republic of rwanda national rural drinking water...
Post on 23-May-2020
7 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK GROUP
OPERATIONS EVALUATION DEPARTMENT (OPEV)
REPUBLIC OF RWANDA
NATIONAL RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLY AND
SANITATION PROGRAMME (PNEAR) – LAUNCH PHASE
SUB-PROGRAMME PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT (PPER)
PROJECT AND PROGRAMME EVALUATION DIVISION (OPEV.1)
APRIL 2012
CONTENTS
Currency Equivalents and Abbreviations i-ii
Acknowledgments iii
Basic Project Data iv-vii
Executive Summary viii-xii
I. PROJECT 1
1.1 Country and Strategic Context 1
1.2 Bank Context 1
1.3 Sub-programme Formulation 2
1.4 Objectives and Scope at Appraisal 2
II. RETROSPECTIVE EVALUATION 3
2.1 Evaluation Methodology and Approach 3
2.3 2.2 Availability and Use of Basic Data and Key Outcome Indicators
3
III. IMPLEMENTATION PERFORMANCE 4
3.1 Adherence to Implementation Schedule and Costs 4
3.2 Project Management, Reporting, Monitoring and Evaluation 4
3.3 Overall Implementation Performance 4
IV. KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS AND PERFORMANCE RATING 5
4.1 Key Remarks from the Evaluation 5
a.) Relevance and Quality at Entry 5
b.) Achievement of Objectives and Outcomes (Efficacy) 6
c.) Efficiency 13
d.) Institutional Development Impact 14
e.) Other Development Impacts 14
f.) Sustainability 15
4.2 Performance Ratings 16
a.) Aggregate Sub programme Performance 16
b.) Borrower Performance 17
c.) Bank Performance 17
4.3 Factors Affecting Implementation Performance and Outcomes 17
V. CONCLUSIONS, LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17
5.1 Conclusions 17
5.2 Key Lessons 18
5.3 Key Recommendations 18
BOXES
Box 1: Evolution of DWS systems management in Rwanda 10
ILLUSTRATIONS
Photo 1: Standalone standpipe – Rurengeri Unit, Nyabiru District (Mutera DWS) 7
Photo 2: Ngororero District – Old unhygienic latrines 7
Photo 3: Individual latrine with angled access (clean and odour-free) built by PNEAR-I 7
Photo 4: Improved water supply – Ngororero District 9
Photo 5: Waiting line at water kiosk in Rwamagana DWS 11
Photo 6: Young girls carrying jerry cans of water on their heads 14
ANNEXES Number
of pages
1. Map of Rwanda and PNEAR-I Intervention Areas 1
2. Socioeconomic and Macroeconomic Data 2
3. Logical Intervention Format 1
4. Score Tables, Evaluation Criteria 6
5. Borrower Performance 2
6. Bank Performance 2
7. 4.3 Factors Affecting Implementation Performance and Outcomes 1
8. Matrix of Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions 4
9. Calculation of Economic and Financial Return 6
1. Bibliography 3
-i-
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
Currency Unit
September 2003 (appraisal) December 2009 (completion)
July 2011
(Retrospective
evaluation)
UA 1 RWF 751.212 RWF 900.979 RWF 957.780
UA 1 USD1.446 USD1.610 USD1.600
UA 1 EUR 1.203 EUR 1.072 EUR 1.107
EUR 1 RWF 595.997 RWF 840.615 RWF 864.909
USD1 RWF 545.435 RWF 559.552 RWF 598.429
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Metric system
ACRONYMS
ADB : African Development Bank
ADF : African Development Fund
CDC : Community Development Committee
CDF : Common Development Fund
CSP : Country Strategy Paper
CTB : Belgian Development Agency
DWS : Drinking Water Supply
DWSS : Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation
ECOSAN : Ecological Sanitation
EDPRS : Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy
ELECTROGAZ : Electricity, Water and Gas Utility
EWSA : Rwandan Energy, Water and Sanitation Authority
HDI : Human Development Index
IEC : Information, Education and Communication
IERR : Internal Economic Rate of Return
IFRR : Internal Financial Rate of Return
INS : National Institute of Statistics
JICA : Japan International Cooperation Agency
KIST : Kigali Institute of Science and Technology
MDGs : Millennium Development Goals
MINAGRI : Ministry of Agriculture
MINELA : Ministry of the Environment and Lands
MININFRA : Ministry of Infrastructure
MOH : Ministry of Health
NPV : Net Present Value
PCU : Project Coordination Unit
PNEAR : National Rural Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Programme
PPP : Public-Private Partnership
-ii-
PRSP : Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
RLDSF : Rwanda Local Development Support Fund
RURA : Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Authority
RWF : Rwandan Francs
RWSSI : ADB Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Initiative
UA : Unit of Account
UNICEF : United Nations Children’s Fund
WHO : World Health Organization
-iii-
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This retrospective evaluation report was
prepared by a team from the African
Development Bank Group (ADB)
Operations Evaluation Department
(OPEV) led by Joseph Mouanda, Senior
Evaluation Officer (Project Officer) and
Tonssour Clement Bansé, Evaluation
Officer, under the supervision of
Mohamed Hédi Manaï, OPEV Project and
Programme Evaluation Division Manager.
The report draws on technical documents
prepared by Pierre Bello (international
consultant, water and sanitation specialist)
and Jacques Gashaka (local consultant,
statistician, socio-economist) and the
results of the 18-29 July 2011 mission to
Rwanda.
The evaluation was peer-reviewed by
Blaise Nkamleu, Principal Evaluator, and
administrative support provided by Diop
Myrtha, Ruby Adzobu-Agyare and Imen
Trabelsi.
The evaluation team is grateful to Moumni
Monia, Chief Water and Sanitation
Engineer (OWAS), their colleagues at the
Rwanda Field Office (RWFO) and the
entire PNEAR coordination unit team
headed by Albert Yaramba for their
support and contributions, which enriched
this report.
The evaluation team would also like to
express its sincere thanks to the Rwandan
authorities and all the individuals with
whom it met, particularly the mayors and
managers of the districts and sectors
covered by the sub-programme for their
availability and cooperation, and the
development partners based in Kigali for
sharing their experiences.
This effort would not have been possible
without the capable leadership of OPEV
management.
OPEV Management
Rakesh Nangia, Director, OPEV
Franck Marie Perrault, Acting Director (at evaluation time)
Mohamed Hedi Mohamed, Division Manager, Project and Programme Evaluation Division, OPEV.1
Odile Keller, Division Manager, High-Level Evaluations Division, OPEV.2
-iv-
BASIC SUB-PROGRAMME DATA
A- Preliminary data
1. Country : Republic of Rwanda
2. Project Name : National Rural Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Programme
(PNEAR) – Start-up Phase
3. Project Code : P-RW-E00-010
4. Sector : Water Supply and Sanitation
5. Grant Number : 2100155002044
6. Loan Number : 2100150007224
7. Borrower : Government of the Republic of Rwanda
8. Beneficiaries : Rural Populations
9. Executing Agency : Ministry of Infrastructure (MININFRA), Water and Sanitation
Department (DEA) - Kigali, Rwanda
B- Loan data
Planned Actual
Loan amount (UA millions) : 4.00 3.97
Service charge : 0.75% per year
Commitment charge : 0.50%
Grace period : 10 years
Loan approval date : December 2003 17 December 2003
Loan signature date : - 13 May 2004
Loan effectiveness date : 1 January 2005 30 March 2005
C- Grant data
Planned Actual
(XXX ?) of grant (UA millions) : 9.00 8.831
Grant approval date : December 2003 17.12.2003
Grant signature date : - 13.05.2004
Loan effectiveness date : 1 January 2005 30.03.2005
First disbursement date : 25.05.2005
Last disbursement date : 09.04.2010
D- Project data
Financing Plan
Source
Appraisal estimate
(UA millions)
Actual
(UA millions)
Foreign
exchange
Local
currency Total %
Foreign
exchange
Local
currency Total %
ADF loan 4.00 0.00 4.00 24 3.97 - 3.97 27.4
ADF grant 6.51 2.49 9.00 52 5.38 - 5.38 37.2
Beneficiary 0.00 1.55 1.55 9 -
Government 0.00 2.63 2.63 15 - 5.12 5.12 35.4
Total 10.51 6.67 17.18 100 9.35 5.12 14.47 100.0
1 Including UA 3.4 million allocated to MINAGRI for the food crisis.
-v-
E- Implementation Performance Indicators
Cost overrun/underrun (- 16%)
Time overrun/underrun 0%
- Slippage on effectiveness +3 months
- Slippage on last disbursement None
- Slippage on completion date None
Number of extensions of the last disbursement date None
Project implementation status Completed
Return
Appraisal Completion Post-Evaluation
Economic rate of return 26% 27% 18%
Financial rate of return - - 5.9%
F- Key sector performance indicators
Indicator
I. Output indicators Appraisal PCR/PPER Implementation
rate
Water supply systems 5 6 120%
Improved sources 1000 1084 108%
Family latrines 2020 2120 105%
Public toilet blocks 6 25 417%
Rainwater collection reservoirs 23 25 109%
Biogas 2 2 100%
Composters 2 2 100%
II. Effect and impact indicators Appraisal PCR PPER
Number of persons provided with
sustainable access to drinking water 270,000 495,623 495,623
Number of persons provided with
sanitation systems 12,000 16,200 16,200
Average reduction in distance travelled to
obtain water - - 657 m
Average reduction in time spent
collecting water - 3 hours 26 min
Quality of water supplied - -
90% of water
produced and
distributed is
potable
Reduction of water-borne diseases (%) - - 19%
Average annual health gain - -
RWF 141.624
million (since
2010)
-vi-
G- Performance rating
Evaluation criteria PCR PCR review PPER
Relevance and Quality at Entry Highly satisfactory Highly satisfactory Satisfactory
Efficacy (Achievement of objectives) Highly satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory
Efficiency Highly satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory
Sustainability - Satisfactory Satisfactory
Institutional Impact - - Satisfactory
Overall Performance Highly satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory
Borrower Performance Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory
Bank Performance Highly satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory
H- Missions
No
. Mission Date
No.
days
No.
perso
ns
Composition
1
Programme review and
accelerated
implementation
17-26/05/2005 9 1
2 Supervision 17-28/04/2007
12 3
- Principal Water and Sanitation Engineer
- Consultant, Financial analyst
- Infrastructure Expert
3 Supervision 09-15/12/2007 6 3
- Principal Water and Sanitation Engineer
- Consultant, Financial analyst
- Infrastructure Expert
4 Supervision 02-11/04/2008
11 2
- Principal Water and Sanitation Engineer
- Consultant, Financial analyst
5 Supervision 24/11 -
02/12/2008 9 4
- Principal Water and Sanitation Engineer
- Consultant, Financial Analyst
- Consultant, Water Systems Engineer
- Transport Engineer
6 Supervision 10-18/06/2009
9 2
- Principal Water and Sanitation Engineer
- Consultant, Financial Analyst
7 Supervision
28/10 -
05/11/2009
23/03/02
9 2 - Principal Water and Sanitation Engineer
- Consultant, Financial Analyst
9 Completion Report 21/02 -
04/03/2010 11 2
- Principal Water and Sanitation Engineer
- Consultant, Financial Analyst
10 Performance Evaluation 18/30 -
08/2011/2008 13 4
- Evaluation Officer
- Research Assistant
- Consultant, Water and sanitation specialist
- Consultant, Statistician, Socio-economist
-vii-
F. Other projects financed by the Bank Group in the sector in Rwanda
No
. Project Date approved
Amount
approved (UA)
Net
amount
(UA 1000)
Disbursem
ent rate
(%)
Status
1 Kigali III Drinking Water
Supply (Grants) 17/12/2003 828.95 779.78 100 Completed
2 Rainwater collection 22/12/2006 408.32 408.32 100 Completed
3 PNEAR Phase II 01/07/2009 16315.39 16315.39 27% On-going
TOTAL 17,552.66 17,503.49
-viii-
EVALUATION SUMMARY
1. The Project
1.1 This retrospective evaluation relates to the start-up phase of the National Rural
Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Programme (PNEAR) in Rwanda. The phase covers
the North (the former Laves region and former Byumba Province) and East (the former
Kibungo Province) provinces. The ultimate goal of the project is to improve living conditions
for the rural beneficiary groups by providing a sustainable drinking water supply and
sanitation services.
1.2 In terms of outcomes, improvements were anticipated in the following areas: (i)
permanent access to drinking water supply (DWS) systems; (ii) access to sanitation systems;
(iii) capacities to provide quality drinking water supply and sanitation (DWSS) services in
rural areas; (iv) sustainability of local DWSS institutions in rural areas; (v) the adoption of
appropriate behaviour; and (vi) the planning and monitoring and evaluation system for the
DWSS sector. These improvements were to help reduce: (i) the burden of collecting water;
(ii) the incidence of diseases related to water quality and sanitation; (iii) health expenditures,
etc.
1.3 The sub-programme approved in 2003 was completed in 2009 as planned. The cost
of the start-up phase, estimated at UA 17.18 million (or RWF 12.90 billion), increased at
completion to UA 14.4 7 million, due essentially to the reallocation of UA 3.4 million to the
Ministry of Agriculture for the food crisis following a joint agreement between the Bank and
the Borrower, but also due to an increase in counterpart funding. Disbursements from the
ADF grant and loan represented 97% and 99% of the committed amounts, respectively.
2. Evaluation Approach and Methodology
This report is based on (i) an analysis of the various documents available; (ii) interviews with
the key actors; (iii) field visits; (iv) direct observations at water supply points and latrines; and
(v) a mini-survey conducted among the programme beneficiaries. The analysis is essentially
based on a comparison between the current and pre-project situations.
3. Key Findings
3.1 The sub-programme addresses a genuine need on the part of rural communities that
face a renewed outbreak of water-borne and sanitation-related diseases. The sub-programme
is part of the Rwandan government’s sector policy and strategy and is consistent with national
poverty reduction strategies (2002 PRSP and 2008-2012 EDPRS) and international and
regional objectives. PNEAR uses a local community demand-driven approach in order to
increase beneficiary involvement in defining the DWSS sub-projects and in the construction
and management of facilities through decentralized authorities established by the government.
In addition, the sub-programme is part of the Bank’s Rural Water Supply and Sanitation
Initiative (RWSSI). The sub-programme objectives are consistent with the Bank’s general
priorities as well as its strategy for Rwanda (CSP 2002-2004). The programme approach
adopted for PNEAR encourages a long-term commitment between Rwanda and development
partners. The design incorporated lessons on the participatory approach and the management
of facilities by private operators through public-private partnership. However, despite the
predominance of unhygienic latrines in the target area, the sub-programme design did not
sufficiently take into account the needs in sanitation facilities and information, education and
communication (IEC) campaigns to promote the adoption of good health practices and
behaviours regarding the use of water. The sub-programme is deemed highly relevant with
satisfactory quality at entry.
-ix-
3.2 The sub-programme produced most of the expected outputs in accordance with
applicable sector standards; moreover, the facilities are in satisfactory operating condition. It
helped to provide a sustainable supply of drinking water to about 476,575 persons, while
close to 16,200 persons were provided with hygienic family or collective latrines out of a total
estimated population of 3.3 million. Although the great majority of households in the sub-
programme area (98%) use latrines, they are generally in poor condition (57%) and classified
as unhygienic. PNEAR I also brought about substantial changes in the manner of supplying
drinking water to rural households, particularly by stepping up water supply to water points
and improved sources, at the expense of unimproved water supplies. However, a significant
proportion of households continue to use natural sources as an alternative, reserving the use of
drinking water for certain purposes (drinking, bathing, cooking and dishwashing). The
average daily household drinking water consumption is well below the capacities supplied by
the sub-programme and estimated at 11 litres per inhabitant (compared to projected average
daily consumption of 20 litres per inhabitant). In terms of quality, the water supplied by the
sub-programme is essentially good, although water from developed sources merits particular
attention.
3.3 In light of Rwanda’s physical geography characterized by hilly terrain and scattered
rural towns and centres, the sub-programme did not significantly reduce the distance between
residences and water sources or the time spent collecting water. Moreover, the burden of
carrying water is worsened by the effort and energy required to transport a 20- to 22-litre jerry
can in this context. The sub-programme helped to improve the stakeholders’ capacity to
provide quality DWSS services in rural areas, particularly through satisfactory public-private
partnerships (PPPs) and the beneficiaries’ ownership of the works. The process of adopting
appropriate behaviours, impelled essentially by several actions conducted by health centres, is
still slow. Good hygiene practices do not appear firmly established in the habits of rural
communities at this point. According to the stakeholders, permanent access to drinking water,
and to family and collective sanitation facilities for certain groups, had a positive impact on
their living conditions. Overall, the sub-programme efficacy is rated satisfactory.
