 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Room, G. (1995) Beyond the Threshold: The Measurement and Analysis of Social Exclusion Policy Press: Bristol, UK

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 70

Satherwaite, M. (2012) JMP working group on Equity and Non-discrimination Final Report. Report prepared for END working group by Satherwaite with substantial support from I. Winkler and working group members. August 2012

Shiferaw, B. (2012) Growing up Without Wash. Case-study Research into the Effects of Poor Access to Water, Sanitation and Hygiene on Children in Ethiopia. Briefing Note, Water Aid Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Shorima Management Consultants (2013) Final Report on WaSH Sector Review. Report Prepared on behalf of WaSH Ethiopia Movement June 2013, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

SNV (2011) A Case Study: Towards a Local Solution for Menstrual Hygiene Management in Schools

Tadesse, S., Swain, B., Afeta, M. and Bultosa, G. (2010) Final Evaluation and Design of the Social Accountability Component of the PBS Programme in Ethiopia. Report prepared for the GoE, WB and CSO partners. June 2010, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Teferra, S. and Gebremedhin (2010) Gender and Social Exclusion in Ethiopia. Report prepared for DFID Ethiopia July 2010 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Tesfu, M. (n.d.) Hidden Gains. The Impact of WASH Project on the lives of Women. Water Aid Ethiopia Briefing Note 10. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Tesfu, M. and Magrath, P. (2008) Equal Access for All? Issues for People with HIV/AIDs and with Disabilities in Ethiopia. Paper presented to the 33rd WEDC International Conference Accra Ghana.

Tesfu, M. and Magrath, P. (2006) Equal Access for All-2. Water and Sanitation Access for People with Motor Disabilities. Water Aid Ethiopia Briefing Note 9. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

UNFPA (2010) Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment. In-depth analysis of the Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey 2005. Report prepared by the Ethiopian Society of Population Studies October 2008 Addis Ababa Ethiopia UNHabitat (2008) Addis Ababa Urban Profile UNHabitat Nairobi Kenya

UNHabitat (2007) Situational Analysis of informa settlements in Addis Ababa. Nairobi, Kenya

UNICEF (2010a) Narrowing the Gaps to Meet the Goals. UNICEF, New York. UNICEF (2010b) Progress for Children. Achieving the MDGs with Equity Number 9 September 2010 UNICEF, New York. UNICEF (2010c), Improving sanitation with equity? Can CATS meet the challenge? Via Sanitation Updates, http://sanitationupdates.wordpress.com/ (accessed 27th Jan 2011)

UNICEF/WHO (2012) Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation, 2012 Update. Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation. New York and Geneva van de Walle, K. (2010) Access to Water, Women’s Work and Child Outcomes, World Bank, Washington USA

WaterAid (2012) Analysing Policy Blockages to Equitable and Inclusive WASH Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Water Aid (2006) Attending to Gender. Exploring the Impact of Gender Issues on Tap Attendants Working in Community Managed Water Supply and Sanitation Projects. March 2006, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Water Aid (n.d.) Public Finance for Water Supply and Sanitation. Focus on National Budgets. Briefing Note, Water Aid Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 71

World Bank (2013) Aide Memoire World Bank (2005) Operational Manual: OP 4.10 – Indigenous Peoples. July 2005 Washington USA WSP (2011) Learning by Doing: Working at Scale in Ethiopia. Water and Sanitation Learning Note July 2011 Washington USA

Annex 2: Checklist of Themes and Question Prompts for Focus Group Discussions

B: Service Providers

Access to WSSP Services and Benefits (at Regional and Woreda Level) Prompt Questions 1. Where were WaSH services provided in the woreda? Who benefited? Did all people in the community benefit from WSSP services equally? If not; who was left out and why? Were attempts made over the course of WaSH I/WSSP to improve coverage for those left out or under-served? If so, how successful were the attempts? Remember Gender, Age, Poverty and Disability 2. What kinds of information were given out about WSSP? Do you know who accessed the information, and who did not, in the communities you serve? If you do know, How? Did your capacities to deliver and exchange information about WaSH services with different social groups with your communities change over the course of WSSP. If so, how, why and did changes in information flows have any impact on access to WaSH benefits and services? Remember Gender, Age, Poverty and Disability, 3. How has access to Institutional WaSH services changed under WSSP? What are the remaining challenges to progressing equitable and inclusive access to Institutional WaSH services? REMEMBER SCHOOLS, HEALTH CLINICS and POSTS

Progressing Equitable and Inclusive Access to WaSH Services

We will use the Spokes tool to explore the capacities, challenges and opportunities of WaSH Service Providers to progress equitable and inclusive access to WaSH Services.

