PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE ON DIRECT FINANCING OF COMMUNITIES IN RWSEP

International Symposium on Rural Water Services

Speke Resort Munyonyo, Kampala, Uganda

13-15 April, 2010

By Getenet Kassahun

Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

Outline of the presentation

1. General description of Amhara Region 2. RWSEP3. What is Direct Financing of Communities?4. Key issues in CDF5. Rationale for CDF6. CDF Project Cycle7. How the CDF Fund transferred to Communities ? 8. Program Fund Sources9. Why Community Financing?10. Lessons Learned11. Conclusion

1. General description of Amhara Region

It is one of the 11 administrative regions in Ethiopia.

Area = 157,076 km2 (15 % of the country)

Population = 20,650,420• Rural = 18,182,800 It has 10 Zones & 151

districts/woredas. Water Supply Coverage Rural 54 % Urban 87 %

2. RWSEP

Is an abbreviation for Rural Water Supply & Environmental Program.

Ethio - Finnish bilateral program >15 years in the region – since 1994 ( 4

phases) At present operational in 14 Woredas/districts

located in 4 Zones of the region.

3. What is Direct Financing of Communities?

funding agency (donor, NGO or government) communities

communities manage & implement the sub-projects.

RWSEP has designed Community Development Fund (CDF) in the year 2003/04

4. Key issues in CDF

Implementation fully depend on communities own initiative.

Community via WATSANCOs are fully responsible for managing the funds allocated to them.

Communities demonstrate both their willingness & capacity to finance the future O&M by depositing up-front cash contribution in to saving accounts.

Communities receive technical & material support from Woreda/district authorities during & after construction

At least 15% Comm. Contribution for construction

5. Rationale for CDF

Policy EnvironmentWater Policy

•Demand Responsive Approach

Decentralization UAP

•Simple & low cost technologies

6. CDF Project Cycle

The CDF project cycleCycle Responsible body

1. Promotion Development Agents (DA), Health Extension Workers (HEW) & WWRDO experts.

2. Application preparation & submission

Preparation- WATSANCOs assisted by promoters (DAs & HEW).

Submission – WATSANCOs to the WWRDO experts.

3. Appraisal●Desk●Field

Woreda Water Resources Dev. Office experts.

4. Approval (Final decision)

Woreda CDF Board chaired by Woreda administrator.

Cycle Responsible body

5. Funding Agreement (FA) signing

WATSANCOs trained in CDF Mgt.

FA signed b/n CDF Board & WATSANCO chair person.

6. Implementation

Procurement & contractingSupervisionCompletion ceremony

Contracting – WATSANCOs to artisans & suppliers

● WATSANCOs withdraw money & procure materials.

Supervision – WWRDO expertsCompletion ceremony – by communities.

7. Post implementation monitoring

By WWRDO experts.

8. Program Fund Sources

Gov’t of Finland (80%)Gov’t of Ethiopia (10%)User Community (10%)

9. Advantages of Community Financing?

make fast economic development and poverty reduction

ensure full ownership of the community projects by the community

build the capacity of the communities to manage development projects by themselves

Strengthen local private sector and community partnership

increase efficiency of implementation reduce the work load of the local government from

implementation to facilitation

10. Lessons Learned

Simple designs and technology shall be used in CDF (HDWs, SPDs-RWSEP) Local skills shall be used in implementation

(artisans). Local materials and locally available tools &

equipment preferred than sophisticated materials and equipment.

imported materials and equipment should be available in the nearest towns

Information sharing to local private sector for yearly demand is important to ease supply delivery

Updating material market prices (regular assessment) is essential-WWRDO

exact material need assessment saves losses (economical).

transparent procurement procedures increases credibility among community members.

Settlement of expenditures is almost 99 % with close M&E.

Responsibility and role of women in WATSAN committee increased.

Increased ownership brigs about increased community contribution (community contribution for construction raised from 15 % to 23 %-40 %).

Functionality rate is highly increased as compared to others(>90%).

Continuous capacity building activities at district level is important

Community financing approach can be used also in institutions/schools/ with simple water & sanitation facilities.

Community participation in spring development

Spring Collection chamber

11. Conclusion

Funds directly channeled to communities found to bring about accelerated implementation & sustainable developments