3.4 Economic analysis shows that the sub-programme was economically beneficial to the
target populations because it spared them the cost of treatment and travel to health centres for
water-borne diseases and reduced the loss of income from absences from work attributable to
potential water-borne diseases, etc. These benefits will become more manifest if appropriate
measures are taken to increase potable water consumption. The internal economic rate of
return (IERR) is estimated at 17.8% for a net present value (NPV) of RWF 2.6 billion,
compared to 26% and RWF 7.2 billion, respectively, at appraisal and 27% and RWF 22.59
billion at completion. An IERR that exceeds the opportunity cost of the capital shows that the
sub-programme is economically viable. The lower IERR and NPV is attributable, among
other things, to the fundamental assumption of a daily consumption of 20 litres per capita
considered at ex-ante evaluation and re-expressed at completion, given that the latter proved
inconsistent with the situation on the ground. In terms of cost-effectiveness, the analysis
showed that the unit costs per person supplied by the sub-programme compare favourably
with those of other DWS projects in Rwanda and Africa. Financial analysis indicates that the
intervention produced limited financial returns for the government that covered the initial
investment. While the sub-programme is rated economically efficient, the financial viability is
less than satisfactory.
3.5 From an institutional standpoint, the establishment of the Rwandan Energy, Water
and Sanitation Authority (EWSA), the national agency responsible for water supply and
sanitation in both urban and rural areas, represents a considerable asset. The sub-programme
strengthened sector monitoring and evaluation, particularly with an inventory of DWS
facilities. However, in the context of the decentralization process, further efforts are needed to
-x-
develop integrated systems for the districts to support automated management of planning
data and monitoring and evaluation of DWSS project and programme outcomes. PNEAR I
also contributed to building the capacity of public and private stakeholders; these efforts
should be continued at the district level. In the absence of an enabling decree for the
Sanitation Code, the Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Authority (RURA) has yet to establish the
pricing structure, develop service quality standards or monitor the performance of operators in
the water and sanitation sector. The institutional impact of the sub-programme is rated
satisfactory.
3.6 The sustainability of the sub-programme outcomes is guaranteed by: (i) the quality of
infrastructure maintenance and management; (ii) the establishment of a policy, legal and
administrative framework with the adoption of policies, laws and development strategies; and
(iii) effective decentralization. Close community involvement in the sub-programme design and
implementation reinforces the sense of ownership. Economic viability is confirmed by the
analysis of sub-programme sensitivity tests. However, the low levels of drinking water
consumption remain a major issue and the substantial cost of the initial investments requires an
appropriate sharing of responsibilities to finance infrastructure replacement and network
expansion. The use of PPPs (as an alternative to the community management method) will
contribute to the effective upkeep and maintenance of facilities and in general improve the
administrative, technical and financial management of DWS systems; competition among
operators and the control of prices are nonetheless needed. The overall sub-programme
performance is rated satisfactory.
4. Key Lessons
4.1 Information and awareness campaigns among users on domestic hygiene and the cost of
drinking water service, and the establishment of water points close to homesteads offering DWS
services at affordable rates determined through transparent processes, are indispensable in rural
areas for sustainable cost recovery and increased drinking water consumption.
4.2 The delegation of rural DWS network management to private operators as an
alternative to community management is advantageous only if there is genuine competition and
an effective system to monitor the quality of service provided and the prices charged.
4.3 The effective decentralization of the DWSS sector, underpinned by effective capacity
building and performance contracts between local governments and central government are key
success factors in the development of rural water and sanitation services.
4.4 Appropriate technologies (less expensive and adapted to local conditions) and
affordable to households are essential for improved coverage of the individual hygienic latrine
needs of rural communities.
4.5 An integrated computerized monitoring and evaluation data management system at the
decentralized level is critical for better planning, implementation and monitoring and evaluation
of the results of rural drinking water supply, sanitation and hygiene projects and programmes.
5. Key Recommendations
To the Government
Increased drinking water consumption: The government should create
conditions to help increase drinking water consumption by: (i) bringing water
supply facilities closer to users; (ii) stepping up the grouping of households
-xi-
into Imidugudu; (iii) monitoring the services provided and prices charged by
standpipe managers; and (iv) sensitizing users on domestic hygiene and the
cost of drinking water service.
Management of DWS systems: The government should expand the delegation
of DWS system management to private operators by: (i) encouraging private
investment to build facilities2; (ii) encouraging the upstream development of
civil engineering materials industry; (iii) continuing capacity building
activities3 in districts; and (iv) conducting studies on pricing adapted to poor
and vulnerable groups, including a survey on preparedness to pay.
Quality of water intended for consumption: The government should guarantee
the inherent quality of water intended for human consumption through
sufficient protection of water collection sites against pollution or the risk of
external pollution from human or agricultural sources.
Appropriate technologies for individual latrines: The government should
conduct studies to identify the most appropriate technologies (less expensive
and adapted to local conditions) than can help facilitate access by rural
communities to individual hygienic latrines.
Results-based monitoring and evaluation: The government should further
strengthen monitoring and evaluation in the sector by developing in each
district an integrated computerized data management system for the planning,
monitoring and evaluation of drinking water, sanitation and hygiene projects
and programmes.
To the Bank
Public-private partnerships for DWSS: In designing water and sanitation
projects, the Bank should consider a greater role for PPPs underpinned by
genuine competition among operators and an effective regulation system.
Balance of key DWSS components: The Bank should pay more attention to
sanitation and hygiene in rural DWSS projects in view of their positive effects
in improving health conditions.
Decentralization of DWSS services: The Bank should encourage the effective
decentralization of the DWSS sector in regional member countries, supported
by capacity building at the local level and performance contracts defined in a
participatory manner between local governments and the central government.
Support in the development of an integrated monitoring and evaluation system:
The Bank should back DWSS sector decentralization in Rwanda through
institutional support to develop at district level real integrated computerized
data management systems for the monitoring and evaluation of drinking water,
sanitation and hygiene projects and programmes.
2 Provide for contracts that go beyond leases. 3 Including the following three components: (i) creation of an enabling environment through general policy and the legal and regulatory
framework; (ii) institutional building, including community involvement; and (iii) human resources development, particularly through
education and training.
-1-
1. THE PROJECT
1. Country and Strategic Context
1.1.1 Situated in the Great Lakes region and spanning 26,338 square kilometres, Rwanda
is known for its several hills and steep mountains subject to severe erosion. The terrain rises
gradually from the east, where the average elevation is 1,250 meters, to the north and west,
where the end of the Congo Nile Divide lies (a mountain range of 2,200 to 3,000 meters) as
well as a chain of volcanoes with peaks of up to 4,507 meters. Rwanda enjoys a continental
equatorial climate and is divided into three climatic zones: (i) four high-altitude regions; (ii)
the Central Plateau region; and (iii) the Eastern plateau and Western lowlands.
1.1.2 With an estimated population of 10.3 million inhabitants4 in 2010 and population
density of approximately 390 inhabitants per square kilometre, Rwanda is one of the most
densely populated countries in Africa. The population growth rate averages approximately 3%
per year. The population is predominantly made up of women (54% compared to 46% men).
Following the war and the 1994 genocide, 40% of the country’s households are currently
headed by women. The illiteracy rate among the rural population, which represents 90% of
the total population, is 47%.
1.1.3 The country is currently subdivided into four provinces (North, South, East and
West), in addition to the city of Kigali, 30 districts, 416 sectors, 2,148 cells (groups of
villages) and 14,837 villages. Since the genocide, Rwanda has made considerable progress in
reconstruction and posted an impressive annual growth rate of 8% for the period 1996-2005.
After a decline in 2007, when poor climate conditions decreased agricultural production, the
GDP growth rate climbed to 11.2% in 2008 then slowed to 6.5% in 2010. Despite this
economic performance, the poverty level remains high and 57% of the population lived below
the poverty line (RWF 64,000, or approximately USD107) in 2005-2006, compared to 60% in
2000. Rwanda was ranked 152 out of 169 countries in the 2000 Human Development Index
(HDI).
1.1.4 Rwanda’s hydrographic network is dense: the Congo basin covers 24% of the
country and drains 10% of water, while the Nile basin covers 76% of the country and drains
90% of water. Water covers 8% of the national territory overall, hence the importance of the
country’s water resources. However, despite the availability of water and good rainfall in
Rwanda, access to drinking water was only about 41% in 2000, leaving some 4.9 million
persons without access to clean water. Moreover, daily water consumption per capita in rural
areas was estimated at 8.15 litres in 2003, which is well below the standard consumption per
capita of 20 litres. With regard to sanitation, while over 80% of the population own latrines,
only 8% of those facilities fulfil hygienic conditions.5 Accordingly, some 7.6 million persons
live in poor hygiene conditions often leading to water-borne diseases, one of the main causes
of infant mortality in Rwanda (119.6 per 1,000 live births in 2000). Lastly, Rwanda’s
geography is also marked by hilly, mountainous topography and extreme population
dispersion and dissemination, which are also factors impacting the delivery of rural water and
sanitation services.
2. Bank Context
1.2.1 The National Rural Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Programme (PNEAR) is
one of the earliest programmes of the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Initiative (RWSSI)
4 Comparative socioeconomic indicators, ADB Statistics Department, October 2011. 5 “Water and Sanitation Sector Policy,” October 2001, Ministry of Lands, Forestry, Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Rwanda.
-2-
launched in 2002 by the African Development Bank Group as part of its Strategic Plan 2003-
2007 in response to the Africa Water Vision and the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs). The initiative aims to speed up access to water supply and sanitation services in
Africa’s rural areas. An analysis of the investments in Rwanda highlights a focus of donor
interventions in the social, agriculture and good governance sectors at the expense of the
drinking water and sanitation sector. In that context and as part of the RWSSI, the programme
will not only develop rural water and sanitation infrastructure but also ensure its sustainability
and contribute to human resources development, private sector promotion and institutional
capacity building in the DWSS area.
1.2.2 In addition, the Bank Group’s assistance strategy for Rwanda (CSP 2002-2004)
focuses on poverty reduction and is based on the PRSP 2002 as well as the Rwandan
Government’s investment strategy. The PRSP identified six major priority areas: (i) rural
development and agricultural transformation; (ii) human resource development; (iii) economic
infrastructure development; (iv) private sector promotion; (v) reinforcement of good
governance; and (vi) institutional capacity building .
3. Sub-Programme Formulation
The PNEAR follows upon the interest expressed by the Rwandan government to be one of the
countries selected for the RWSSI launch phase. In response to the government’s request, an
AfDB appraisal mission defined the PNEAR as the programme that would help to achieve the
Initiative’s objectives in Rwanda.
4. Objectives and Scope at Appraisal
1.4.1 The sub-programme which is the subject of this retrospective evaluation is the launch
phase of the PNEAR. Its ultimate goal is to improve the living conditions of the rural
inhabitants of the project area, namely the North (Laves region and former Ruhengeri and
Byumba provinces), West (former Gisenyi and Kibuye provinces) and East (former Kibungo
Province) provinces. These areas were selected for the launch phase owing to the urgency of
needs, the high incidence of water-borne diseases (the cause of 50% of deaths6) and the
availability of technical studies allowing for prompt intervention. In terms of direct outcomes,
improvements were anticipated in the following areas: (i) permanent access to drinking water
supply (DWS) systems; (ii) access to sanitation systems; (iii) capacity to provide quality
drinking water supply and sanitation (DWSS) services in rural areas; (iv) sustainability of
local DWSS facilities in rural areas; (v) adoption of appropriate behaviours; (vi) the DWSS
sector planning as well as monitoring and evaluation system; and (vii) the financing of future
rural DWSS projects. These improvements were expected to help reduce: (i) the drudgery of
fetching water; (ii) the incidence of diseases related to water quality and sanitation; (iii) health
expenditure, etc. (see Intervention Logic in Annex 3).
1.4.2 The sub-programme includes four components: (i) the development of water supply
and sanitation infrastructure, (ii) capacity building, (iii) planning studies and tools, and (iv)
programme management.
6 PNEAR appraisal report.
-3-
II. RETROSPECTIVE EVALUATION
2.1 Evaluation Approach and Methodology
2.1.1 The goal of the evaluation is to help improve the Bank’s current or future operations,
policies and strategies by generating knowledge, information and recommendations. The
results of the evaluation will also serve as input to a broader study of the Bank’s effectiveness
in the water and sanitation sector to be undertaken by the OPEV High Level Evaluations
Division. Accordingly, the evaluation is based on the criteria adopted by the DAC7 for use in
evaluating development assistance activities: relevance, efficiency, efficacy, impact and
sustainability. Other development impacts, Borrower performance and Bank performance are
also reviewed. The evaluation also draws on Good Practice Standards for Evaluation of
Public-Sector Operations.8 The evaluation was conducted in four phases: (i) preparation of a
guidance paper; (ii) collection of preliminary data on the sub-programme outcomes and
impacts; (iii) field mission9; and (iv) analysis of information collected to prepare the initial
and final PPER.
2.1.2 From a methodological perspective, the evaluation was based on: (i) a review of
documents; (ii) interviews conducted with key actors; (iii) field visits in the sub-programme
areas; (iv) direct observations at water supply facilities and latrines to ascertain the
enforcement of good practices; and (v) a mini-survey organized to obtain missing information
needed to evaluate the sub-programme outcomes and impacts on the beneficiary communities.
The analysis was conducted essentially by comparing the current situation with the pre-
project situation. The choice of a comparative methodology was buttressed by the fact that the
Rwandan government opted to allocate a given geographical area to each donor involved in
the DWSS sector (thereby avoiding any overlap in the different interventions) and to attribute
the majority of outcomes observed in the project area to the sub-programme.
2.2 Availability and Use of Baseline Data and Key Outcome Indicators
2.2.1 Although the sub-programme design had provided only for indicators to measure
physical achievements and improved access to drinking water and sanitation – the key output
of a DWSS project –, a reduction in the prevalence of water-borne diseases had also been
mentioned as an outcome indicator.
2.2.2 The evaluation remodelled the intervention logic through a review of the objectives
and description of the expected outcomes, which presented challenges with regard to the
assessment of intermediate and long-term outcomes. In fact, weaknesses in the monitoring
and evaluation system considerably impacted the use of baseline data and key outcome
indicators. As a result, during the retrospective evaluation, the outcomes and impacts on the
final beneficiaries were analysed essentially through the results of the mini-survey of a sample
of households in the sub-programme area, supplemented by surveys conducted by the
Rwandan National Institute of Statistics (INS) and interviews and group discussions with the
stakeholders.
7 OECD Development Assistance Committee. 8 2001 Revised Edition, Third Draft of 22 May 2011. 9 Conducted in Rwanda during 18-29 July 2011.
-4-
III. IMPLEMENTATION PERFORMANCE
3.1 Adherence to Project Timeline and Costs
The project was implemented on schedule. The cost of the launch phase is estimated at RWF
12.90 billion, or UA 17.18 million. The launch phase was to be financed by an ADF grant in
the amount of UA 9 million, an ADF loan of UA 4 million, a government contribution of UA
2.63 million and a beneficiary contribution of UA 1.55 million. The committed ADF grant
amount was reduced to UA 5.6 million following the reallocation of UA 3.4 million to the
Ministry of Agriculture for the food crisis, in tune with an agreement between the Bank and
the Borrower. ADF grant and loan disbursements represented, respectively, 97% and 99% of
the committed amounts. The government contribution increased from UA 4.18 million to UA
5.44 million, that is, an increase of 30%, to finance rehabilitation work for the Mutera DWS
in the Nyabihu and Musanze districts; conduct of DWS studies for the Ngororero, Gakenke
and Gicumbi and districts; and the training of standpipe operators and recruitment of
technicians for the development of water sources.
3.2 Sub-Programme Management, Reporting, Monitoring and Evaluation
3.2.1 The project coordination unit (PCU) established within the Ministry of Infrastructure
(MININFRA) was provided the technical assistance necessary to implement the sub-
programme. The PCU is now fully honed, operational and effective, which enabled it to
launch the second sub-programme (PNEAR II). Regarding institutional and implementation
arrangements, the sub-programme was implemented in a decentralized context involving
community development committees (CDC10), the administrative bodies that were to assist
the districts, and the Community Development Fund (CDF11) – the purpose of which is to
finance the development projects of Kigali and its districts. Nevertheless, shortcomings were
observed in reporting and communication on the sub-programme. In the absence of an
adequate reporting system, the retrospective evaluation mission had difficulties obtaining
information on the use of funds allocated to the CDF. However, these inadequacies are being
addressed in the context of the second phase now underway.
3.2.2 The specialist hired to implement the programme monitoring and evaluation system
resigned and was not replaced until the second phase of the PNEAR, although the effective
implementation of a genuine monitoring and evaluation system during the launch phase
would have facilitated the effective monitoring of subsequent operations. The findings and
recommendations of a thematic study (conducted by a consulting firm) intended to improve
the sector’s management have yet to be operationalized. Moreover, the sectoral nature of the
monitoring and evaluation function limited data collection on the outcomes and impacts
attributable to the launch phase, given that the latter focused only on DWS infrastructure
rather than on all the performance indicators planned in the appraisal report.
3.3 Overall Implementation Performance
The sub-programme was implemented within the required four years (2005-2009) with
satisfactory quality of works. The aggregate implementation performance is rated satisfactory.