Key Question: What are the different things you need so that everyone in your area has safe, affordable, water, supply and sanitation (WaSH) that is adapted to their needs and can be maintained for future use? What different elements (hardware, resources, capacities, etc,) are needed to ensure everyone has equal access to affordable, safe, WaSH services adapted to context and culture in under-served and hard to reach areas and populations?

Within every FGD, we will need to ensure there is consensus and understanding about what and who are under-served and hard-to-reach areas and populations before exploring the different elements needed to ensure equitable and inclusive access to WaSH services. Once we have established what the different elements are, we can begin to arrange them as symbols around the outside of a circle and form them together as a “Spokes Wheel”. We can then ask participants to mark where they are currently on each of the components they identified. This will help us explore with them:

. What the challenges are in improving access in relation to each element identified? (For example, Service providers may identify expanding markets for sanitation hard ware provision in remote areas or increasing poor women’s involvement in WASHco) Why? For whom? Challenges and Barriers? . What can be done differently, and how, in order to progress equitable and inclusive WaSH provision? Improvement opportunities and strategies . What they think are the priorities out of the improvement opportunities and strategies they have identified? Why? Who is responsible for taking suggested priorities forward? Perceptions of Needs . What can be done differently to involve actively in planning, maintenance and monitoring of WaSH services those groups, they have identified as underserved, and hard-to reach? How? What skills and capacities will they need to a) strengthen or b) develop so that they can promote inclusion and active participation? Are there other stakeholders they will need to engage? (Question area mainly for Regional

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 72

and Woreda stakeholders and may be covered under improvement opportunities, it FGD participants identify community participation as an element in ensuring equitable and inclusive WaSH)

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 73

B: Community Focus Group Discussions Access to WSSP Services and Benefits

1. Under WSSP/WaSH I, were your most important needs in relation to WaSH fully addressed and met? If not, what was overlooked? Did you have opportunities to talk with WaSH providers about what you needs were and how best to meet them? When, How and with whom? Was the quality of WaSH benefits gained acceptable to you? If so why? If not, Why not? 2. Under WSSP who benefited? Did all people in your community benefit from WSSP services equally? If not; who was left out and why? Were attempts made over the course of WaSH I/WSSP to improve coverage for those left out or under-served? If so, how successful were the attempts? Were efforts made to help those people or households who could not afford WaSH services? If, so how and how successful were those efforts? 3. What kinds of information did you receive about WSSP? Was it useful, did you understand it? Did you feel you got enough information from WSSP/WaSH I to help you make decisions about your WaSH needs or ask for improvements/coverage? Did your ability to access information about projects improve over time, if so why and how? 4. Did WaSH I service providers change what they were doing because of what you said – How and why? Give examples? Were you able to complain about how WSSP/WaSH I was implemented in your community? How and what happened when you complained?

Equitable and Inclusive Access to WaSH Services: Needs, Challenges and Improvement Opportunities We will use the Spokes tool to explore the needs, challenges and opportunities of different groups within the selected communities (e.g. poor rural women; adolescent girls; poor men excluded from the planning processes for villagisation etc.) in relation to accessing equitable and inclusive WaSH services.

Key Question: What are the different things you need so that everyone in your community has safe, affordable, water, supply and sanitation (WaSH) that is adapted to their needs and can be maintained for future use?

What different elements (water points, latrines, money, capacities, mutual support and trust etc.) are needed to ensure you, and everybody else in your community, has fair and equal access to affordable, safe, WaSH services adapted to your situation and specific needs?

Within every FGD, we will need to ensure there is consensus and understanding about what is meant by WaSH services and who are the different social groups within their community before exploring the different elements needed to ensure equitable and inclusive access to WaSH services. Once we have established what the different elements are, we can begin to arrange them as symbols around the outside of a circle and form them together as a “Spokes Wheel”. We can then ask participants to mark where they are currently on each of the components they identified. This will help us explore with them:

. What the challenges are in improving fair and inclusive access in relation to each element identified? (For example, reducing conflicts over water use/ access points or adapting shared latrines to the needs of physically disabled people or menstruating women/girls) Why? how? Challenges and Barriers? . What can be done differently, under Wash II, so that you can feel satisfied with the availability, quality, safety, affordability and accessibility of WaSH services offered? (in relation to each of the different elements identified? Improvement opportunities and strategies . What are the priorities for you out of the improvement opportunities and strategies you have identified? Why? Who is responsible for taking suggested priorities forward? Perceptions of Needs . What, if anything, can be done differently so that you feel you have a meaningful voice in: a) decision- making and planning WaSH coverage, maintenance and monitoring in your community and, b) holding WaSH service providers to account? How, by who? What kind of support do you think you will need to participate meaningfully in the ways you have suggested?

