Developments & Trends in Tanzania’s Water Sector

Dar es Salaam - September 2005

Urban and Rural water supply coverage against PRS and MDG targets

87 90

35

46

88

6770

73

3843

5053

MDG94

MDG67NSGRP

65

Census85

Census42

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020Year

% coverage clean and safe drinking water

Urban targetsRural targetsUrban progress reported by surveyRural progress reported by surveyUrban progress reported by MinistryRural progress reported by Ministry

NSGRP90

PRS55

Percentage of rural households using improved water sources

Mainland average = 42%

Why is past performance not a guide to future performance?

Out of:

• rural water projects - Nordic countries all exited leaving only investments from Netherlands and in future JICA.

Into:

• basket funds - health, education, roads

• budget support - including key development partners who worked in rural water

• ‘bankable’ urban water projects - WB, AfDB, EIB, EC, KFW as well as France (small towns), Swiss (Tabora, Dodoma)

Shifting aid modalities and investment priorities of Tanzania’s development partners

• Centrally implemented ‘national’ projects - GOT is channelling >90% of water sector development funding to the Lake Victoria - Kahama- Shinyanaga pipeline.

• Centrally controlled rural water supply project - WB funded RWSSP run by a central project implementation unit.

• No fiscal decentralisation - Only 10% of the water sector budget goes to LGAs.

• No LGA investment in water supply - LGAs are not using their locally raised income to fund water

But no counter-shift by Government of Tanzania

Tanzania water sector budgets 2000 to 2005

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2000/1 2001/2 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5

Financial years

USD millions

Donor Development

Ministry Development

Ministry Recurrent

Local Councils

93% of local development funds for new Lake Victoria-Shinyanga pipeline

Less than 2% of total budget for low cost technologies such as shallow wells and protected springs

Donor funds:62% urban28% small towns10% villages6% sector reform

Local councils receive just 10% of the budget

Research on local government reformREPOA & Chr Michelsen Institute

Citizen survey in six councils found those satisfied with education 70%, with health 36%, with water supply 22%.

Respondents that had seen an improvement in services for education 85%, health services 37%, water supply 20%.

When asked which service is most important to improve now water supply was the priority.

But …

council resources allocated to water sector were by far lowest of the three services at between 0.3 and 2% of total expenditures

Are there disincentives to allocating budget for water (check MTEFs)?

Result of current state of play

• Rural investment vacuum

• Costs of technology up - Shift from low cost to high cost technologies; from shallow well and simple gravity schemes at $30 per capita to large piped systems at $260 per capita

• Equity of investments down - in terms of:• geography - from investment in most regions to investment

in one region• socio-economic - from point sources to piped schemes

Rural and Urban Population Trends in Tanzania

30,713

24,403

12,883

21,506

19,106

25,519

20,411 23,601

4,7766,379

5,657

11,236

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1990 2000 2015

Year

Population in thousands

Census - rural

UN - rural

Census urban

UN - urban

Rural

Urban

United Nations predictions

Rural and Urban Population Trends in Tanzania

1. Build and rehabilitate 3,000 rural water points each year

2. Increase LGA spending on rural water supply by $30 million a year

3. Targeted urban water sector spending of $66 million a year (first generation beneficiaries)

What will it take to meet MDG & MKUKUTA targets for water supply?

Rural Water Supply Dar es Salaam - September 2005

Percentage of rural households using improved water sources

Mainland average = 42%

• 7 districts in which fewer than 10% of rural households have access to improved water supply : Sikonge (4%), Igunga (5%), Kishapu (9.6%), Liwale (8%), Mkuranga (6%), Rufiji (9%) and Mafia (3%)

• 4 districts in which over 80% of households have access: Arumeru (82%), Mwanga (82%), Kyela (83%) and Rombo (93%).

• In 63 % of districts less than 50% of households have access to improved water supply

Extreme inequalities across districts

District Case Studies

• Rural population: 385,877

• 21% of households get their drinking water from an improved source (Source: Census)

• In 2004 there were 355 water points but >35% not working (Source: WaterAid water point mapping)

• Nzega needs at least 1000 working water points to meet MDGs

• 80 water points need to be built/rehabilitated per year

Nzega District (below average access to water)

Wanaochangia secta ya maji Nzega

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Anglican Church

CARITAS

JICA

TRIDEP - NDC - Community

FUM/Fumu/FURM

SEVEDERA

Community

IFAD - Community

Resolute

Unknown

NDC

WaterAid

Worldvision

Government

Vituo vilivyojengwa

Functional

Not Functional

Stolen

Under construction

All water points ever built in Nzega by funder

Water points

Nzega District Council

19 built since 2000

AINA YA KITUO CHA MAJI FunctionalNot

Functional% Not

working

Hand pump 125 40 24%Communal standpipe 41 45 52%

Functionality by type of water point

Type of water point

• Rural population: 232,909

• 62% of households get their drinking water from an improved source (Source: Census)

• In 2004 there are 357 water points but >25% of not working (Source: WaterAid water point mapping)

• To meet MDGs Mpwapwa needs at least 700 working water points

• 40 water points need to be built/rehabilitated per year

Mpwapwa District (above average)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

WFP

Community

DANIDA

Mamlaka

Colonial

Water Department

Faith organisations

CMSR - Com

Worldvision

Private individuals (WB)

World Bank

Unknown

Government

WAMMA (WaterAid)

vituo vya maji

Functional

Not Functional

Stolen

Under construction

All water points ever built in Mpwapwa by funder

Water points

Mpwapwa District Council

9 built since 2000

• Strengthen situational analysis + performance monitoring (e.g. thro’ water point mapping)

• Integrate planning with Medium Term Plans and Expenditure Frameworks (e.g. thro’ PlanRep).

• Push for a system of monitoring to prevent ‘terminal’ breakdowns.

• Support LGA contracting process in order to build up local NGO and private sector capacity

Support needed at local government level

• Based on existing LGA set up (at best one qualified district water engineer and 5 - 10 technicians)

• Planning and expenditure managed by LGAs with support from Region

• Low cost technology ($ 20 per capita) sub-contracted to local private sector

• Long-term funding stream has generated capacity both in LGAs and of local private sector

• 200 water points built in Shinyanga Region each year by 7 district councils

Netherlands Rural Water Supply Programme

GoT vision for the rural water supply sub-sector is there

• Responsibility for planning and expenditure for rural water supply with local councils

• Prioritise investments in low-cost water supplies

• Private sector participation at local level

• Cost recovery for operation and maintenance

… and there are examples of good practice

• Netherlands project in Shinyanga

• WaterAid work in Singida

But if no money is getting to LGAs …

… because the core reforms are not delivering

• Public Financial Management, • Local Government, • Public Service.

What can be done in the meantime?

1. Special purpose grant for rural water supply to local councils

2. Sector investment coordination mechanism led by Government

Possible transition arrangements

Urban water supply central to development

• Urban population growing

• Tax base is in urban

Policy for urban water supply in place …

• Autonomous urban water and sewerage authorities

• Bankable investment projects paid back from internal business models

• Grant investment for low income areas

• Sector Wide Approach to investment

… albeit practice still messy

• Dar water reforms

• Subsidies still going to some urban utilities