The PCU, made operational and effective through technical assistance, managed the project
with coordination provided by a programme monitoring committee comprised of all water
sector actors. The Bank’s supervision missions identified prompt, relevant solutions to
problems raised. However, communication and monitoring-evaluation needs improvement in
subsequent phases. Aggregate implementation performance is rated satisfactory.
10 The CDCs serve as focal points for community development issues (as well as the cells, sectors and districts). 11 Now the Rwanda Local Development Support Fund (RLDSF).
-5-
IV. KEY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND RATINGS
4.1. Key Evaluation Observations
a) Relevance and Quality at Entry
4.1.1 Relevance: The rural drinking water supply and sanitation sub-programme addresses
a genuine need of the rural population facing a renewed outbreak of water-borne diseases
(diarrhoea, schistosomiasis, cholera, typhus, skin and eye disorders, etc.) caused by poor
water quality and deficient sanitation (malaria and parasites). The sub-programme is part of
the Rwandan Government’s water and sanitation sector policy as well as sector strategy,
validated in 1997 by all sector stakeholders and donors including the Bank and confirmed at
the 2001 roundtable on the PRSP. It remains relevant to Rwanda’s 2004 water and sanitation
sector policy, which is consistent with the national economic development and poverty
reduction strategy (EDPRS 2008-2012) and international and regional objectives. It is part of
a vast programme spanning16 years that aims to achieve Rwanda’s MDGs and Vision 2020
and for which the water sector is the third pillar. The sub-programme uses a local community
demand-driven approach, which is consistent with the government’s decentralization policy
implementation strategy, adopted on 26 May 2000 and whose establishment and
implementation is underpinned by operational community entities such as the CDC and CDF.
The approach aims to increase beneficiary involvement in defining and implementing DWSS
sub-projects and in managing facilities through decentralized entities established by the
government.
4.1.2 The sub-programme objectives are consistent with the Bank’s priorities and falls
within the scope of the RWSSI. The sub-programme is also aligned with the Bank’s strategy
for Rwanda (CSP 2002-2004), which recommended, inter alia, assistance to the economic
infrastructure and sector through the expansion of water supply, sanitation and electrification
as well as transportation in order to improve the living standards of the Rwandan population
and help reduce the cost of production of utilities. The overall relevance of the PNEAR is
rated highly satisfactory.
4.1.3 Quality at entry: The Bank’s support in the rural water supply and sanitation sector
in Rwanda prioritized an approach that fosters long-term commitment between Rwanda and
development partners and is local community demand-driven. The choice of a programme
combining loans and grants is appropriate in Rwanda’s development context. The strategy
used to achieve the objectives blends the construction and rehabilitation of water supply and
sanitation infrastructure, capacity building for stakeholders, studies and the development of
planning tools.
4.1.4 The programme design incorporated lessons drawn from past experiences in
implementing DWSS projects. In this regard, the programme recommended a participatory
approach, consistent with the objectives of the decentralization policy being implemented in
Rwanda. The sub-programme also drew on lessons regarding the ineffective community
management of DWSS systems in Rwanda by opting for infrastructure management by
private operators in the context of PPPs in rural areas. However, consideration of the need to
develop an upstream industry capable of meeting the needs in civil engineering materials is
yet to yield any action. Also, in terms of the water-sanitation balance, PNEAR I did not
sufficiently incorporate the issue of sanitation and hygiene. In fact, despite the presence of
wastewater disposal facilities at the level of DWS facilities and several collective latrines,
most of the communities covered still have unhygienic latrines which, by virtue of their
-6-
location, could contaminate water sources. Moreover, the issue of treating water from
developed sources was not explicitly addressed, while the use of disinfectants and water
boiling are not firmly established as household habits. The sub-programme design also did not
include IEC campaigns on the application of good health practices and water use.
4.1.5 The sub-programme under its component “Planning studies and tools” had provided
for the services of a consulting firm to produce a national inventory of rural DWSS
infrastructure, an infrastructure database, a programme monitoring and evaluation system and
social and environmental impact studies. Overall, quality at entry is rated satisfactory.
b) Efficacy (Achievement of Objectives and Outcomes)
Achievement and quality of outputs
4.1.6 Physical achievements: The sub-programme achieved most of the planned outputs.
Physical achievements often exceeded the planned levels and on schedule. The first programme
phase helped to construct/rehabilitate a total of two major water supply systems (Mutobo Basse
and Mutera) and four medium-sized systems (Rwamagana-Kayonza, Karushya/Ruzizi,
Nyanza/Karagari and Rutomvu) and developed 1,084 water sources and points and 25 rainwater
collection systems (360 cubic meter capacity) for public establishments and individuals. Most of
the networks are gravity-based, on account of the hilly terrain and the ability to harness springs
with high flow rates. Regarding sanitation, 2,120 family latrines and 25 public toilet blocks were
built, most of them for schools. Two biogas systems and composters were also built in two
schools.
4.1.7 The quality of the water supply systems is rated highly satisfactory. Direct field
observations and interviews with stakeholders, including district and infrastructure managers,
indicate that the networks and associated works are of good quality in terms of structure design
and type as well as functionality. The evaluation mission did not note any major repairs or
rebuilding apart from waterproofing of the reservoir in Rwamagana, which is still under the
builder’s warranty. The standpipes (both standalone taps and water kiosks) are built according to
standards and most of them include water meters. However, in light of the high pressure at which
the water flows through the network, the standpipes had to be equipped with a special device to
avoid the eruption of meters. The quality of the developed sources is also rated highly
satisfactory.
-7-
4.1.8 With regard to sanitation, the individual latrines are of
ventilated improved pit (VIP) design12 with angled access (no door)
and ventilation by means of the tube installed inside the latrine,
rather than outside, in order to evacuate/suck out odours more
quickly.13 This shortcoming will be addressed under PNEAR II by
the construction of latrines closer to the standard VIP model, with
doors and ventilation tubes installed outside the structure. The
collective latrines constructed are ECOSAN-modelled.
4.1.9 Difficulties in the use and maintenance of certain sub-programme structures became
clear, demonstrating the rationale of post-project monitoring. For
example, the ECOSAN latrines built at the Saint Catherine of
Kanogo Groupe Scolaire (nine-year school). (Muhororodu sector,
Ngororero district) were put to use only three weeks prior to the
mission’s visit because the individual trained in the management and
use of this type of latrine had in the meantime been transferred. In
addition, regarding the biogas system installed at the Nyamirama
secondary school (Kayonza district), the mission’s presence triggered
the system’s repair, which had been out of order for several days. On
the other hand, the management and maintenance of the biogas
systems serving the Notre Dame du Bon Conseil Groupe Scolaire is
rated highly satisfactory.
4.1.10 Planning studies and tools and promotion of the rural DWS
initiative: The inventory of DWS facilities intended to improve the
management of the systems is in progress. Also, the systematic
preparation of water system plans and implementation studies for
subsequent programme tranches (detailed design and bid documents)
is already complete, prior to the launch of the sub-programme, to avoid any delay in
implementation. A thematic study intended to improve management of the water and sanitation
sector in three phases14 has been conducted; implementation of the study’s recommendations is
still limited, particularly those concerning the monitoring and evaluation of project and
programme outcomes. Because of the dispersed nature of information systems relating to the
sector, 15 the decentralization process provides an opportunity to establish computerized
monitoring and evaluation data management systems within the district on drinking water supply,
sanitation and hygiene and make the information available to the various stakeholders. Finally,
the reports of technical studies for the second phase are being approved, and some second-phase
activities have already begun.
4.1.11 The achievements of outputs is rated satisfactory.
Achievement of Direct Outcomes (short-term)
4.1.12 Improvement of Sustainable Access to Drinking Water Systems: The sub-programme
provided sustainable access to drinking water to close to 495,62316 individuals instead of the
12 The average unit cost of the individual latrines is RWF 135,000, or approximately USD240, which is beyond the means of rural
households. 13 The toilet plan provided to the districts for implementation under the Ubudehe approach provided that the pipes would be externally
contiguous to the wall. 14 (i) Preparation of a national water and sanitation service inventory; (ii) preparation of a management information system (MIS) for the
sector; and (iii) design of a monitoring-evaluation system and preparation of procedures. 15 MININFRA for DWSS infrastructures; the Ministry of Environment and Lands (MINELA) for resources; the Ministry of Health (MOH)
for morbidity and, in conjunction with the Ministry of Education (MINEDUC), hygiene. 16 Of which: 107,410 for Mutobo Basse, 38,562 for Mutera, 37,295 for Rwamagana, 57,084 for the three medium-size DWSs and 255,276
for the improved sources – for an estimated total population of roughly 3.3 million in the area targeted by the programme start-up phase.
Photo 1: Standalone standpipe with
meter –Rurengeri Unit, Nyabihu
District (Mutera DWS)
Photo 2: Ngororero District - old
unhygienic latrine
Photo 3: Individual latrine with angled
access for privacy (clean and odor-free)
built by PNEAR-I
-8-
Photo 4: Developed source–Ngororero District
270,000 planned, or an increase of 99% relative to the initial objective (a portion of beneficiary
users had poor water supply conditions). The results of the mini-survey conducted in June 201117
on a sample of 243 households in the sub-programme indicate significant changes in the means
of water supply to rural households. The natural sources (undeveloped sources, rivers, lakes,
ponds, etc.), which had been the main means of supply (82% of households) prior to 2005,
served only 32% of households in 2011. The use of developed sources increased from 8% prior
to 2005 to 28% in 2011, while water obtained from standpipes (both purchased and free)
increased from 7% to 36% over the same period.
4.1.13 The trend features an increase in the use of water from standpipes and developed
sources at the expense of undeveloped water supplies. However, a large proportion of
households continue to use natural sources as an alternative. These households maintain a
portion of their traditional modes of supply according to the use to be made of the water (cooking,
bathing, laundry, dishwashing, etc.). Moreover, despite the fact that the fees charged for water at
private/individual standpipes are generally lower than at those tended by an operator, 18
individual connections are still quite marginal relative to public standpipes. This situation is the
result of relatively high service connection charges.19
4.1.14 DWS systems managers estimate that drinking water consumption is currently below
the capacities supplied (available), particularly since the dimensions of the facilities were based
on the assumption of an average daily per capita consumption of 20 litres, in accordance with
standards used in studies. This is particularly the case in Rwamagana, where the EWSA allocates
most of the additional capacity supplied by the sub-programme (500 cubic meters per day) to the
urban network in view of weak rural demand, despite the fact that the production station installed
two parallel pipes, one for the rural area and the other for the urban area. Also, with respect to the
medium-size DWS in Nyanza-Karangali, excess water flows into the wilds continually from the
Kiruhura and Gahama sources, even in the dry season. The objective of stepping up daily water
consumption per capita from 8 litres in 2005 to 20 litres in 2008 is far from achieved. The
situation observed on the field is that actual average daily consumption per capita in the sub-
programme area is still about 11 litres20 (a daily range of 10-12
litres, or about 2½ to 3 jerry cans of 20-litre capacity per day for
an average household of five persons).
4.1.15 The current low water consumption among users could
be the result of several factors, including: (i) hygiene habits,
which have progressed little in recent years; and (ii) access to
water supply facilities, which are still located far from
households (averaging over 600 meters) and have only slightly
reduced the burden of collecting water. Added to this are the
issues of complementary use of other sources (free and fairly
abundant) and of rates in rural areas where water is considered
expensive, especially for users accustomed to paying nothing or a flat token fee for water – the
cost of water sold at the standpipes is generally RWF 20 per jerry can and can be as high as RWF
30 for the same system,21 despite the advertised official price of RWF 10-15 per jerry can.
17 The mini-survey was conducted during 21-30 June 2011 in a sample of villages within the area covered by the project. 18 Water is supplied to private connections at the same price charged by standpipe operators, which impacts the return on the price per jerry
can of water purchased from public standpipes. 19 At about RWF 100,000, a connection is beyond the means of most rural households. 20 Corroborated by an analysis of data for: (i) volumes of water sold by network operators to standpipe managers; (ii) volumes of water
sold by standpipe manages to users; and (iii) the mini-survey. 21 While a standpipe is considered an ordinary customer that is charged a special rate (RWF 240 per cubic meter regardless of
consumption).
-9-
4.1.16 Rwanda refers to the World Health Organization (WHO) standards with regard to the
quality of water intended for human consumption. Quality controls of water collected, produced
and distributed are performed under different conditions depending on the size and complexity of
the DWS system concerned. Controls are performed daily for large systems that include
treatment plants. For small and medium-size systems, ad hoc quality tests are performed through
the analysis of samples collected once or twice each year according to the size and location of
sources. The results of March 2011 analyses by the EWSA covering all the networks nationwide
indicate that over 90% of the water produced and distributed is safe for drinking, although
several cases of illness were reported following leaks in the network. EWSA’s annual objectives
are to conduct at least two samplings and analyses per year for each rural source and daily testing
for urban sources. However, the current limited capacity of the EWSA laboratory could limit if
not prevent the achievement of this objective.22
4.1.17 Although water from developed sources does not require treatment, there is
nevertheless the general risk of contamination of collection points for water intended for human
consumption (seepage from latrines, leaching of fertilizers and pesticides from soil). This risk
arises in particular from the large proportion of latrines deemed of poor quality and the existence
of housing on hill tops and slopes. The sources supplying the water systems, which are not
regularly analysed, should therefore be protected, for example by delimiting the perimeters of
standpipes and collection areas and prohibiting the occupation of those areas. In fact, the
appraisal and the Strategic Environmental and Social Impact Assessment revealed that the water
springs and catchment areas were not adequately protected against external pollution, and the
protection perimeters were not defined or applied for a number of the sources. At the same time,
according to the findings of the mini-survey, the proportion of households using disinfectants
remains low among users of developed sources (9%). Similarly, more than three out of four
households (76%) using this source of water consumed unboiled water.
4.1.18 Access to Improved Sanitation Systems: In total, 16,200 persons were provided with
individual or collective hygienic latrines in the Ngororero, Karongi and Rutsiro districts. The
individual latrines benefited the most vulnerable families. However, the collective latrines built
by the sub-programme were not systematically equipped with hand-washing facilities (as
observed in the Saint Catherine of Kanogo Groupe Scolaire). Although the great majority of
households in the sub-programme area (98%) use latrines (often with walls and most of which
have roofs), the majority of them are in poor condition (57%) and classified by the Ministry of
Health as unhygienic (a simple hole in the ground with no mechanism to prevent seepage of
urine and faecal matter).
4.1.19 Improvement of Stakeholders’ Capacity to Provide Quality DWSS Services in Rural
Areas: The sub-programme improved the management of DWSS systems by promoting PPPs
owing to the failure of the community management model (see Box 1). In fact, most of the
facilities made available by the sub-programme are managed by other than community entities,23
which ensures that the water supply equipment and facilities are operated in an appropriate and
sustainable manner.
22 An upgrade of the central laboratory’s physical capacity is underway, and redeployment of the central laboratory and five regional
laboratories is under review. 23 The EWSA, for Mutobo Basse and Rwamagana (the rate charged at standpipes is RWF 240 per cubic meter regardless of consumption).
The sale of water to users at standpipes is handled by private operators, who theoretically charge rates negotiated with the EWSA, although the rates vary in practice according to demand and standpipe location.
Aquavirunga S.A.R.L for the Mutera DWS, pursuant to a delegated management contract (with a 14-year term) which comes very close to a
lease contract. The operator enters into contracts with standpipe managers who are compensated primarily on the basis of volume of water sold. The Rutomvu DWS is managed by the Association de Techniciens Fontainiers, a cooperative that distributes water practically free at the
standpipes, although the users are charged a flat quarterly fee of RWF 360. This social-interest rate does not cover the cooperative’s expenses, but financial equilibrium is maintained by virtue of other subscribers (private standpipes and other facilities outside the project scope that charge higher rates).
The medium-size DWSs at Karushya-Rusizi and Nyanza-Karangari are still under community management pending the conclusion of
the process of hiring a private operator, which is now underway.
-10-
4.1.20 The management systems proved effective as a whole in the start-up phase, offering
improved, reliable service as the main
advantage (regular supply to beneficiaries
of adequate quality and quantity of
drinking water). However, the evaluation
noted a real risk that non-standard rates
charged, notably by standpipe managers,
would limit households’ consumption of
drinking water. This situation is the result
of lack of regulation and control
mechanisms (by the districts and/or user
associations) of the services provided and
prices charged, particularly at standpipes.
4.1.21 The sub-programme also
improved local project planning and
implementation processes. In keeping
with the decentralization policy instituted
by the government, the funds allocated
for the construction of latrines for
vulnerable families and improvement of
sources were transferred to the districts via the Rwanda Local Development Support Fund
(RLDSF). This approach involved the direct financing of each cell to implement a project
identified and analysed by local community members. This approach enabled the corresponding
works to be implemented quickly under the “Ubudehe”24 community approach, and above all, it
guaranteed close beneficiary involvement and ownership of the projects. This was a pioneering
experience in the decentralized financing of works, although there were a number of problems
with regard to reporting. In fact, PNEAR’s Coordination Unit did not have formal reports on the
achievements in the districts with sub-programme financing for which the funds had transited
through the RLDSF.