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 74

Annex 3: Suggested Amendments or Additions to the Key Performance Indicators for OWN-P

No. Existing Indicator Suggested Amendments or Additions and Comments 1 Percentage of people with access 1a Use of water points by household members to 15 liters per capita per day Monitored through an amended question with the EDHS. It captures differential usage below the household level e.g. women, within 1.5 radius in rural areas and girls, elderly people, people with disabilities and those with health related restrictions. Supports tracking of post-installation 20 liters per capita per day within sustainability. 0.5 km radius in urban areas. Can be followed up by question on why a respondent does not use the water point facilities. This enables adjustment of planning and implementation procedures. 2 Percentage of improved water supply schemes that are functional (rural) Percentage of TWU supplying water for more than 6 hours a day for all costumers (urban) Percentage of non-revenue water (urban) 3 Percentage of acceptable water and wastewater quality tests 4 Percentage of people with access 4b. Use of improved sanitation facilities by household members to improved sanitation facilities Monitored through an amended question with the EDHS. It captures differential usage below the household level e.g. women, girls, elderly people, people with disabilities and those with health related restrictions Can be followed up by question on why a respondent does not use the sanitation facilities. This enables adjustment of planning and implementation procedures 4c Percentage of women and girls with access to materials to manage menstruation hygienically with dignity and safety. Additional question within the EDHS. Enables improved understanding of the barriers facing women and girls which affect health status, abilities to pursue livelihood choices, go to school etc. 5 Percentage of people with access 5a. Percentage of people, disaggregated by sex, age and disabilities, washing hands at the 4 critical times to hand washing facilities Monitored through the HMIS, Enables OWN-P to track the impacts of CLTSH and HEW, Development army interventions 6 Percentage schools with improved 6a. Percentage of female teachers and girls with access to WASH facilities with which to manage menstruation hygienically with WASH facilities/services: water dignity and safety. supply (tap/student ratio) and Monitored through the EMIS. sanitation (stance/female/male

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 75

students) 7 Percentage of WASH services 7b. Percentage of WASH service available in health facilities which are accessible to users with mobility constrictions available of adequate quality in (disaggregated by sex, age and disability) health facilities Monitored through the HMIS 8 Percentage of active, functional Revised KPI 8: can be monitored by minutes of WaSHCO meetings, audit, OWN - P joint review and social accountability WASHCOs/Hygiene and Sanitation mechanisms determined during the lifetime of OWN-P Community Groups (rural), Water Boards (urban) Consider instead: 8a. Percentage of WaSHCOs which are representative of the Woreda/Kebele demographic profile (men, women, youth Groups, older people, better off and poorer residents, different ethnic groups, people with disabilities etc.) Percentage of active, functional The more representative Service user committees are, the greater the flow of information across communities and between and inclusive WASHCOs/Hygiene communities and service providers. There are also improvements in transparency, accountability and the levels of satisfaction that and Sanitation Community Groups users have with the service provided (McGee and Gaventa, 2010). (rural), Water Boards (urban) with

a functioning GRM linked to the 8b. The percentage of WaSHCO Plans which explicitly address the differential interests of disadvantaged and hard-to reach WWT procedures groups, including people living with disabilities. In order to progress WaSH coverage and sustain program achievements after implementation for all people in the area, there must be confidence that the interests of disadvantaged and under-reached users are fully addressed in local-level WaSH Plans and implementations.

8a and 8b Can be monitored through the EMIS, Woreda population data, by membership files and social audit. The impact of more representative WaSHCOs on a) levels of functioning WASHCOs and b) sustainability of improved WaSH facilities can assessed through FLOWS, case studies and operational research. 9 Percentage of WASHCOs and water 9a. Percentage of WaSHCO Plans which explicitly address the differential interests of women/girls boards with women officers In order to progress gender equity in WaSH planning, implementation and maintenance, the interests of women must be included in decisions and implementations. Representation is not enough in itself. Can be monitored by Gender audit using a representative sample of WaSHCOs per region annually. Responsible: Women’s affairs Directorate, MoWE 10 Equity woreda/kebele deviation from the national average 11 Per capita investment (rural, urban) 12 Percentage of WASHCOs covering O&M costs (rural), percentage of water utilities covering O&M and replacement costs 13 Percentage of under-5 children

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 76

with mortality rate decrease 14 Percentage of under-5 children with diarhoreal disease decrease 15 Time saved due to improved water And time used for what? It is more important that we understand the impacts of the time saved on livelihood, well-being and availability within 1.5 km for rural women’s empowerment. and 0.5 m in urban Impacts of Time same can be tracked through case studies, external research and potentially an additional question into the EDHS. 16 Percentage increase in enrollment This is complex and not directly attributable – of course It is related to the provision of WaSH in part – not all reductions in drop- of female students in school; % out and increases in enrollment can be attributed to WaSH facilities. Probably GBV (rape and sexual harassment) and early decrease in dropouts among marriage outrides WaSH. female students