4.1.22 Adoption of Suitable Behaviours: Overcoming the challenge of improving access to
drinking water and sanitation services is not merely a question of providing facilities. It is for
this reason that, in addition to the construction of facilities, the sub-programme provided for
information, education and communication (IEC) and awareness actions as well as capacity
building for stakeholders. In terms of IEC, however, the first phase focused on adherence to
the sub-programme and the sizing of facilities. The actions intended to encourage appropriate
behaviours were limited, although the management systems established for the large and
medium-sized DWS promoted the efficient use of water (avoiding spills around collective
water supply points) and adherence to the rules governing the service (particularly payment
for services).
4.1.23 Good hygienic practices (for example, washing hands with soap, especially before
meals and breastfeeding and after using the toilet) do not appear to have taken hold in the
local communities’ daily habits despite several isolated IEC actions by the Ministry of Health.
The mini-survey indicated that hand washing with soap before handling food and after using
the toilet was observed in only 47% and 50% of households, respectively. Also, 60% of
households washed their hands carefully with soap after changing a baby’s diaper. Finally,
only in 35% of households did women wash their hands with soap before breastfeeding. It is
24 Ubudehe is a traditional form of mutual assistance that operates at the lowest administrative level (cell) and brings together all the
community members to assess their socioeconomic conditions, define priorities and decide on the actions and resources needed to
improve their well-being.
Box 1: Evolution of DWS systems management in Rwanda
Community management was implemented in Rwanda during
1987 to 1994, and community water management boards were
established in all the districts based on the grouping of
standpipe users into committees whose members were elected
from among the users. The community management model
very quickly showed its limits: (i) volunteering among water
point committee members, (ii) lack of technical skills (lack of
professionalism), (ii) absence of user responsibility, reflecting
non-ownership of facilities, (iv) failure of users to pay fees on
regular basis, and (v) poor financial management (including
embezzlement of a portion of the funds). As a result of this
situation and the lack of skills, accountability and funds, the
water systems were poorly maintained. A 2004 evaluation of
DWSS infrastructure management concluded that the
community management model had failed. Rwanda essentially
abandoned this management method and adopted a private-
operator management method under PPPs, which was
encouraged by the government, under this arrangement, the
local authorities (districts) are the system owners by virtue of
the powers vested on them in the decentralization process.
-11-
worth noting that the sanitation sub-sector is covered in cooperation with the Health ministry,
which plays a critical role in household sanitation and hygiene promotion. The involvement of
this ministry in cooperation with PNEAR is essential to promote the adoption of good
practices.
4.1.24 Availability of Reliable Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Data for the Sector
and its Use in Decision-Making: Several activities were conducted to establish a water and
sanitation project database, prepare a situation assessment in rural areas and compile a reliable
national inventory of water supply facilities. However, the current information system is
fragmented and does not allow for decision-making based on the effective monitoring of the
project and programme outcomes and impacts on beneficiaries, particularly women and
children.
Achievement of Intermediate Outcomes (short and medium term)
4.1.25 Reduced Water Fetching Drudgery: The results of the mini-survey indicate that the
average time (to and fro) spent fetching water was reduced by 45 minutes25 for the Mutobo
Basse, Rwamagana and Mutera DWSs; 13 minutes for the three medium-sized DWSs; and
nearly 2 minutes for developed sources. Thus, contrary to the completion report, which credited
the sub-programme with savings of about three hours spent on water “chores” owing to the
proximity of homes to water fetching points, the evaluation noted a more modest overall
reduction of 26 minutes. On average, households in the sub-programme area still devote half an
hour to collecting water.
4.1.26 The phenomenon of long wait times26 is developing at standpipes and kiosks (Photo 5).
This situation reflects the local communities’ eagerness to
utilize quality resources whereas the number of standpipes is
still limited. In addition, a number of communities located
outside the system’s perimeter and not initially targeted by the
sub-programme have been using the standpipes for their
water supplies. Finally, water drudgery is compounded by the
effort and energy required to transport the contents of a 20- to
22.5-litre jerry can in areas where water sources are located in
valleys at the foot of hills and mountains whereas some
homes are located uphill.
4.1.27 In terms of distance, the households served by the large DWSs saw a significant
reduction in the average distance travelled to fetch water. The distance declined from an average
of 1,858 meters to 648 meters, which is still well above the standard distance of 250 meters. For
developed sources, the distance between the sources and homes was not significantly reduced
because the communities already used most of those sources before they were developed. The
excessive dispersion of homes and communities over the Rwandan countryside diminishes the
government’s efforts and represents a major challenge to the supply of drinking water to rural
areas, hence the need to step up the grouping of families into “Imidugudu.”27
4.1.28 Reduced Incidence of Diseases Related with Water and Sanitation: The experience of
the Bukure sector (supplied by the Nyanza-Karagari DWS) is particularly instructive in this
regard: the inhabitants used water from the nearby lake, the main source of schistosomiasis
25 According to a UNICEF study (1998), roughly 50% of households spend a minimum of 30 minutes each day collecting a 20-liter jerry
can of water, and one-fourth spend more than an hour – cited in the appraisal report, page 23. 26 The standards provide for 20 minutes’ waiting time at standpipes; the wait is often longer at peak times and may be as long as one hour. 27 Imidugudu are rural villages with a minimum of 100 households, or about 500 persons (Imidugudu is the plural of Umidugudu).
Photo 5: Waiting queue at a water kiosk in the
Rwamagana DRW
-12-
outbreaks reported in the area. A survey of a sample of pupils conducted by the Rwesero health
centre had identified 70% of schistosomiasis cases. In reality, however, given the high rate of
refusal to consult among the community, health centre managers estimate that 80% of the
population had been infected with schistosomiasis prior to the project. Discussions with the
health centre manager and other key informants clearly revealed that when the sub-programme
rendered safe drinking water available and access to lake water was prohibited, the rate declined
to nearly 2%.
4.1.29 For the other main diseases (malaria, intestinal parasites and diarrhoea), the results of
the mini-survey and the various household surveys conducted by the INS indicated reduced
morbidity following the implementation of PNEAR I. The conclusions are based on the
prevalence of various water-borne diseases prior to the project, presented in Table 3 of Annex 9.
4.1.30 Health and other Benefits of the Sub-Programme: According to the various
stakeholders including beneficiaries, the population’s permanent access to family and
collective sanitation facilities had a positive impact on the living conditions of the rural
populations. The benefits of the different interventions are assessed in terms of gains: (i)
direct benefits associated with the reduced number of water-borne disease cases, and (ii)
direct and indirect benefits associated with the general improvement of the population’s
health status.
4.1.31 By applying, for example, the 19% reduction in disease prevalence at completion of
DWSS works, as from 2010, it is estimated that a maximum of RWF 104 million was saved
in treatment costs and RWF 2.5 million in transportation to medical centres. Similarly, a
maximum of RWF 9 million is saved annually corresponding to the total value of working
days an adult or child of school-going age would have lost due to water-borne diseases and
which the sub-programme helped to avoid. Finally, the value of time saved in terms of the
reduced drudgery of fetching water represents close to RWF 10.3 million per year.
4.1.32 At the same time, the installation of biogas units in two schools had a significant
economic and environmental impact at each of the sites concerned. At the Bon Conseil
secondary school, the impact of biogas reportedly (i) reduced by close to 75% spending on
fuel wood; (ii) induced substantial savings in expenditure devoted to emptying septic tanks
(once per quarter); and (iii) a threefold increase in vegetable production through the use of
organic fertilizer from biogas. It also significantly reduced unpleasant odours that had been
the source of conflict with residents around the schools. More specifically, the replacement of
the 20 cubic meters of fuel wood consumed weekly by the school resulted in savings of RWF
2.9 million per year. For the septic tank, the biogas system yielded a savings of RWF 900,000,
initially devoted to emptying the septic tanks.
4.1.33 Increased Sustainability of Local DWS Institutions in Rural Areas: With regard to
technical and financial management, the takeover of DWSS infrastructure management by
private operators in rural areas has increased since five out of the six project water supply
systems are managed following this model28 and another is following suit. The effectiveness
and professionalism of this management method compared to the traditional method29 are
clear. As a result, the volumes of water sales at the project standpipes30 are not the same and,
28 The facilities belong to the districts which, as part of promotion and establishment of public-private partnerships, award a contract for
DWSS systems management to private operators selected following competitive bidding. 29 The different management systems noted are: Cooperative management by standpipe operators; management of facilities by EWSA and
standpipes by private operators; and management of facilities and sale of water at standpipes [operators] by private enterprises. 30 The rates may range from near-zero rates for cooperatives (flat quarterly fee of RWF 360) to what are sometimes excessive rates charged
at privately managed standpipes (up to RWF 1500 per cubic meter for EWSA and private standpipe operators), with an average of RWF
667 for the Aquavirunga private operator.
-13-
in a context in which all DWS systems in the district are awarded to a single operator, it is
supposed to improve the financial returns for private operators. Some of the prices charged
were not within the reach of users given the lack of a real equalization system.
Achievement of Impacts (Long-term outcomes)
4.1.34 It follows from group discussions that beneficiaries attribute the improvement in
their living standards to the sub-programme, which increased the beneficiaries’ access to
sustainable drinking water and sanitation services, thereby reducing water-borne disease and
recurrent expenses. The sub-programme also helped to create jobs (standpipe operators,
masons, etc.) during the implementation of community works under the Ubudehe approach.
For example, the sub-programme’s impact is reflected in the considerable increase in
membership of mutual health associations (from 60% to 80% in Ngororero) in the districts, at
the population could afford annual contributions with income earned through the sub-
programme. The incomes of standpipe operators also increased since they were paid on
average of 20% of revenue collected.31
4.1.35 In light of the foregoing, the efficacy of PNEAR I is rated satisfactory overall.
c) Efficiency
4.1.36 The economic analysis of the various DWSS systems (see Annex 9), conducted using
a methodology patterned after the WHO cost-benefit analysis, 32 is akin to the ex-ante
evaluation and completion analysis but uses different assumptions. It covers 90% of the total
cost allocated by the sub-programme to infrastructure development (RWF 8.36 billion). The
internal economic rate of return (IERR) is estimated at 17.8% for a net present value (NPV) of
RWF 2.6 billion, compared to 26% and RWF 7.2 billion at the ex-ante evaluation and 27%
and RWF 22.59 billion at completion respectively. The IERR is greater than the opportunity
cost of capital, which shows that the sub-programme is economically viable. The current
lower values of the IERR and NPV are attributable, inter alia, to the basic assumption of a
daily consumption per capita of 20 litres considered at the time of ex-ante evaluation and
reaffirmed at completion; this proved inconsistent with the actual situation on the ground.
Even if the survey data indicate greater reductions, the cost-benefit analysis used a more
conservative assumption of a maximum 19% reduction suggested by a summary of
international evaluation impact studies.33
4.1.37 The analysis of sub-programme sensitivity test results shows that the sub-programme
is resilient to the variation of the various parameters used, retaining the rate of returns at a
higher level than the economic opportunity cost of capital and with NPV at acceptable levels,
which confirms the sub-programme’s economic viability. In terms of cost efficiency, the
analysis of unit costs per person supplied by the sub-programme (Annex 9, Table 5) shows
that the sub-programme unit costs compare favourably with those of other DWS projects in
Rwanda and Africa.
4.1.38 The financial analysis confirms that overall, DWS projects are not financially
profitable due to the relatively high cost of initial investments which, in the case of Rwanda,
were covered by the government (with support from international donors) and in accordance
31 To offset potential low earnings by standpipe operators, the sub-programme introduced water kiosks, which afford operators the
opportunity to operate a small store (selling groceries, soap, salt, gas, etc.), which also requires them to be continually present to provide
uninterrupted service to users. 32 WHO/OMS, (Guy Hutton, Laurence Haller) - Evaluation of the Costs and Benefits of Water and Sanitation Improvements at the Global
Level, Geneva, 2004. 33 Lorna Fewtrell & Jack Colford, Water and hygiene interventions to reduce diarrhea in less developed countries: a systematic review and
meta-analysis.
-14-
with national policy. This leaves a sufficient margin for an effective public-private partnership
expected to reduce the government’s burden. An analysis of the financial statements of
several private operators 34 indicated that their financial positions were weak and would
require increased consumption of drinking water to break even.
d) Institutional Development Impact
4.1.39 The grant and loan agreements pertaining to the sub-programme provided for three
key conditions: (i) the signature of an enabling decree for the Sanitation Code, (ii) the
adoption of the water resources management law,35 and (iii) the establishment of a national
rural drinking water and sanitation agency. The establishment of the Rwandan Energy, Water
and Sanitation Authority (EWS)36 in December 2010, which addresses that sub-programme
condition, had an important institutional impact, particularly regarding the new sharing of
roles between two key stakeholders.37 The integration of the PNEAR’s Project Coordination
Unit and other ministry project implementation units within the EWSA pooled the rural
DWSS projects implementation capacities into a single, national DWSS projects and
programmes management unit. In addition, the establishment of EWSA instituted new
competition conditions between “private” operators entrusted with the management of rural
DWSS services. In effect, EWSA is tasked with managing DWSS systems that have treatment
plants and predominantly urban networks. For new rural supply systems, it is up to the district,
which is the project owner and manager, to opt for the “private” management mode (which
must be (i) management entrusted to the EWSA or (ii) management delegated to a private
entrepreneur).
4.1.40 The sub-programme also helped to improve monitoring and evaluation of the sector,
especially through a facilities database currently being consolidated. The database is also an
important policy planning, evaluation and adaptation tool. The sub-programme also helped to
build the capacity of public and private actors responsible for the design, implementation and
management of facilities as well as raising awareness among the population on issues relating
to the project. However, for want of an enabling decree for the Sanitation Code, the regulatory
authority (RURA) 38 has yet to establish prices, develop service quality standards or
implement performance monitoring for operators of the sector. Overall, the sub-programme
institutional development impact is rated satisfactory.
e) Other Development Impacts
4.1.41 Impact on Gender: The sub-programme
improved the living conditions and social standing of
women and young girls. Given that responsibility for
supplying rural households with drinking water falls
essentially to women and young girls, who represent
close to 53% of the total population of the sub-
programme area, the reduction of time spent
collecting water, while modest, enabled this segment
of society to devote time to other income-generating
activities (farming and stock breeding, handicraft activities, petty trade, etc.). In addition, the
34 Rwanda: Delegation of the management of the rural systems to private sector. 35 Law 62/2008 of 10 September 2008 (see Official Journal OG No. 17 of 27 April 2009). 36 The EWSA (Office rwandais pour le développement de l’énergie, l’eau et de l’assainissement) is a public institution with independent
legal status and financial and administrative autonomy. 37 The EWSA is now responsible for the construction and management of urban and rural infrastructures, and the Ministry’s responsibility
is limited to defining the sector policy framework and the associated monitoring and evaluating. 38 The Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Authority (RURA) was created by Law 39/2001 of 15 October 2001 to regulate telecommunications,
electricity, gas, water, sanitation and transportation.
Photo 6: Young girls carrying jerry cans of water on their heads
-15-
installation of wash tubs at developed water sources spared women the physical effort of
carrying water for laundry. In addition, the community approach (Ubudehe) adopted for
programme implementation enabled women to participate actively in decision-making.
4.1.42 However, certain constraints limit women’s participation in the sector’s development
in Rwanda, including: (i) the shortage of female managers specializing in DWSS, (ii) lack of
actions designed to promote women’s increased involvement, (iii) shortage of specialists in
gender, water and sanitation, (iv) inadequate directives and procedures for gender
mainstreaming in the sector and (v) the absence of gender-sensitive budgets.
4.1.43 Mitigation of the Effects of Climate Change: Rwanda is exposed to extreme climate
events whose intensity, frequency and adverse effects (flooding, erosion and drought such as
El Niño and La Niña episodes), accentuated by the country’s topography, also reduce the
quantity and quality of water resources. The management systems put in place for large and
medium-size DWSs promote judicious water use (avoiding spills around collective water
points). This efficient use of water under the sub-programme is a means of adaptation to
climate change. The situation is different, however, in areas with multiple sources of water
(potable and non-potable) where inhabitants are less predisposed to pay. In these areas where
payment takes the form of a flat fee, users appear to consume water with less parsimony. For
example, in the Gitabe Umudugudu (Kayenzi cell, Rulindo district), the evaluation mission
observed continuously running taps. In addition, the desired expansion of the network of
standpipes and storage reservoirs is a measure to mitigate a possible drop in pressure that
could lead to long waiting lines at standpipes.
f) Sustainability and Inherent Development Outcome Risks
4.1.44 Technical Sustainability: The project’s technical soundness is ensured by the quality of
infrastructure maintenance and management by private operators under a relatively successful
PPP framework.
4.1.45 Sustainable Borrower Commitment (including legal/regulatory framework): The
Borrower’s commitment is evident in the implementation of a policy, legal and administrative
framework, reflected in the adoption of a number of policies, laws and strategies39 favourable to
DWS. In addition, the signature of performance management contracts between the President of
the Republic and district authorities40 on behalf of the citizens is an authentically Rwandan
response to local development demands and attests to the Borrower’s commitment. However, the
institutional environment also includes mandates to various institutions involved in the sector,
which require appropriate cooperation or operational coordination provisions. This is particularly
evident in the sanitation sub-sector, where responsibility is shared with the Ministry of Health.