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 77

Annex 4: Example of an Organisational Equity and Access Capacities Assessment Matrix

The Organisational Equity and Access Capacities Assessment Matrix, as outlined in table A, assesses the 4 cross-cutting issues of OWN –P against the four main dimensions of programme management capacity. It is not intended to give a comprehensive view of organisational capacity but to provide a simple tool through which: a) WaSH staff at any level –PMU, RWT, WWT and WaSHCOs- can peer assess their own capacities to address equity and access and b) OWM-P can assess the extent to which equity and access is being mainstreamed into its overall capacity building activities.

Table A: Dimensions of the Organisational Capacity Assessment Matrix31 Planning, monitoring Organisational capacity to: and evaluation . Prioritise activities in line with OWN-P priorities and cross-cutting issues . Develop innovative responses to reaching and including underserved populations and vulnerable groups in line with OWN-P priorities and cross- cutting issues and priorities . Monitor and evaluate equity and inclusion activities and performance against agreed benchmarks, targets or goals Programme delivery Organisational capacity to: . Provide leadership in line with OWN-P priorities and cross-cutting issues e.g gender and knowledge-sharing . Report to stakeholders – including hard to reach underserved populations and vulnerable groups on its activities. . Manage risks. Learning Organisational capacity to: . Capture lessons and good practice. . Collect, document and manage knowledge – within the immediate environment and through the EMIS . Mainstream organisational learning. Communications and Organisational capacity to: influence . Extend information to all relevant stakeholders including the under-served and vulnerable groups . Share good practices . Influence and raise awareness amongst other stakeholders and mobilise resources. Source: Adapted from Yaron et al 2012

A similar matrix and approach to capacity building has been used in Ethiopia with government ministries at the federal, regional and woreda levels. There are lessons that can be learnt from the process which can be applied in the WaSH sector. Piloting the approach can begin in the emerging regions in selected Woredas and used as part of the needs assessment for capacity building as well as mechanisms for follow-up and support. The PMU will have overall responsibility for introducing, piloting and developing

31The components outlined in the table are based on the organisational capacity development matrix developed by the DFID supported Strategic Climate Institutions Programme (SCIP). SCIP was developed to ensure that Ethiopia’s government, development partners, civil society, academic institutions and private sector have the necessary capacity to deliver on commitments made under GoE’s Ethiopia’s Climate Resilient Green Economy Initiative, a component of TGP.

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 78

the matrix liaising closely with the NWCO and the RWTTs and WTTs to implement training and support for Woredas and Towns.

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 79

Annex 5: Summary of Findings of the Stakeholder Consultations prepared by WaterAid

September 2013

Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH-II): October 2013 1

Contents Acronyms ...... 2 1. Introduction ...... 3 2. Who Benefited from WaSH I? ...... 4 3. Community Needs ...... 5 4. Barriers to Equitable and Inclusive WaSH Services ...... 6 5. Stakeholder Suggestions ...... 8

Summary of Findings: Stakeholder Consultations- Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH II) 2

Acronyms

CLTSH Community Led Total Sanitation and Hygiene CSO Civil Society Organisation DFID Department for International Development FGD Focus Group Discussion GoE Government of Ethiopia HEW Health Extension Worker MoWE Ministry of Water and Energy NWCO National WaSH Coordination Office NGO Non-Governmental Organisation ODF Open Defecation Free OWN-P One WaSH National Programme SNPPR Southern Nations, Nationalities and People’s Region WaSH Water Sanitation and Hygiene WaSHCO WaSH Committees WIF WaSH Implementation Framework WSSP Water Supply and Sanitation Project (funded by IDA/DFID) WWT Woreda WaSH Team

Glossary of Local Terms Kebele: The smallest administrative unit in Ethiopia Woreda: is an administrative division of Ethiopia (managed by a local government), equivalent to a district. Woredas are composed of a number of kebeles

Summary of Findings: Stakeholder Consultations- Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH II) 3

1. Introduction On the basis of the call for local counterpart to conduct social assessment of One WaSH Programme (WaSH II) WaterAid Ethiopia entered into a grant agreement with DFID to coordinate stakeholder consultations in three regions. The purpose of stakeholder consultations was to support free, informed and prior stakeholder consultations carried out before, with purposive consultations with the poor, vulnerable and underserved women and men living in areas with low access to WaSH services in regions with high pastoral population; and with regional and local level service providers. More specifically the objectives were to: (a) identify specific needs for WaSH services and the existing barriers to accessing safe, affordable, services of adequate quality which are adapted to local context; (b) explore with service providers and selected users, potential improvement opportunities and strategies, under OWN-P, for progressing greater equity in accessing WaSH services and, (c) assess, with selected users, the extent to which WaSH I (WSSP) has equitably benefited communities. The NWCO, of the MoWE, in close collaboration with DFID, WaterAid and the lead consultant identified the 3 regions for stakeholder consultations. The lead consultant developed the criteria used to select these regions which included (i) emerging regions and regions with large populations of pastoralists and other underserved ethnic groups; (ii) addressing spatial disparities in coverage as well as institutional capacities of service providers; and (iii) at least one region where the process of villagisation is going on or where resettlement has already taken place. Finally Gambella, Somali and SNPP regions were selected. Following this consensus was reached that the field workers would in collaboration with the regional WaSH Coordination Offices select 2 woredas per region: one woreda with higher coverage and the other with lower coverage compared to national average. The lead consultant has developed field data collection tools and reporting requirements which she has given training on for the 12 field workers (6 males and 6 females) during 31 July and 01 August 2013 organized by WaterAid Ethiopia. The field workers were trained to use two major tools such as focus group discussions and Spokes. Focus Group Discussions were made using semi-structured interview in combination with a simple participatory analysis tool called ‘Spokes’. The team found that Spokes tool was a very powerful tool for making comparisons between the perceptions of service providers and different social groups in terms of progressing equitable and inclusive WaSH services. Following the training WaterAid Ethiopia has deployed three teams of four members (2 males and 2 females), one each of the three regions, to make stakeholder consultations between 2 and 11 August 2013. On the basis of the orientations and tools provided by the lead consultant WaterAid Ethiopia has produced sufficient copies of the tools and provided to field workers for them to use during field days. The following paragraphs discuss on the findings out of stakeholder consultations made in three regions.

Summary of Findings: Stakeholder Consultations- Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH II) 4

2. Who Benefited from WaSH I? Evidence from the stakeholder consultations clearly indicate that that the WaSH I Programme benefited people residing nearby the town, in areas with accessibility (with overall better infrastructure), have adequate financial capacity to pay for the services and those without physical disabilities (mobility challenges). In other words, people living in remote areas or areas with poor road infrastructure, experiencing great financial difficulties and those living with disabilities are reported not to have benefited from the WaSH I Programme. Communities living in Lumtak kebele of Abobo (Gambella) can be taken as the best example here. This kebele is the most remote and inaccessible compared to others and hence not benefited from the WaSH I Programme. And sometimes communities migrated from other places and residing in a pocket area are left behind in accessing safe water and sanitation services. Leku communities, who migrated from Wolayta 60 years ago, can be cited as an example; this community lives in the outskirt of the town and lack access to safe water due to limited distribution. Results further indicated that physical presence of the facilities around the community should not be regarded as if everyone everywhere has benefited from the services. In order for everyone everywhere to benefit from the Programme regardless of their conditions, there should be some mechanism to ensure whether the services provided to them are affordable and accessible. Poor women and widows in almost all the study areas reported that they are not benefiting from the Programme because they cannot afford to pay for the services despite the fact that the service is present physically around them while relatively well to do households are largely benefiting. Again the physical condition of individuals also affects the level of benefits they would like to get. People with disabilities and elders have special need for WaSH which requires the Programme to agree on the standard design before the implementation. This means that people with disabilities are not currently benefiting from the WaSH Programme as they lack inclusive design. In some areas (e.g. Abobo) poor women and widows facing financial crisis are exempted from paying for the services. But, in other areas there are no such practices to accommodate the needs of poor women and widows, which means that they have not benefited from WaSH I Programme mainly because they cannot afford to pay for the services. As a result those segments of the communities who cannot afford to pay for the services are forced to use water from unprotected sources which are causes for diseases that directly affect their productivity. Specific examples are stated below. Gambella:16 out of 17 kebeles in Abobo have benefited from WaSH Programme, only communities living in Lumtak kebele not totally benefited from the Programme because they are located in the remote and inaccessible areas. In Gambella Town the WaSH Board reported that WaSH services were provided to communities without discrimination, but the reality is that not all people afford to pay for the services and hence not benefited equally. Sometimes water may not be available in the tap and hence not benefited all the times. Agro-pastoral communities living in the outskirt of Gambella town are not benefiting from the Programme because town pipelines do not reach there and hence they use water from Baro River and Jajabe stream. Most importantly poor and vulnerable groups who cannot go out to collect water from the river pay 2 to 4 birr per 20 liter Jeri can which makes their life so difficult. Poor women and widows could not afford to pay for the construction of their own sanitation facilities even though they benefited in terms of increased awareness towards safe sanitation and hygiene practices. Somali: unlike the other regions communities residing in Harshin and Gursum reported that they have not benefited from the Programme, even though they were among the woredas included under WaSH I Programme. Only communities living nearby the town in Gursum reported that they have access to safe water. But they are not satisfied with sustainability of the water as the water is not available in the tap most of the time. SNNPR: Leku communities have not benefited from WaSH I. Poor women could not afford to pay for the services. Girls reported that they have not benefited from the Programme as schools they