4.1.46 Socio-political Support: Political commitment through effective decentralization can be
expected to guarantee the systems’ sustainability. However, owing to weak capacity at the
decentralized level (lack of organization and employee turnover), additional capacity building is
needed at the local level. In addition, the communities are closely involved in the design and
implementation of the sub-programme, which has increased the sense of ownership.
39 Notably, (i)the water and sanitation sector policy and strategy in 2004; (ii) the integrated water resource management (GIRE) policy of
1998; (iii) the decentralization policy; (iv) the framework law on modalities of protecting, preserving and promoting Rwanda’s
environment (2005); and (v) the Rwandan government’s poverty reduction strategy and Vision 2020. 40 The municipal authorities’ commitment is publicly evidenced by a contract establishing the development objectives and performance
indicators the local authorities agree to achieve. In return, the central government agrees to support the local governments in achieving
their objectives.
-16-
4.1.47 Economic Sustainability: The analysis of the results of sub-programme sensitivity tests
confirm the lasting economic benefits of the sub-programme and therefore its economic viability.
4.1.48 Financial Sustainability: The financial analysis showed that the financial return rate for
the various DWS systems implemented by the sub-programme was less than the discount rate.
This is essentially due to the current low consumption levels relative to standards and the high
costs of the initial investments. Given that in the private management system adopted for the
sub-programme, the communities’ water consumption is a key factor in the operator’s revenue,
an increase in consumption would likely improve the sub-programme’s financial sustainability.
In addition, the cost of water for the local population could be an impediment to the development
of facilities and the financial return on operations, particularly in the abovementioned private
management context and the necessity of generating profits. The mini-survey indicates that a
substantial portion of the population finds potable water expensive (40%), even very expensive
(48% of households report they are unable to pay for water). Even if such statements were made
in protest, the facts reveal that certain households continue to use poor quality water even if safe
drinking water is available. 41 The financial sustainability, rated unsatisfactory, could be
improved if measures are taken to increase the consumption of clean water.
4.1.49 Institutional Sustainability (organizational and management): The use of public-private
partnerships increased the effectiveness of institutions, organization and management while
allowing for the uninterrupted delivery of sufficient quantities and quality of drinking water. It
also allowed for the maintenance of facilities and improved administrative, technical and
financial performance of the DWS systems. The effectiveness of institutions (other than the
RURA), organization and management is rated satisfactory. In addition, the training of technical
standpipe and kiosk operators able to maintain the facilities is likely to guarantee the
sustainability of systems that are still managed under the community approach.
4.1.50 Environmental Sustainability: The Strategic Environmental Social Impact Assessment
(SESIA)42 indicates that for the DWS component, which received an aggregate rating of 67%,
the programme appears satisfactory with respect to the favourable environmental impact (no
impacts, positive impacts and negative impacts of very minor significance and duration, strictly
limited to the construction phase). The percentage is 54% for the sanitation component. The bid
documents for the construction of all DWSS systems included provisions relating to
environmental protection. The demarcation of perimeters to protect natural water sources and
standpipes from human and agricultural pollution (fertilizers and pesticides) should still be
generalized.
4.1.51 Resilience to Exogenous Factors: The presence of homes, cropping with fertilizer and
pesticides and, more importantly, the use of unhygienic latrines uphill and upstream from water
collection areas could adversely affect water quality. The sub-programme results are also
affected by climate change, reflected in reduced quantities and quality of water resources.
4.2 Performance Rating
a) Aggregate Sub-Programme Performance
4.2.1 The sub-programme is relevant, effective, and efficient. It favoured the establishment
of a national agency responsible, inter alia, for rural water supply and sanitation. The
sustainability of results is ensured by the quality of facilities and effective management of
41 This behavior is also seen in the city of Kigali, according to the comprehensive household living conditions survey 2005-2006 (see
Rwanda, Profile of living conditions in Rwanda, 2005-06, May 2007). 42 PNEAR, SESIA Final Report, Jean Biémi, January 2008.
-17-
such facilities by private operators. More efforts are needed to improve consumption by
households, protect water sources and elicit the adoption of appropriate behaviour by
beneficiaries. The aggregate sub-programme performance is rated satisfactory.
b) Borrower Performance
4.2.2 During the design phase, the Borrower’s mobilization of the various stakeholders
helped to clearly define responsibilities. Documents on the major water supply works were
available. However, documentation on studies and community sub-projects was lacking
owing to the demand-driven approach recommended by the national programme (PNEAR).
The key performance indicators are included in the appraisal report, but the Borrower did not
take steps to implement a credible plan to monitor the indicators. Environmental protection
provisions were included in the bid documents for construction of all DWSS systems.
4.2.3 The executing agency’s performance during implementation is rated satisfactory.
The Borrower complied with planned environmental protection measures, fiduciary
provisions and covenants. The works were implemented in accordance with the relevant
environmental standards in the country. Given that the monitoring and evaluation system for
sub-programme effects and impacts was not well clarified, the Borrower made relevant use of
information derived essentially from the monitoring of physical and financial implementation.
The Borrower’s choice of a DWSS management system other than the community method
will guarantee sustainability. Borrower performance is rated satisfactory.
c) Bank Performance
4.2.4 Bank performance in terms of project design and preparation is rated satisfactory, as
reflected by the score for relevance and quality at entry. Regarding project supervision, the
Bank complied with (i) the environmental safeguards, (ii) fiduciary provisions and (iii) the
project covenants. The quality of the Bank’s supervision was satisfactory in terms of skills
mix and the operational nature of recommendations. However, the reallocation of a portion of
the funds in response to the food crisis that hit the country deprived the sector of resources it
required to meet its immense needs. Bank performance is rated satisfactory.
4.3 Factors Affecting Implementation Performance and Outcomes
The key factors that positively affected implementation and the achievement of results are: (i)
the use of a participatory, community-based process (Ubudehe) by the beneficiary
communities and groups; (ii) the delegation of DWSS infrastructure management to private
operators in the context of rural public-private partnerships; and (iii) the use of RLDSF as a
financing conduit for district-level activities, in keeping with the decentralization policy
fostering the empowerment of local communities. The government’s political commitment is
also considered here as a critical factor in achieving the sub-programme results. That
commitment was accompanied by the mobilization of financial resources and the coverage of
additional costs that allowed for implementation of the Mutera DWS.
IV. CONCLUSIONS, LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusion
The sub-programme achieved and at times exceeded its physical implementation objectives
while strictly adhering to the established schedule, producing quality water and sanitation
facilities rated satisfactory overall. The management and maintenance of facilities are
guaranteed by the skills of private operators hired under public-private partnerships and
-18-
EWSA, whose mission is to manage the DWS systems built and above all to ensure improved
and reliable service. However, despite the abundant quantities of water made available by the
sub-programme, the average daily consumption per capita of potable water, estimated at 11
litres, is well below the standards used for the dimensions of the facilities (20 litres). This low
consumption is the product of several combined factors. The sub-programme had a significant
institutional impact and helped to improve the living conditions of the population in the areas
covered. Efforts are still needed to: (i) increase the level of potable water consumption; (ii)
encourage beneficiaries to adopt appropriate behaviours; (iii) better integrate the sanitation
component; and (iv) implement a credible monitoring and evaluation system. The aggregate
performance of the PNEAR launch phase is rated satisfactory.
5.2 Key Lessons
Information and awareness campaigns among users on domestic hygiene and
the cost of drinking water service, and the availability of water supply facilities
located close to users’ homes and offering DWS services at affordable rates
determined through fully transparent procedures, are indispensable in rural
areas for sustainable cost recovery and increased consumption of potable water.
The delegation of DWS network management to private operators in rural
areas as an alternative to the community management method is advantageous
only if there is real competition and an effective system to monitor the quality
of service provided and the prices charged.
The effective decentralization of the DWSS system, underpinned by robust
capacity building and performance contracts between local authorities and the
central government, has proven to be a key success factor in the development
of rural water supply and sanitation services.
Appropriate technologies (less expensive and adapted to local conditions)
affordable to households are essential for improved coverage of rural
population’s needs in individual hygienic latrines.
An integrated computerized monitoring and evaluation data information
management system at the decentralized level is essential for better planning,
implementation and monitoring and evaluation of the results of rural drinking
water supply, sanitation and hygiene projects and programmes.
5.3 Key Recommendations
To the Government
Increased drinking water consumption: The Rwandan government should
create the conditions to help increase drinking water consumption by: (i)
bringing water supply facilities closer to users; (ii) stepping up the grouping of
households into Imidugudu; (iii) monitoring the services provided and prices
charged by standpipe managers; and (iv) conducting awareness among users on
domestic hygiene and the cost of drinking water service.
Management of DWS systems: The government should strengthen the
delegation of DWS systems management to private operators by: (i)
-19-
encouraging private investment to build facilities 43 ; (ii) encouraging the
development upstream of a civil engineering materials industry; (iii) continuing
capacity building activities44 in districts; and (iv) conducting studies on pricing
adapted to poor and vulnerable groups, including a survey on willingness to
pay.
Quality of water intended for consumption: The government should guarantee
the inherent quality of water intended for human consumption through
sufficient protection of water collection sites against pollution or the risk of
external pollution from human or agricultural sources.
Appropriate technologies for individual latrines: The government should
conduct studies to identify the most appropriate technologies (less expensive
and adapted to local conditions) that can help to facilitate access by rural
populations to individual hygienic latrines.
Results-based monitoring and evaluation: The government should further
improve monitoring and evaluation of the sector by developing in each district
an integrated computerized management system for data on planning,
monitoring and evaluation of drinking water, sanitation and hygiene projects
and programmes.
To the Bank
Public-private partnerships for DWSS: In designing water and sanitation
projects, the Bank should consider a larger role for PPPs, underpinned by real
competition among operators and an effective regulation system.
Balance of key DWSS components: The Bank should give greater consideration
to sanitation and hygiene in rural DWSS projects in view of their positive
effects in improving health conditions.
Decentralization of DWSS services: The Bank should encourage the effective
decentralization of the DWSS sector in the regional member countries,
supported by local capacity building and performance contracts between local
governments and the central government established on a participatory basis.
Support to the development of an integrated monitoring and evaluation system:
The Bank should support the decentralization of the DWSS sector in Rwanda
through institutional support to develop in each district real integrated
computerized management systems for data on planning, monitoring and
evaluation of drinking water, sanitation and hygiene projects and programmes.
43 Provide for contracts that go beyond leases. 44 Including the following three components: (i) creation of a favourable environment through general policy and legal and regulatory
framework; (ii) institutional building, including community involvement; and (iii) development of human resources, particularly through
education and training.
ANNEXES
Annex 1
Map of Rwanda
Annex 2
1/2
Socioeconomic and Macroeconomic Data
Indicator Année Rwanda AfriquePays en
Développement
Pays
DéveloppésCharts
Basic Indicators
Superficie ('000 Km²) 26,3 30 322,6 80 976,0 54 658,4
Population totale (millions) 2010 10,3 1 031,5 5 628,5 1 068,7
Population urbaine (% of Total) 2010 18,9 40,0 44,8 77,7
Densité de la population (au Km²) 2010 390,2 3,4 66,6 23,1
Revenu national brut (RNB) par Habitant ($ EU) 2009 460,0 1 525,4 2 780,3 39 688,1
Participation de la Population Active - Total (%) 2010 49,7 40,1 0,0 0,0
Participation de la Population Active - Femmes (%) 2010 52,9 41,0 39,8 43,3
Valeur de l'Indice sexospécifique de dévelop. humain 2007 0,5 0,5 .. 0,9
Indice de développement humain (rang sur 169 pays) 2010 152,0 .. .. ..
Population vivant en dessous de $ 1 par Jour (%) 2005 76,8 .. 25,0 ..
Indicateurs Démographiques
Taux d'accroissement de la population totale (%) 2010 2,8 2,3 1,4 0,7
Taux d'accroissement de la population urbaine (%) 2010 4,3 3,4 2,4 1,0
Population âgée de moins de 15 ans (%) 2010 42,4 40,4 29,2 17,7
Population âée de 65 ans et plus (%) 2010 2,8 3,4 6,0 15,3
Taux de dépendance (%) 2010 81,2 78,1 52,8 ..
Rapport de Masculinité (hommes pour 100 femmes) 2010 94,0 99,5 934,9 948,3
Population féminine de 15 à 49 ans (%) 2010 25,1 24,4 53,3 47,2
Espérance de vie à la naissance - ensemble (ans) 2010 51,1 56,0 65,7 79,8
Espérance de vie à la naissance - femmes (ans) 2010 52,9 54,8 68,9 82,7
Taux brut de natalité (pour 1000) 2010 40,9 35,0 21,5 12,0
Taux brut de mortalité (pour 1000) 2010 14,0 12,0 8,2 8,3
Taux de mortalité infantile (pour 1000) 2010 95,9 78,0 53,1 5,8
Taux de mortalité des moins de 5 ans (pour 1000) 2010 148,2 127,2 51,4 6,3
Indice synthétique de fécondité (par femme) 2010 5,3 4,4 2,7 1,8
Taux de mortalité maternelle (pour 100000) 2008 540,0 530,2 440,0 10,0
Femmes utilisant des méthodes contraceptives (%) 2005 17,5 .. 61,0 75,0
Indicateurs de Santé et de Nutrition
Nombre de médecins (pour 100000 habitants) 2005 2,0 46,7 77,0 287,0
Nombre d'infirmières (pour 100000 habitants) 2005 45,0 .. 98,0 782,0
Naissances assistées par un personnel de santé qualifié (%) 2005 38,6 .. 39,0 99,3
Accès à l'eau salubre (% de la population) 2008 65,0 64,9 84,0 99,6
Accès aux services de santé (% de la population) 2003 17,6 65,3 80,0 100,0
Accès aux services sanitaires (% de la population) 2008 54,0 40,8 54,6 99,8
Pourcent. d'adultes de 15-49 ans vivant avec le VIH/SIDA 2007 2,8 4,6 161,9 14,1
Incidence de la tuberculose (pour 100000) 2009 376,0 294,9 .. ..
Enfants vaccinés contre la tuberculose (%) 2008 93,0 85,0 89,0 99,0
Enfants vaccinés contre la rougeole (%) 2008 92,0 83,7 76,0 92,6
Insuffisance pondérale des moins de 5 ans (%) 2005 18,0 .. 27,0 0,1
Apport journalier en calorie par habitant 2007 2 085,1 2 461,7 2 675,2 3 284,7
Dépenses publiques de santé (en % du PIB) 2008 10,4 2,4 4,0 6,9
Indicateurs d'Education
Taux brut de scolarisation au (%) .. .. .. ..
Primaire - Total 2009 150,7 102,5 106,0 101,5
Primaire - Filles 2009 151,4 98,7 104,6 101,2
Secondaire - Total 2009 26,7 36,8 62,3 100,3
Secondaire - Filles 2009 26,0 32,2 60,7 100,0
Personnel enseignant féminin au primaire (% du total) 2008 54,4 45,5 .. ..
Alphabétisme des adultes - Total (%) 2008 70,3 64,8 19,0 ..
Alphabétisme des adultes - Hommes (%) 2008 66,1 55,9 .. ..
Alphabétisme des adultes - Femmes (%) 2008 74,8 74,0 .. ..
Dépenses d'éducation en % du PIB 2010 4,9 4,6 .. 5,4
Indicateurs d'Environnement
Terres arables en % de la superficie totale 2008 52,3 7,6 9,9 11,6
Taux annuel de déforestation (%) 2000 3,9 0,6 0,4 -0,2
Taux annuel de reboisement (%) .. .. .. ..
Emissions du CO2 par habitant (tonnes métriques) 2008 0,1 1,2 .. ..
dernière mise à jour: octobre 2011
Rwanda
Indicateurs Socio-Economiques Comparatifs
Source : Base des données du Département des Statistiques de la BAD;
Banque Mondiale WDI; ONUSIDA; UNSD; OMS, UNICEF, WRI, PNUD, Rapports nationaux.
Notes: n.a. Non Applicable ; … : Données non disponibles.