Summary of Findings: Stakeholder Consultations- Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH II) 5

enrolled in lack adequate WaSH facilities. Besides, other groups have reported that health institutions are not adequately targeted by the Programme. Frequent non-functionalities of the facilities have been reported to affect the level of benefits they are expected to get from the services. Service levels and low quality of latrine facilities negatively affected the benefits communities might have obtained from the services. Problems associated with sustainability, affordability, management, design and quality of the services are reported to be factors dissatisfying the user communities. Especially user communities are not satisfied with the latrine standards (sanitation service levels) available to them mainly because of either it is not inclusive, affordable, mismanaged or not sustainable. Poor women and men using from the improved source of water operating with diesel fuel reported that they have abandoned the facility and are back to use water from unprotected source mainly because it is costly.

3. Community Needs It is clear from the findings that communities are different in terms of their level of income, physical conditions, traditions and their geographical locations. This means that they have special needs and should be treated differently in the provision of WaSH services. Poor women, widows and poor communities need affordable and sustainable WaSH services. People with disabilities and people of older ages demand for inclusive WaSH services, which accommodate their special needs. Those communities having intermittent access currently are demanding for sustainable and long lasting WaSH services to get intended health benefits. The following gives summary of community needs by regions. Gambella: Abobo communities including women, men and girls need to have adequate access to safe water supply and sanitation services having long lasting benefits. Members of WaSHCOs demand for institutionalized WaSHCOs and enhanced capacities to manage water and sanitation facilities. People living with disabilities, elders and poor women groups need inclusive, accessible and affordable WaSH services. There are also demands for uninterrupted water supply, communal sanitation facilities, and solid and liquid waste management system by communities of Gambella Town. The poorest and vulnerable communities need some kind of social protection mechanisms to help them in accessing sufficient and quality services. Somali: Poor communities in Harshin demands for financial support to construct water supplies for domestic use and for livestock as they are losing a lot of live animals during drought seasons. Lack of water for livestock during dry seasons is among the major causes for nomads or mobility of pastoral communities (response from adult men and women). Poor women and men with disabilities demand for inclusive services which increase their access to WaSH and would likely help them to derive benefits from the services. Those communities having some access to the services demand for quality assurance of the water services provided through making quality monitoring on regular basis. Elder women groups need continuous access to safe, adequate and affordable water and sanitation services. Girls group from Gursum demands for more representation of women in the WaSH Programme planning and decision making; currently cultural and traditional norms are making them shy away from playing these roles in WaSH Programme. Communities also demanded for more knowledge around multiple uses of WaSH services. SNNP: Adult women needs sustainable access to adequate WaSH services; poor women groups demand for adequate and affordable water services. Sustainability of latrine facilities recommended for households were also reported to be the major problem and hence the community need for household subsidy and access to more land for construction latrine facilities. Women and girls in Melaga demand for accessible, adequate and sustainable water for communities and schools. People living with disabilities need access to inclusive WaSH services.

Summary of Findings: Stakeholder Consultations- Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH II) 6