0
500
1000
1500
200020
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
Revenu national brut (RNB) par Habitant ($ EU)
Rwanda Afrique
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
Taux d'accroissement de la population totale (%)
Rwanda Afrique
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
Accès à l'eau salubre (% de la population)
Rwanda Afrique
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
Secondaire - Total
Rwanda Afrique
Annex 2
2/2
Socioeconomic and Macroeconomic Data
Indicateurs Unité 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Comptes nationaux RNB aux prix courants du marché Million $ E.U. 1 652,2 1 621,6 1 746,0 1 937,4 2 361,8 2 805,9 3 394,6 4 421,8 5 002,4 .. RNB per habitant $ E.U. 230,0 210,0 200,0 220,0 250,0 290,0 330,0 410,0 460,0 .. PIB au prix courants Million $ E.U. 1 760,2 1 723,9 1 777,4 1 970,6 2 387,1 2 869,2 3 362,1 4 456,8 4 429,0 .. PIB aux prix constants de 2000 Million $ E.U. 1 851,5 2 025,3 2 031,3 2 139,0 2 331,5 2 546,0 2 686,0 2 986,9 3 109,3 3 310,3 Croissance du PIB en termes réels % 6,7 9,4 0,3 5,3 9,0 9,2 5,5 11,2 4,1 6,5 Croissance du PIB per habitant en termes réels % 2,3 6,5 -1,4 3,7 6,9 6,6 2,8 8,2 1,3 3,6 Investissement intérior brut % du PIB 18,1 16,9 13,9 15,0 15,8 16,0 18,0 22,7 21,6 22,4 Investissement public % du PIB 6,4 5,0 5,3 8,3 9,7 9,3 12,9 14,6 14,9 14,1 Investissement privé % du PIB 11,7 11,9 8,6 6,8 6,1 6,7 5,2 8,1 6,6 8,3 Epargne nationale % du PIB 16,4 15,6 15,9 21,8 21,9 15,4 18,0 18,6 14,1 15,4
Prix et Monnaie Inflation (IPC) % 3,4 2,0 7,4 12,0 9,1 8,9 9,1 15,5 10,3 3,1 Taux de change (moyenne annuelle) monnaie locale / $ E.U. 443,0 475,4 537,7 577,4 557,8 551,7 547,0 546,8 568,3 583,1 Masse monétaire, variations annuelles (M2) % 11,4 12,4 15,4 30,0 18,0 .. .. .. .. .. Vitesse de circulation de la monnaie (PIB / M2) % 16,3 17,4 17,3 17,8 17,6 .. .. .. .. ..
Finances publiques Recettes totales et dons % du PIB 16,8 18,1 20,4 22,6 24,0 21,8 21,7 24,2 24,6 25,2 Dépenses totales et prêts nets % du PIB 21,1 19,3 22,6 22,8 23,7 22,4 24,0 24,8 26,8 25,7 Déficit (-) / Excédent global (+) % du PIB -4,3 -1,2 -2,2 -0,2 0,3 -0,5 -2,4 -0,6 -2,2 -0,5
Sector extérieur Variation en volume des exportations (marchandises) % 18,0 10,1 3,7 28,2 13,5 12,5 -0,2 21,8 -20,0 9,1 Variation en volume des importations (marchandises) % 3,3 7,8 0,9 14,5 23,6 27,0 31,0 20,2 9,4 9,5 Variation des termes de % 17,7 -22,5 -18,6 11,6 5,3 8,4 27,0 -29,0 17,5 -7,4 Solde des comptes courants Million $ E.U. -43,5 -154,6 -119,7 -62,8 -76,4 -219,8 -83,5 -285,1 -443,6 -299,4 Solde des comptes courants % du PIB -2,5 -9,0 -6,7 -3,0 -3,0 -7,1 -2,2 -6,0 -8,4 -6,6 Réserves internationales mois 4,9 5,4 4,0 4,7 5,3 4,5 4,4 3,3 3,8 3,6
Dette et flux financiers Service de la dette % des exportations 23,1 4,4 6,9 8,5 9,5 26,0 2,4 1,3 1,8 3,0 Dette extérieure totale % du PIB 80,8 85,7 88,5 80,5 58,5 15,6 15,3 14,4 14,2 20,2 Flux financiers nets totaux Million $ E.U. 301,9 368,1 342,4 493,1 565,1 562,2 735,1 951,9 1 026,0 .. Aide publique au développement nette Million $ E.U. 304,9 362,9 335,2 489,6 577,1 589,0 722,2 933,2 934,4 .. Investissements nets directs en prov. de Million $ E.U. 18,5 1,5 2,6 10,9 14,3 30,6 82,3 103,4 118,7 ..
Rwanda Indicators Macroéconomiques
0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0
10,0 12,0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Croissance du PIB en termes réels
0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0
10,0 12,0 14,0 16,0 18,0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Inflation (IPC)
-10,0 -9,0 -8,0 -7,0 -6,0 -5,0 -4,0 -3,0 -2,0 -1,0 0,0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Solde des comptes courants (% du PIB)
ANNEX 3 – LOGICAL INTERVENTION FORMAT
RWANDA, NATIONAL RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION PROGRAMME (PNEAR) – LAUNCH PHASE
Capacity building for participants
and awareness campaign
Beneficiaries and associative
management bodies are
sensitized on appropriate
behaviours
Impact
Reduced drudgery in
fetching water
Reduced incidence of
diseases associated with
water and sanitation
Increased health
and non-health
benefits
Activity
Construction/rehabilitation of
water supply facilities
1.1 Byumba et Kibungo DWS network
1.2 Kibuye water points
1.3 Laves Region DWS network
Outputs Short-term Outcomes Intermediate
Outcomes
Construction of sanitation
facilities (family latrines in
Kibuye)
Operational water supply
facilities
Increased sustainable access
to improved water supplies
Participants (public and private
sector, local communities)
trained and equipped with
appropriate skills
Improved living
conditions for rural
communities in the
project area
Do inhabitants feel that
their living conditions
have improved because
of the sub-programme?
Job creation and
increased incomes
Planning studies ant tools -
Preparation of sector-based
monitoring and planning tools
Reliable data for sector
planning and monitoring and
evaluation are available and
used in decision making
Validated studies and tools:
Inventory of DWS facilities
Infrastructure database
Monitoring and evaluation system
Social and environmental impact studies
DWS studies report
District water system plans
Preparation studies for subsequent programme phases
Increased capacity to provide
sustainable, good quality
DWSS services in rural areas
Appropriate behaviours are
adopted Local DWS institutions in
rural areas are more
sustainable:
improved technical and
financial management of
DWS systems
Increased participation
by rural communities
and/or local government
bodies in management
costs adapted to
capacity of beneficiary
populations
Sanitation facilities are
improved and operational
Increased access to
improved sanitation
systems
Annex 4
1/6
Rating Table – Evaluation Criteria
NATIONAL RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION PROGRAMME (PNEAR) –
LAUNCH PHASE
No. COMPONENT
INDICATORS
Score
(1 to
4)
REMARKS
1 Relevance and quality at
entry
3 Relevance is rated highly satisfactory and quality at entry
is rated satisfactory.
1.1 Relevance 4 Highly satisfactory
1.1.1 Consistency with
populations’ needs
4 The sub-programme addresses a real need of rural
communities who face a renewed outbreak of water-
borne diseases due to poor quality water and sanitation.
1.1.2 Consistency with country’s
overall development strategy
4 The sub-programme is part of the Rwandan government’s
sector policy and strategy and is aligned with the national
poverty reduction strategy (EDPRS 2008-2012), the
Millennium Development Goals and Rwanda’s Vision
2020.
1.1.3 1.1.3 Consistency with Bank’s
Country Assistance Strategy
4 The project is consistent with the Bank’s strategy for
Rwanda, the RWSSI and the Bank’s general priorities.
1.2 1.2 Quality at entry 3 Satisfactory
1.2.1 Relevance of the sub-
programme design
3 The preferred approach is based on a programme
promoting long-term commitment between Rwanda and
development partners and on the local community
demand-driven approach. It blends the
construction/rehabilitation of drinking water supply and
sanitation facilities, capacity building for participants and
planning studies and tools.
1.2.2 Consideration of Bank
Group experience and
lessons learned in the sub-
programme design
3 Lessons taken into account: Participatory approach and
the effectiveness of DWSS infrastructure management by
private operators and PPPs in rural areas.
Lessons inadequately incorporated: No action has been
taken to date to develop an upstream industry able to
meet needs in civil engineering materials; balance
between DWS facilities and sanitation (especially
latrines); and IEC campaigns encouraging good
practices.
1.2.3 Design of the monitoring and
evaluation system
2 The “Studies and management tools” component
provided no clear mechanism for collecting and
analysing key sub-programme indicators that takes into
account the implementation schedule and various actors
concerned.
Annex 4
2/6
NATIONAL RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION PROGRAMME (PNEAR) –
LAUNCH PHASE
No. COMPONENT
INDICATORS
Score
(1 to
4)
REMARKS
2 Achievement of objectives
and outputs (“Efficacy”)
3 Satisfactory
2.1 Achievement of outputs 3 Satisfactory
a.) Physical outputs 3 Satisfactory
2.1.1 Drinking water supply
infrastructures built and
operational
4 6 water supply systems on 5 planned (120%), including a
large-scale system in the Laves region (Mutobo Basse),
were implemented and are operational; and 1,084
developed natural sources and water points on 1,000
planned (108%) were installed and are operational. The
conservation and maintenance of the infrastructures are
rated highly satisfactory.
2.1.2. Sanitation facilities
improved, installed and
operational
4 2,120 family latrines on 2,020 (105%) built and
operational; 25 public toilet blocks built and operational
on 5 planned (417%), 25 rainwater collection reservoirs
(360 m³ capacity) on 23 (109%); 2 biogas facilities and 2
composters were built. The upkeep and maintenance of
those facilities are rated highly satisfactory.
2.1.3 Participants (public sector,
private sector, local
communities) trained and
provided with adequate
skills
3 The capacity of sector participants was improved and good
practices were implemented within their respective areas.
However, efforts in this area should continue in view of
expectations. A total of 258 sector managers and actors out
of 329 (109%), 30 instructors and 50 facilitators/leaders
received training; 7 training modules were designed and
additional training of 78 masons and 59 standpipe
operators.
2.1.4 Beneficiaries and associative
management committees
sensitized and gained
knowledge on appropriate
behaviours
3 A total of 10,000 persons were covered by awareness
activities to ensure that good practices are applied in the
stakeholders’ respective areas. There is slow progress in
adopting appropriate behaviours suggesting the need to
continue actions.
2.1.5 Studies and tools validated 3 National inventory of rural DWS facilities; studies of
waterworks plans for the districts covered by the
programme; environmental and social impact
assessments; accelerated mechanisms for preparation,
evaluation and implementation of community projects.
On the other hand, no final programme monitoring and
evaluation system was selected and implemented.
Annex 4 3/6
NATIONAL RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION PROGRAMME (PNEAR) –
LAUNCH PHASE
No. COMPONENT
INDICATORS
Score
(1 to
4)
REMARKS
b.) Other outputs 3 Satisfactory
2.1.6 National rural DWS
agency, studies in
preparation for subsequent
programme phases
3 Reports of technical studies constituting the second
programme phase are prepared and being validated by
the EWSA. A number of activities from the second
phase are already launched.
2.2. Short-term Outcomes 3 Satisfactory
2.2.1. Sustainable access to an
improved drinking water
supply system is stepped
up
3 The sub-programme provided a sustainable supply of
drinking water to nearly 537,570 persons rather than the
270,000 planned. Daily consumption per capita
increased from 8 litres to 11 litres in the project area
rather than 20 litres. Overall, water quality is inherently
good but the improved sources should be protected.
2.2.2. Access to an improved
sanitation system is
expanded
3
16,200 persons out of 12,000 initially planned were
provided with hygienic latrines. However, the number of
unhygienic latrines in the entire sub-programme area
remains high.
2.2.3. Appropriate behaviour is
adopted
3 Actions to encourage appropriate behaviour were limited.
Regarding sanitation, good hygiene practices, particularly
hand washing, do not yet seem firmly rooted in the habits
of rural communities.
2.2.4. Reliable sector planning as
well as monitoring and
evaluation data are
available and used in
decision-making
3 The available data for this sector are reliable but
insufficient. The sector’s monitoring and evaluation
should be completed by redefining a management
information system and key operational and strategic
indicators to be implemented.
2.2.5 Financing is obtained for
new rural DWS projects
for the subsequent phases
3 In addition to that of the Bank Group, financing for new
rural DWSS projects is ensured by the donors involved in
various phases of programming the implementation of
projects based on a geographical division of the Rwandan
territory.
2.3 Intermediate Outcomes 3 Satisfactory
2.3.1 Reduced burden of
collecting water
3 The average distance travelled to collect drinking water
decreased from 1,210 meters before the project to 553
meters after the project, or a daily gain of 26 minutes (not
applicable to developed natural sources, for which there is
no change in time spent). Considerable enthusiasm and
waiting time at kiosks.
Annex 4
4/6
NATIONAL RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION PROGRAMME (PNEAR) –
LAUNCH PHASE
No. COMPONENT
INDICATORS
Score
(1 to
4)
REMARKS
2.3.2 Reduced incidence of
diseases associated with
water and sanitation
3 The prevalence of schistosomiasis decreased from 80% to
2% following prohibition of access to the lake once
potable water became available from the Nyanza-Karagari
DWS. Intestinal parasites and diarrhoea were reduced by
19% (projected rate).
2.3.3 Health spending reduced
and indirect consequences
4 Reduction in water-borne disease episodes, expenses for
water-borne disease treatment at health centres and cost
of transportation to health centres. Gains in terms of
reduced absenteeism from school.
2.3.4 The sustainability of rural
local DWS institutions is
improved
3 Increase in DWSS facilities managed by private
operators in the context of public-private partnerships in
rural areas (5 of the 6 project water supply systems). The
effectiveness and professionalism of this management
method are obvious compared to traditional community-
based methods. Three arrangement types result in a
variety of prices charged for water at project standpipes
and kiosks (ranging from negligible fees charged by
cooperatives to rates considered excessive at privately
managed standpipes and kiosks); 40% of beneficiaries
find water expensive.
2.4 Long-term Outcomes 3 Satisfactory
Improved household living
conditions
3 The sub-programme improved the beneficiaries’ quality
of life (according to the persons concerned) and
increased access to sustainable drinking water and
sanitation services, thereby reducing water-borne
diseases. The programme also helped to create jobs in
rural areas (standpipe operators, masons, etc.) through
the implementation of community works under Ubudehe
and by making possible the emergence of standpipe
managers.
3 Efficiency 3 Satisfactory
3.1 IERR at appraisal: 26 %
IERR at completion: 27%
IERR at PPER: 18%
3 Internal economic rate of return estimated at 17.8% for
an NPV of RWF 2.6 billion, compared to 26% and RWF
7.2 billion, respectively, at appraisal and 27% and RWF
22.59 billion at completion. The lower IERR and NPV
are attributable, inter alia, to the basic assumption of
average daily consumption per capita of 20 litres, which
was inconsistent with the situation on the ground.
Positive sensitivity test.
Annex 4
5/6
NATIONAL RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION PROGRAMME (PNEAR) –
LAUNCH PHASE
No. COMPONENT INDICATORS
Score
(1 to
4)
REMARKS
3.2 Financial rate of return
IFRR at appraisal: N.A
IFRR at completion: N.A
IFRR at PPER: 5.9%
2 The financial analysis confirmed that, overall,
DWSS projects are not financially profitable
because of the relatively high cost of the initial
investments financed by the government; this
suggests the need for public-private partnership to
alleviate the government burden.
3.3 Cost-effectiveness 3 With regard to unit costs per person supplied, the
sub-programme compares favourably with other
DWS projects in Rwanda and Africa.
4 Institutional development 3 Satisfactory
4.1 Sector 3 Establishment of the EWSA as the national rural
and urban DWSS agency sharing authority with
MININFRA. New competition between “private”
DWSS service management delegatees in rural
areas. The sector is provided with tools for
planning, evaluation and policy update. RURA is
responsible for regulations governing PPP
agreements and oversight of rates, but is having
trouble fully playing its role in the sector.
4.2 Executing agency 3 The sub-programme improved the PNEAR PCU’s
capacity to manage projects and programmes,
which is now the responsibility of the EWSA.
5 5 Sustainability 3 Satisfactory
5.1 Technical soundness 3 The project’s technical sustainability hinges on the
quality of maintenance and management of the
facilities.
5.2 Sustainable borrower commitment
(including legal/regulatory
framework)
3 Establishment of a policy, legal and administrative
framework with the adoption of: (i) the water and
sanitation sector policy and strategy, 2004; (ii) the
integrated water resources management policy of
1998; (iii) the decentralization policy; (iv) the
framework law on the modalities of protection,
safeguard and promotion of the environment in
Rwanda (2005); and (v) the poverty reduction
strategy and Vision 2020.
Annex 4
6/6
NATIONAL RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION PROGRAMME (PNEAR) –
LAUNCH PHASE
No. COMPONENT INDICATORS Score
(1 to 4) REMARKS
5.3 Socio- political support (including
beneficiary participation, protection of
vulnerable groups, political stability)
3 Effective decentralization ensuring the systems’
sustainability. However, the capacity of local actors
should be further built to enable them to play their
roles.
5.4 Economic sustainability 3 The economic impacts of the sub-programme are
demonstrated by the sensitivity analysis.
5.5 Financial sustainability 3 The financial rate of return for the various DWS
systems implemented by the sub-programme is
close to the discount rate, with current drinking
water consumption below the levels used as
standards. Increased consumption of potable water
is necessary to improve the sub-programme’s
financial sustainability. The cost of water is a
potential obstacle to the development of facilities
and the financial profitability of operations.
5.6 Institutional arrangements
(organizational and management)
3 Effective public-private partnership. The
effectiveness of institutions (other than RURA),
organization and management is satisfactory.
Training of standpipe technicians equipped with
the capacities to maintain standpipes.
5.7 Environmental viability 3 Construction of facilities adhered strictly to
applicable environmental standards. Requirements
to demarcate perimeters to protect natural sources
and standpipes from human and agricultural
pollution.
5.8 Resilience to exogenous factors 3 Presence of homes and crops grown with fertilizer
and pesticides. Use of unhygienic latrines on hill
tops and slopes, i.e. upstream from catchment
areas that supply drinking water. Flood, erosion
and drought. Climate change could cause a
qualitative or quantitative decline in water
resources.
6 Overall Performance Indicator 3 Satisfactory
Annex 5 1/2
Borrower Performance
NATIONAL RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION PROGRAMME (PNEAR) –
LAUNCH PHASE
Component indicators Score
(1 to 4) Remarks
1. Quality at preparation: 3 Satisfactory
- Ownership, beneficiaries participation 3 The programme recommends a participatory
approach. The government implemented a new
sector policy whereby the districts assume ownership
of water facilities and may delegate the management
to associative management committees or private
professional operators.
- Government commitment 3 The government had submitted a request identifying
the DWSS projects to be financed first under the
Bank’s RWSSI initiative.
- Macroeconomic and sector policies 3 Government’s vision and policies for the sector:
Vision 2020, the Integrated Water Resources
Management (IWRM) Policy and the water and
sanitation sector policy.
- Institutional arrangements 3 Responsibilities for sub-programme implementation
were clearly defined, beginning with the project
coordination unit (PCU) whose role was
subsequently taken over by a national rural DWSS
agency; a monitoring committee within the agency
was charged with ensuring overall synergies and the
use of community development committees (CDC)
as focal points in the context of decentralization.
2. Quality of Implementation 3 Satisfactory
- Assignment of key staff 3 The Borrower established a project monitoring and
coordination team, consistent with the desire for
stability of team members.
- Management performance of executing
agency 3 The executing agency’s performance is rated
satisfactory.
- Mid-term adjustments 3 The government made additional resources available
to finance supplementary activities.
Annex 5
2/2
NATIONAL RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION PROGRAMME (PNEAR) –
START-UP PHASE
Component indicators Score
(1 to 4) Remarks
- Adherence to Time Schedule and Costs 3 The project was implemented according to the
established schedule, and 97% and 99% of the
committed amounts of the ADF grant and loan,
respectively, were disbursed. Counterpart funding
was increased by 30% to finance new activities.
3. Compliance with Covenants 3 The Borrower complied with the environmental
protection measures, fiduciary provisions, and
agreements signed under the sub-programme.
However, there were difficulties at times in
obtaining reports from the Ubudehe committees.
4. Adequacy of Monitoring, Evaluation and
Reporting
2 The monitoring and evaluation system and reporting
were among the sub-programme shortcomings, as
the project implementation team did not include a
specialist in this area.
5. Satisfactory operations (if applicable) No major problems were observed when the
facilities were commissioned other than high water
pressure which damaged the meters – a problem
resolved with a special device. Drinking water
consumption remains below the capacities supplied
by the sub-programme.
Overall Borrower Performance 3 Satisfactory
Annex 6
1/2
Bank Performance
NATIONAL RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION PROGRAMME
(PNEAR) – LAUNCH PHASE
Component indicators Score
(1 to 4) Remarks
At Identification 3 Satisfactory
- Project Consistency with
Government’s Development
Strategy
4 The Rural Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation
Sub-programme is consistent with Rwanda’s 2004
Water and Sanitation Sector Policy. It is part of an
ambitious programme to achieve the MDGs and
Rwanda’s Vision 2020, in which the water sector
represents the third development pillar. The sub-
programme objectives are in line with the national
poverty reduction strategy (EDPRS, 2008-2012) and
international and regional objectives.
- Project Consistency with Bank’s
Country Strategy
4 The project is in line with the Bank’s strategy for
Rwanda (2002-2004), which urged assistance to the
economic infrastructure sector by extending water
supply, sanitation and electrification as well as
transport, which would help to improve the
population’s living conditions and reduce the costs of
delivering public services.
- Involvement of
Government/Beneficiaries
3 The Bank’s RWSSI initiative recommends an
approach that ensures effective beneficiary
participation.
- Project Innovativeness 3 The introduction of the PPP lends an innovative
aspect to the Bank’s actions in the area of rural
DWSS.
At preparation of project 3 Satisfactory
- Relevance of Bank Support 3 PNEAR’s relevance lies in the fact that it supports the
Rwandan government’s efforts to stem the renewed
outbreak of water-borne diseases (diarrhoea,
schistosomiasis, cholera, typhus, skin and eye
disorders, etc.) caused by poor quality water and
sanitation (malaria and parasitosis), which occur
particularly in rural areas.
- Timely Bank Support 3
Annex 6
2/2
NATIONAL RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION PROGRAMME
(PNEAR) – LAUNCH PHASE
Component indicators Score
(1 to 4) Remarks
At appraisal 3 Satisfactory
- Quality of technical, economic,
financial, institutional, social and
environmental analyses
3 The project areas were selected based, inter alia, on
the availability of technical studies
- Relevance of conditions and
covenants s The conditions and covenants were appropriate for
improved sector effectiveness
- Adequacy of lending instrument 3 The combination of grants and loans was appropriate
for the Rwandan context
- Quality of coordination with
other donors/partners
3 Coordination with other donors is effective and is
enhanced by the geographic division of the Rwandan
territory
- Implementation and supervision
plans (including performance
indicators)
3 The sub-programme was implemented within the
established schedule, attesting to sound
implementation planning and monitoring
- M&E 2 Monitoring and evaluation is still to be finalized.
At supervision 3 Satisfactory
- Adequacy of Bank staff (skills,
time & continuity)
3 The quality of the Bank’s supervision was satisfactory
in terms of the skills mix. The average frequency of
supervision was 1.6 missions per year (above the
standard of 1.5) since effective sub-programme start
up. Turnover was observed among project managers
during the first two years.
- Problem solving 3 The Bank’s supervision was satisfactory in terms of
the identification of practical solutions to problems.
- Adequacy of follow-up on
recommendations/decisions
3 Regular follow-up on the recommendations provided
in aide-mémoires approved respectively by the Bank,
MININFRA and the Ministry of Finance and
Economic Planning (MINECOFIN) with six-month
action plans
- Realistic ratings at CPPR/APPR - There was no country portfolio review for Rwanda
between 2000 and 2010. The 2010 review covers
PNEAR II
- Attention to likely social
development impact
2 The likely social development impact and
sustainability issues were not explicitly addressed in
the supervision reports but were implicitly understood - Attention to sustainability issues 2
Overall assessment of Bank
performance 3 Satisfactory
Annex 7
1/1
NATIONAL RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION PROGRAMME (PNEAR) –
LAUNCH PHASE
FACTORS AFFECTING IMPLEMENTATION PERFORMANCE AND OUTCOME
Factor Substantial Partial Negligible N/A Remarks
1. Not Subject to Government Control
1.1 World Market prices -
1.2 Natural events - Rwanda’s topography is
vulnerable to erosion.
1.3 Bank Performance +
1.4 Performance of
contractors/consultants +
1.5 Civil war - The consequences of the past
genocide were disastrous.
1.6 Other (Specify)
2. Subject to Government Control
2.1 Macro policies +
2.2 Sector policies +
2.3 Government commitment +
2.4 Appointment of key staff +
2.5 Counterpart funding +
2.6 Administrative capacity +
2.7 Other (Specify)
3. Subject to Executing Agency Control
3.1 Technical and technology choices +
3.2 Staffing +
3.3 Monitoring & evaluation + Progress has been made with
regard to sector monitoring,
but efforts are still necessary
to monitor the project and
programme.
3.4 Beneficiary involvement + The use of the participatory
process was highly beneficial.
4- Factors affecting implementation
+
4.2 Deficiency in estimating physical
inputs, the base unit costs
4.3 Quality of evaluation and performance studies
+
4.5 Unrealistic implementation schedule +
4.6 Quality of management including
financial management
+
Factors positively (+) or negatively (-) affecting the implementation and achievement of major objectives.
Annex 8
MATRIX OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS
NATIONAL RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION PROGRAMMEME (PNEAR) – START-UP PHASE
FINDINGS/LESSONS RECOMMENDATIONS ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY
1. Low Levels of Drinking Water Consumption
Information and awareness campaigns among users
on domestic hygiene and the cost of drinking water
service, and the provision of standpipes or kiosks
close to residences offering DWS services at
affordable rates determined through transparent
processes, are indispensable in rural areas for
sustainable cost recovery and increased drinking
water consumption.(Lesson 1)
The government should create the conditions to
help increase drinking water consumption by:
(i) bringing water supply facilities closer to
users;
(ii) stepping up the grouping of families into
Imidugudu;
(iii) monitoring the services provided and prices
charged by standpipe operators; and
(iv) raising awareness among users on domestic
hygiene and the cost of drinking water service.
Increase the number of standpipes and
water kiosks. Government
EWSA
Step up the grouping of families into
Imidugudu.
Government
A significant proportion of households continue to use
natural water springs as an alternative. Those
households retain a portion of their traditional modes
of water supply depending on the intended of the water
(drinking, bathing, laundry, dishwashing, etc.).
(4.1.14)
Organize awareness raising among users
on domestic hygiene and the cost of
drinking water service.
Government
EWSA
The objective of increasing average daily consumption
per capita from 8 litres in 2005 to 20 litres in 2008 is
far from achieved. The situation observed on the
ground is average daily consumption per capita of
roughly 11 litres. (4.1.15).
Monitor prices charged by standpipe
operators. RURA
Local authorities
EWSA
Private operators appointed
to manage systems The distance decreased from an average of 1,858
meters to 648 meters, according to the results of the
mini-survey, which is still far from the reference
distance of 250 meters. (4.1.30)
Encourage private connections in certain
landscapes and pipeline routes. Government
EWSA
Private operators appointed
to manage systems The population considers potable water expensive
(40%) if not very expensive – 48% of the
households report that they are unable to pay for
water. (4.1.51)
2. Management of Rural DWSS Systems
The delegation of rural DWSS network management
to private operators as an alternative to the
community mode of management is advantageous
only if there is genuine competition and an effective
system of monitoring the quality of service provided
and prices charged by those managers. (Lesson 2)
The government should expand the delegation of
DWS system management to private operators by:
(i) encouraging private investment to build
infrastructures;
(ii) encouraging the development upstream of a
civil engineering materials industry;
(iii) continuing capacity building activities in
the districts; and
(iv) conducting studies on pricing adapted to
poor and vulnerable groups, including a survey
on willingness to pay
Encourage/facilitate private investment to
build infrastructures (provide for
contracts going beyond leases)
Government
Local authorities
Encourage the development upstream of a
civil engineering materials industry Government
Continue capacity building activities in
the districts, providing for: (i) the creation
of a favourable environment through
general policy and the legislative and
regulatory framework; (ii) institutional
building, including community
involvement; and (iii) development of
human resources, particularly through
education and training.
Government
EWSA The sub-programme improved the management of
DWSS systems by promoting PPPs, considering the
failure of the community management model. (4.1.20)
The management systems proved effective in
general in the start-up phase, the main advantage
being improved, reliable service (regular supply of
sufficient quality and quantity drinking water to
communities). However, the evaluation noted a real
risk regarding above-standard rates for water,
particularly by standpipe managers, which limits
household consumption. (4.1.21)
Conduct studies on pricing adapted to
poor and vulnerable groups, including a
survey on willingness to pay.
Government
EWSA
High rates in rural areas for communities
accustomed to paying nothing, or merely a flat token
fee, for water (the cost of water soul that standpipes
is generally RWF 20 per jerry can). Rates can reach
as high as RWF 30 for a single system, despite the
advertised official price of RWF 10-15 per jerry can.
(4.1.16)
In designing water and sanitation projects, the Bank
should consider a larger role for PPPs supported by
genuine competition among operators and an
effective regulatory scheme.
Increasingly include public-private
partnerships in the design of water and
sanitation projects.
Support competition between operators
and an effective regulation system.
Bank
3. Quality of Water Intended for Human Consumption
The results of March 2011 EWSA analyses covering
all networks nationwide indicate that over 90% of
the water produced and distributed is potable,
although several cases of infection were reported
following leaks in the network. (4.1.17).
The government should guarantee the inherent
quality of water intended for human consumption
through adequate protection of water catchment
sites against pollution or the risk of external
pollution from human or agricultural sources.
Conduct the chemical tracing of the
Rubindi subterranean river from the
Mutobo DWS the origin and destination
of which are not known as it continues
flowing in the ground.
Government
Systematically monitor the chemical,
physiochemical and bacteriological
quality of all natural water intended for
human consumption.
Government
EWSA
Private operators appointed
to manage systems
The SESIA found that natural sources and well fields
are not sufficiently protected from external pollution,
and protective perimeters (prohibiting any human or
agricultural activities and the installation of any
latrines) are not uniformly defined and implemented
for all sources. (4.1.18)
Maintain the existing mechanisms for
protection of natural sources and
standpipes.
Local authorities
Beneficiaries
Implement articles 62 and 63 (perimeters
and water protection) of Law 62/2008 of
10 September 2008 establishing rules for
the use, conservation, protection and
management of water resources.
Government
4. Decentralization of the DWSS Sector
The effective decentralization of the DWSS sector,
underpinned by effective capacity building and
performance contracts between local authorities and
the central government, are key factors to the
successful development of rural water supply and
sanitation services. (Lesson 3)
The Bank should encourage the effective
decentralization of the DWSS sector in the regional
member countries, underpinned by local capacity
building and performance contracts drawn up on a
participatory basis between local governments and
the central government.
Encourage the decentralization of rural
DWSS services. Bank
In keeping with the decentralization policy instituted
by the government, the allocated funds were
transferred to the districts via the RLDSF. This
approach enabled the corresponding works to be
completed quickly and above all it ensured close
beneficiary involvement and ownership of the projects.
(4.1.22)
5. Appropriate Technologies for Individual Latrines in Rural Areas
Appropriate technologies (less expensive and
adapted to local conditions) affordable to households
are essential to improve coverage of the rural
population’s needs in individual hygienic latrines.
(Lesson 4)
The government should conduct a study to identify
the most appropriate technologies (less expensive
and adapted to local conditions) to use in providing
rural communities with access to individual
hygienic latrines.
Conduct studies on appropriate
technologies for individual latrines in
rural areas.
Borrower
Individual latrines are of ventilated improved pit
(VIP) design. (4.1.8) – The unit cost of those
individual latrines averages RWF 135,000, or
roughly USD240, which is beyond the means of
rural households. (footnote page 12)
Although the great majority (98%) of households in
the sub-programme area use latrines (often with walls
and mostly with roofs), they are generally in poor
condition (57%) and classified as unhygienic. (4.1.49)
6. Project Monitoring and Evaluation System
An integrated computerized monitoring and
evaluation data management system at the
decentralized level is critical for better planning,
implementation and monitoring and evaluation of
the results of rural drinking water supply, sanitation
and hygiene projects and programmes. (Lesson 5)
The government should further improve monitoring
and evaluation of the sector by developing in each
district an integrated computerized management
system for data on planning, monitoring and
evaluation of drinking water, sanitation and hygiene
projects and programmes
Develop in each district real integrated
computerized management systems for
data on planning, monitoring and
evaluation of drinking water, sanitation
and hygiene projects and programmes.
Borrower
The current information system is fragmented and
does not support effective decision-making based on
effective monitoring of project and programme
outcomes and impacts on beneficiaries, particularly
women and children. (4.1.26)
The Bank should support DWSS sector
decentralization in Rwanda through institutional
support to develop real integrated computerized
management systems for data on planning,
monitoring and evaluation of drinking water,
sanitation and hygiene projects and programmes.
Provide institutional support to Rwanda
to provide each district with computerized
management systems for data on
planning, monitoring and evaluation of
drinking water, sanitation and hygiene
projects and programmes.
Bank
Annex 9
CALCULATION OF ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL RATE OF RETURN
A. FINANCIAL RATE OF RETURN
1. Assumptions Used in the Financial Analysis
1.1 To calculate revenue from the sale of the additional water provided by the sub-programme,
the official selling price used is: (i) RWF 15 for a 20-litre jerry can, or RWF 750/m³ for the Mutobo
Basse DWS; (ii) RWF 15 for a 22.5-litre jerry can or RWF 663/m³ for the Mutera and Rwamagana
DWSs; and (iii) a flat fee of RWF 300 per quarter per household (or RWF 1,200 per year) for the three
medium-size DWSs. The life cycle retained is 25 years. The financial opportunity cost of capital
(financial discount rate) used in the analysis is 10%, which includes the weighted average cost of
capital (WACC1) to which a risk premium is added. The choice of a percentage instead of a fixed
WACC is justified by the fact that in Rwanda, the government’s role in the provision of DWSS
services and the operation and maintenance of infrastructure changes, particularly with greater private
sector involvement.