4. Barriers to Equitable and Inclusive WaSH Services Findings of stakeholder consultations highlight a number of different barriers to equitable and inclusive access to WaSH services. These can be categorized under institutional, social, economic, geographical and technical factors. The following explains each of these on the basis of the evidence generated from three regions which included the voices of the poorest and most underserved communities. Institutional factors include the absence of policies and guidelines, absence of participatory planning, weak coordination among stakeholders and turnover of staffs, as reported by stakeholders in the three regions. The fact that sector policies lack clarity over the mechanism of how WaSH services can be equitable and inclusive means that the planning process at all levels are not sensitive to problems of inequities and exclusions. If the planning at all levels are not sensitive to equitable services, service providers by no means address the problems of the poorest, vulnerable and underserved communities. Findings from stakeholder consultations showed the absence of clear mechanism to participate communities in the planning and implementation of WaSH services and this has negatively impacted on the voices of the communities for equitable services. Stakeholder consultations in all the three regions indicated that community participation in the planning process is very much limited and there is no clarity over how these should be institutionalized. In Gambella and Somali weak coordination among key stakeholders negatively affected the delivery of equitable WaSH services; stakeholders have no joint planning, implementation and reporting on WaSH services. Sustainability of capacity of local government staffs are only possible if the system is put in place to retain staffs that have the capacity to deliver services. Turnover of staff is therefore one of the institutional factors affecting equitable services, which is reported by stakeholders consulted in Gambella. Besides, lack of transparency and accountability mechanisms contributed towards inequitable provision of WaSH services. Service providers and planners lack sufficient information on the special needs of different groups of people for WaSH services. At community level, women (especially poor and physically challenged women), disabled men and people living on the edge of towns are under-represented in WaSHCOs currently. Physically challenged people, women and girls are underrepresented in the planning and implementation of WaSH I though they have special needs. Social factors of exclusion, summarized out of stakeholder consultations, include influence of traditions and culture of specific community, lack of education, physical condition of people/individuals and life style (pastoral, nomadic, mobile/static). In Gambella, Anyuak women are culturally and traditionally not allowed to use the same sanitation facilities with men, and this is one of the social barriers to equitable WaSH service provision. This means that women and girls are not accessing sanitation facility constructed for the household provided that the men and boys are using the facility. There should therefore be a different option for women and girls to access the facility or enhance awareness of the community to change existing culture and traditions and empower them to use the facilities. In SNNPR, Leku communities, migrated 60 years ago from Wolayta, and have unique life style and livelihood strategies are unintentionally excluded from WaSH services (the team heard their complains and voices directly from them during the field work). Persons with disabilities, elders and pregnant women have complained about the design of WaSH facilities that they are not able to access because of their physical condition; this was reported during stakeholder consultations in Gambella and SNNPR. In Somali women with disabilities reported that they are facing double discrimination and their special needs for WaSH services are often neglected. Consultations with pastoral communities in Somali also indicated that their mobile nature to search for pastures or livestock feeds has made them to be excluded from WaSH service provisions. They suggested the special attention that should be given to pastoral communities to design mechanism for provision of WaSH services that fits to nomadic people. Economic factors include shortage of budget, high level of poverty, low level of household income, high cost of technologies and affordability to those who are paying for services, as reported by

Summary of Findings: Stakeholder Consultations- Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH II) 7

stakeholders. The low economy of the country and high level of rural poverty has impacted on equitable provision of WaSH services. Equitable WaSH services follow functions and equitable distribution of resources over geographical and among the different categories of people. WaSHCOs, poor women and men reported that selection of technology options should sufficiently consider the financial capacity of user communities. They have the concern that if communities are very poor and have no such capacity to pay for recurrent costs constructing costly technologies means nothing as far as the communities cannot afford operation and maintenance costs. In SNNP high cost of fuel resulted in the abandoning of the facility and people have diverted to use water from unprotected sources mainly because they could not afford. This means that selection of technology options should consider the economic status of communities. In Gambella poor women and vulnerable groups could not afford to pay for water supply, let alone pipeline connections, which are costly for them; and could not finance construction of their own sanitation facilities. Problems of affordability of the operation and maintenances of water facilities to the poor and vulnerable groups were reported from all the study locations during stakeholder consultations. Geographical factors reported by stakeholders include remoteness, poor road infrastructures, distance from the water point (be it protected or unprotected), wrong site selection and availability of water resources. Inaccessibility due to poor road networks and remoteness from the center has been reported to cause inequities in the provision of WaSH services. Lumtak kebele in Abobo (Gambella) and Leku communities in Shebedino (SNNP) are typical cases here. Lumtak is remote from the center and has not benefited from the WaSH I Programme. Agro-pastoral communities living in the outskirt of the Gambella Town not benefited from WaSH Programme as it is a bit far compared to others. They use water from Baro River and Jajabe stream, which is not safe. Most importantly people who have no physical strength to collect water from the river or the stream are obliged to buy unsafe water at higher prices which makes their life so difficult. Sometimes site selection for construction of water facilities is not participatory and this has led to inequities in the provision of water services. Physically challenges women groups in Somali reported that they are not equally using the services because they have experienced difficulties in collecting water from steep slopes. Technological or technical factors include lack of standard design, low quality of the facilities, absence of regular water quality monitoring, shortage of private companies, and inadequate supply chain, as reported by stakeholders in the three regions. The consultations made in Gambella and SNNP indicated the absence of standard design to accommodate the special needs of people with disabilities, elders and pregnant women for WaSH services. Disable women groups in Gursum (Somali) reported that they are often facing double discrimination to access WaSH services and their needs are often completely overlooked. In Gambella Town, the major cause for shortage of safe water was reported to be a frequent breakdown of town water supply system due to water pump damage which was often caused by suction of water with sands at water intake site on Baro River. This problem could have been solved by either changing the water intake design or type of pump type alongside having reserve pumps to avoid extended downtime. Poor women groups in Gambella reported that communities use wood made san-plat because they have no access to concrete san- plate. The low standards of sanitation facilities constructed by households were reported to be unsustainable and create inequities in the use of the facilities. Water systems are not regularly tested and monitored. This means that the water provided to communities are not equitably benefiting everyone everywhere mainly because the water is not safe. Weak coordination mechanism among sector offices and lack of information on the community needs for WaSH services are reported to cause inequities in the provision of WaSH services. Uneven distribution of water resources somehow contributed to inequitable provision of WaSH services as reported by stakeholders in Somali. Furthermore shortage of private companies, with sufficient capacities, has been reported to contribute towards inequitable provision of WaSH services in Somali. And there is no mechanism for community participation in the planning process that results in equitable distribution of WaSH services; which is the case in all the three regions.

Summary of Findings: Stakeholder Consultations- Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH II) 8

5. Stakeholder Suggestions What needs to be done differently to make WaSH services inclusive under the OWN-P? Stakeholders in the three regions suggested that OWN-P should do differently in the following areas to increase opportunities for everyone, everywhere, to benefit from the programme outputs.  All stakeholders including the poor, vulnerable and underserved communities and local service providers suggested that everyone everywhere regardless of their social status, ethnic background, life style, economic status, extent of their backwardness, geographical locations, cultural and traditions should be taken into account starting from the planning.  WWT, WaSHCOs, men groups, poor/elder women groups and men with disabilities suggested that there should be clarity over or clear mechanism for participating user communities of different social groups in the planning and implementation of One WaSH Programme so that they can have their voices sufficiently assimilated in the Programme and ensure that everyone can benefit from the outputs.  Girls and adult women groups in Somali suggested that women should be sufficiently represented in the planning and designing of WaSH Programme. Poor women groups in Gambella also suggested the importance of participating women in all stages of WaSH II Programme planning and implementation.  Men and women with disabilities, WaSHCOs and the woreda WaSH Team suggested that standard designs should be considered as one component in the implementation of One WaSH Programme and this should be part of the annual planning at regional and woreda levels. Disable women groups in Somali suggested that WaSH II should provide inclusive services to ensure that physically challenged women will not face double discrimination.  All FGDs have the concern over sustainability of WaSH facilities and suggested that implementation of One WaSH National Programme should begin with the end in mind so that communities can derive lasting benefit from the Programme. WaSHCOs suggested that strengthening capacities of community WaSH management systems and reworking on how operation and maintenances systems can be realistic to ensure sustainability of WaSH services (both household and institutional) would be essential.  Somali regional WaSH Coordination Office suggested that WaSH service provision for pastoral communities should be further investigated and well treated in the implementation of One WaSH Programme; and they recommended mobile WaSH services that fit well with the life style of pastoralist communities.  Widows and underserved women groups in Gambella and WaSHCOs in SNNP suggested that One WaSH Programme should give the first priority to underserved communities residing in the remote and inaccessible areas to equally address their WaSH needs with others. It was reported that these communities were not benefited from WaSH I Programme mainly because they are not accessible due to poor road infrastructures.  The poor and vulnerable women groups suggested the importance of considering subsidy mechanisms for the poorest and vulnerable social groups for them to have lasting benefits from access to safe, adequate and sustainable water supply and sanitation services. Challenges associated with affordability of paying for water and sanitation services were reported by the poorest and vulnerable social groups including women, widows and older ages.  WaSHCOs in Gambella and SNNP suggested strengthening monitoring system for WaSH services separately for institutions and households. They also suggested water quality monitoring on regular basis. Social equity and inclusion should be part of the checklists used for monitoring WaSH services.

Summary of Findings: Stakeholder Consultations- Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH II) 9

 One way to ensure poor and vulnerable women to access water supply in the urban setting like Gambella Town is either by supporting them to engage in the income generation activities so that they can cover the costs on regular basis. The poor and underserved women groups in Gambella Town and Somali suggested possibility of supporting them to start income generation activities so that they will have sufficient money to cover costs associated with WaSH.  Girls groups in Gambella Town suggested that WaSH II should build communal latrines for slums and homeless street dwellers. Also, women groups in SNNPR suggested possibilities of moving upper to the next ladder of sanitation service levels if they are subsidized under the WaSH II. WaSHCOs also suggested the need for considering sustainable sanitation technology options for lasting health benefits.

Summary of Findings: Stakeholder Consultations- Social Assessment of OWN-P (WaSH II)