1.2 The average monthly volume of water distributed by Mutobo Basse is 34,000 m³,
representing roughly 1500 m³ per day. The percentage increase in consumption is 2%. For Mutera,
actual consumption is based on the figure for the population covered, i.e., daily consumption per
capita of 11 litres. The annual water consumption rate used is 2%. For Rwamagana, the additional
quantity of water produced in 2009 for the sub-programme is 500 m³ per day, to which we also applied
the number of days the system was out of order for maintenance work (24 days) and the loss rate on
the network (35% in June 20112), for an estimated 3% increase in consumption. For medium-size
DWSs, the additional average consumption provided by the sub-programme is 625 m³ per day in 2009,
to which we apply the proportion of households paying for water, daily consumption per capita of 20
litres and an average of five persons per household. The annual increase in potable water consumption
is estimated at 3% in this case. For developed sources, the sub-programme supplied 254,740 persons.
Finally, 16,200 persons were provided with individual, simple or collective latrines.
1.3 Regarding investment, every five years, equipment is reinforced and replaced, representing
15% of the initial investment, to take into account the rise in the number of standpipes needed to meet
increased demand for the three DWSs (Mutobo Basse, Mutera and Rwamagana) that are managed by
private operators, who will strive to improve their customer base to boost their financial returns. As
regards the three medium-size DWSs managed by associations of operators or provisionally by the
community, equipment replacement representing 10% of the initial investment will occur after 10
years (the useful life of the standpipes).
1.4 Regarding operating and maintenance costs for the Mutobo Basse, Mutera and three
medium-size DWSs, the assumptions used are adapted based on estimates provided by the completion
report for the drinking water supply and sanitation project financed by the World Bank in Rwanda,3
which are presented in the table below:
1 The weighted average cost of capital is considered the minimum return demanded by contributors of capital (shareholders and creditors)
to finance a business’s investment projects. 2 EWSA Rwamagana. 3 Implementation Completion and Results Report of the Republic of Rwanda Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project, 2016 2008 –
World Bank.
Table 1
Operating and maintenance costs
Type of water supply
Gravity-based system
(Mutobo Basse, Karusha-Ruzizi,
Nyanza-Karagazi, Rutomvu)
Production and distribution
(Mutera)
Maintenance costs 1.5% of the cost of the investment 1.5% of the cost of the investment
Business expenses RWF 10,000 per standpipe RWF 10,000 per standpipe
Energy costs - RWF 20/m3 sold
Treatment costs - RWF 10/m3 sold
General and administrative 15% of annual revenue 15% of annual revenue
1.5 For the Rwamagana DWS, the operating and maintenance costs were estimated based on
actual costs recorded by the EWSA operator. Those expenses total RWF 253.3 per cubic meter of
water sold. For improved sources, the maintenance and operating costs are estimated annually at
RWF 120 per household. Improved sources and latrines are excluded from the financial analysis
because they do not involve cash flows (insofar as maintenance costs are negligible for the improved
sources).
2. Results of the Financial Analysis
2.1 The table below presents the results of the analysis. It follows that overall, the DWS systems
implemented under the sub-programme are not financially profitable. This situation was foreseeable
because of the relatively high investment costs relative to the quantity of water consumed. For the
Mutobo Basse, Mutera and Rwamagana DWSs (managed by EWSA and Aquavirunga), the fact that
the internal financial rate of return (IFRR) is close to the discount rate justifies the provisions included
in the government policy of covering the investment expense. It also suggests the need for risk sharing
between the owners of the works (the community) and the operator owing to the uncertainty
surrounding the demand for water and the local communities’ capacity and willingness to pay for
water, not to mention competition from other suppliers.
Table 2
Net present value and IFRR of different types of DWS
Type of DWS NPV at 10%
(RWF millions) IFRR
Mutobo Basse DWS -0.99 6.4%
Mutera DWS 0.11 7.4%
Rwamagana DWS -0.33 4.9%
Medium-size DWSs -0.19 -3.3%
Combined -1.55 5.9%
B. ECONOMIC RATE OF RETURN
1. Assumptions Used in the Economic Analysis
1.1 Economic Value of Water: The quantities of water consumed are identical to those used in the
financial analysis. Given that willingness to pay differs among users and considering the prices
charged by operators to maintain financial equilibrium and the sustainability of the facilities, the
economic value attributed to a cubic meter of water will generally be higher than the market price. In
the absence of accurate data, willingness to pay is represented in this analysis by the maximum price
observed at standpipes during the retrospective evaluation mission, i.e., RWF 30 per 22.5-litre jerry
can. Accordingly, the economic value of water is RWF 1,333/m3 for the Mutobo Basse, Mutera and
Rwamagana DWSs. In contrast, the willingness to pay is less at the three medium-size DWSs and
improved sources, where there are a number of alternatives for potable and non-potable water and
abundant water resources. An assumption of RWF 222/m3 (representing the minimum price of RWF 5
per 22.5-litre jerry can) is used in this case as the economic value of water.
1.2 Benefits for the Health Sector: These benefits are estimated as the expenses that would have
been incurred for illness but were avoided by reason of the project. The INS household surveys and
results of the mini-survey conducted at the post-evaluation stage identify the prevalence of the main
diseases prior to the project, as shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Average prevalence of main water-borne diseases and diseases caused by poor hygiene prior to the
project by type of DWS (%)
Type of DWS Intestinal parasites Diarrhoea
Mutobo Basse DWS 23.9 2.9
Mutera DWS 23.7 2.9
Rwamagana DWS 11,3 1,6
Medium-size DWSs 21.0 2,5
Developed Sources 39.5 1.9
Source: EIVC 2005-2006 INSR, District Baseline Survey INSR 2007 and 2009 and mini-survey (Post-evaluation)
1.3 The maximum reduction of the prevalence rates attributable to the sub-programme is
estimated at 19%4 for communities provided with drinking water only and 20% for those provided as
well with individual latrines for disadvantaged households. The treatment costs of the different
diseases are taken from a MoH study of costs in Rwanda.5 For schistosomiasis, the prevalence fell
from 80% to 2%6 in the area covered by the Nyanza-Karagari DWS. The data on average recovery
times for minor illnesses not requiring hospitalization were obtained in interviews with health service
managers; in those cases, the recovery time was one day and required only one hospital visit. In rural
areas, the unit costs for such minor cases were RWF 2,023 for malaria, RWF 1,630 for parasitosis,
RWF 1,835 for diarrhoea and RWF 300 for a schistosomiasis cure.
1.4 In cases requiring hospitalization, an average recovery time of 8 days is used for patients aged
14 and below and 6 days for patients over the age of 14. The average unit cost of a hospital stay is
RWF 10,000 (the average cost of an 8-day hospital stay was RWF 9,017 in 20037) for adults over the
age of 14 and RWF 11,500 for patients aged 14 and below. The proportion of adults (over the age of
14) is 55%. It is estimated that approximately 15% of illnesses lead to hospitalization.
1.5 Benefits for Patients: The tangible benefits associated with seeking treatment for water-borne
diseases relate to transport costs. For the purposes of this analysis, we adopt the WHO estimate that
50% of patients use a form of paid transportation to travel to a doctor’s office or hospital in case of
water-borne disease.8 The average daily transportation expense for patients in rural areas are estimated
at RWF 100.
1.6 Value of an Adult’s Productive Time on Account of Work Days Gained as a Result of Reduced
Prevalence of Water-borne Diseases: The study adopts the convention that the use of sick leave
represents loss of income, which is calculated based on an estimated opportunity cost of 75% of the
minimum daily pay in rural areas (RWF 303 on average), or RWF 227 per day.9 To estimate the
benefits, the number of avoided illnesses among adults was multiplied by the labour force
participation rate for rural areas, estimated at 48.2%, adjusted to account for the seriousness of the
disease (minor versus hospitalization) and the recovery time.
4 Lorna Fewtrell & Jack Colford, Water and Hygiene Interventions to Reduce Diarrhea in Less-Developed Countries: At Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis. 5 2006 Rwanda Health Center and Hospital Cost Study, Twubakane Decentralization and Health Project, 15 May 2008. 6 Rweso health center data. 7 Development policy for mutual health associations in Rwanda, MOH. 8 Analyse financière et avantages-coûts du projet d’assainissement de la zone métropolitaine de Caracas, Venezuela (Financial and cost-
benefit analysis of the Caracas, Venezuela metropolitan area sanitation project), research report by Sabine Van Eeckhout, Department of
Economics, University of Montreal, 26 April 2006. 9 Source: Comprehensive household living conditions survey (EICV), 2006.
1.7 For parents who remain at home to care for children infected with water-borne disease, the
benefits are estimated in terms of the number of avoided illnesses for children aged 14 and below,
adjusted by the recovery time according to the seriousness of the illness and the opportunity cost of the
time.
1.8 Value of Time of a School-age Child Absent from School due to Water-borne Disease: In a
2004 report,10 WHO attributes the value of education lost by a child who must miss school because of
a water-borne illness. The time spent outside class due to illness is estimated using the minimum
salary in effect in the country, estimated at RWF 506 for Rwanda. The total number of avoided
illnesses for children between the ages of 5 and 14 will be reduced by 13%11 so as to include only
children who actually attend school.
1.9 Value of Time Gained due to the Reduced Drudgery of Fetching Water: The use of a
standpipe generally located close to housing lightens the work of collecting water for women and
children, to whom the task usually falls in Rwandan society.12 The Sub-programme helped to save
several hours that would usually be spent fetching water. To estimate the value of that time, the
analysis adopted the assumption that an average of three out of every five persons collected water
outside the home. The results of the mini-survey indicate that the average time spent collecting water
was reduced by 45 minutes for the Mutobo Basse, Mutera and Rwamagana DWSs, 2 minutes for the
medium-size DWSs and 13 minutes for the developed sources. The time spent fetching water is valued
at the opportunity cost of time in the project area, estimated on average at RWF 227.
1.10 The economic discount rate used is 12%.
2. Results of the Economic Analysis
2.1 Table 4 below presents the key results obtained. An overall net present value (NPV) of
RWF 2.63 billion results in substantial impacts and benefits for beneficiaries in the Sub-programme
area. The estimated internal economic rate of return (IERR) of 17.8% is lower than estimated in the
appraisal report (22%). The difference arises essentially from the fact that the appraisal used the basic
assumption of 20 litres average daily consumption per capita, which is far from the reality observed on
the ground. Also, some of the economic benefits considered in the appraisal differ from those
considered in this report.
2.2 The overall economic return for the project was adversely affected by the Mutobo Basse
DWS and the medium-size DWSs due to the high investment cost for Mutobo Basse and relatively
low willingness to pay among communities served by the medium-size DWSs, where potable and non-
potable water resources are abundant. In the volcanic Laves region, the terrain is very uneven. It
should also be noted, however, that the costs in Mutobo Basse include the studies for the entire Laves
region, including Mutobo Basse, which substantially increased the costs. New branch lines will be
connected to the main pipeline provided by the sub-programme and will improve the economic rate of
return for that DWS.
10 WHO (Guy Hutton Laurence Haller), the Evaluation of the Costs and Benefits of Water and Sanitation Improvements at the Global
Level, Geneva, 2004. 11 The proportion of school-age children who do not attend school. 12 Preparation of the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project, Environmental Assessment, Final Report. Br Bikwemu Gaspard, study
financed by the World Bank, May 2000.
Table 4: Net present value, IERR and unit costs per type of DWS
Type of DWS NPV at 12%
(RWF billions) IERR
Unit cost (total
cost/number of
beneficiaries)
Mutobo Basse DWS 0.85 15.1% RWF 34.300
Mutera DWS 0.49 22.8% RWF 11.819
Rwamagana DWS 0.38 19.1% RWF 21.819
Medium-size DWSs 0.02 13.6% RWF 4.86
Developed sources and latrines 0.88 28.3% RWF 5.238
Combined 2.63 17.8% RWF 14.050
Developed sources RWF 4.180
Family latrines RWF 52.098
Table 5: Comparison of average costs per person supplied by gravity-based water supply systems
Type of DWS Average unit cost per person supplied
(USD)
PNEAR – I 23
Rural drinking water supply and sanitation project
(Projet d’alimentation en eau potable et
d’assainissement en milieu rural, PEAMR)
29
Africa 50-80
3. Sensitivity Analysis
3.1 The purpose of the sensitivity analysis is to assess the impact of changes in certain basic
assumptions on the results of the profitability study. The parameters of the sensitivity analysis that can
impact the results are: (i) the economic opportunity cost of capital; (ii) the additional consumption of
water; (iii) willingness to pay; (iv) health and other benefits (percentage reduction of episodes). The
analysis is conducted by changing the reference values by + 10%. Table 3 presents the results of the
simulation for the worst-case assumption (all parameters are reduced by 10%) and the best-case
assumption (all parameters are increased by 10%) relative to the baseline situation.
Table 6
Net present value, IERR, and combined IERR for all DWSs
Type of DWS Assumption 1
(-10%)
Baseline
assumption
Assumption 2
(+10%)
Economic evaluation
Economic discount rate (%) 10.8 12.0 13.2
NPV (RWF billions) 2.38 2.63 2.80
IERR (%) 15.7 17.8 19.8
4.3 The analysis of the sub-programme sensitivity tests indicate that the results of the economic
analysis are resilient to changes in the different parameters used. The economic rate of return
continues to be greater than the economic opportunity cost of the capital with NPV values at
acceptable levels, confirming the sub-programme’s economic viability.
Value Value Value
12,0% 2 630 006 784 17,8%
Investments
Mainte-nance
and operation
expense
Business
expenses
Energy
costs
Treatment
costs
General
and
admin.
costs
Economic value
of additional
water provided
to bene-
ficiaries by the
sub-program
Avoided
cost of
treating
diseases
Avoided cost of
transpor-tation
to seek
treatment for
diseases
Value of
additional
days an
adult was
able to
work due
to reduced
preva-
lence of
diseases
Value of
increased
time a
child
spends at
school as
a result of
avoided
absences
Value of
time
gained as
a result of
reduced
time spent
collecting
water
C1 C2 C3 C3 C3 C B0 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 BT1 BT1-C
Year 1 2006 1 128 029 117 0 0 0 0 0 1 128 029 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 128 029 117
Year 2 2007 2 465 444 859 0 0 0 0 0 2 465 444 859 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 465 444 859
Year 3 2008 2 539 941 631 2 458 368 470 000 2 458 983 1 229 492 12 301 063 2 558 859 537 163 891 221 6 987 983 132 812 136 363 810 226 4 778 141 176 736 745 -2 382 122 792
Year 4 2009 1 064 828 071 74 429 487 539 596 2 508 163 1 254 081 19 905 547 1 163 464 945 1 121 561 583 42 123 168 1 467 155 5 392 912 3 907 480 16 555 314 1 191 007 612 27 542 667
Year 5 2010 82 355 795 539 596 2 558 326 1 279 163 20 315 649 107 048 529 1 373 295 970 104 571 586 2 521 778 6 475 737 10 341 284 17 717 750 1 514 924 105 1 407 875 576
Year 6 2011 83 522 533 539 596 2 609 492 1 304 746 20 734 312 108 710 680 1 405 345 586 104 571 586 2 521 778 6 475 737 10 341 284 17 717 750 1 546 973 722 1 438 263 042
Year 7 2012 93 173 543 84 723 761 539 596 2 661 682 1 330 841 21 161 720 203 591 143 1 438 173 706 104 571 586 2 521 778 6 475 737 10 341 284 17 717 750 1 579 801 841 1 376 210 698
Year 8 2013 202 606 077 85 960 504 539 596 2 714 916 1 357 458 21 598 057 314 776 608 1 471 800 024 104 571 586 2 521 778 6 475 737 10 341 284 17 717 750 1 613 428 159 1 298 651 551
Year 9 2014 87 233 817 539 596 2 769 214 1 384 607 22 043 514 113 970 748 1 506 244 754 104 571 586 2 521 778 6 475 737 10 341 284 17 717 750 1 647 872 889 1 533 902 141
Year 10 2015 88 544 786 539 596 2 824 599 1 412 299 22 498 285 115 819 565 1 541 528 640 104 571 586 2 521 778 6 475 737 10 341 284 17 717 750 1 683 156 776 1 567 337 210
Year 11 2016 640 990 896 89 894 531 539 596 2 881 091 1 440 545 22 962 568 758 709 228 1 577 672 974 104 571 586 2 521 778 6 475 737 10 341 284 17 717 750 1 719 301 109 960 591 882
Year 12 2017 93 173 543 91 284 204 539 596 2 938 712 1 469 356 23 436 567 212 841 979 1 614 699 607 104 571 586 2 521 778 6 475 737 10 341 284 17 717 750 1 756 327 743 1 543 485 764
Year 13 2018 230 381 408 92 714 991 539 596 2 997 487 1 498 743 23 920 488 352 052 713 1 652 630 968 104 571 586 2 521 778 6 475 737 10 341 284 17 717 750 1 794 259 104 1 442 206 391
Year 14 2019 94 188 114 539 596 3 057 436 1 528 718 24 414 543 123 728 407 1 691 490 078 104 571 586 2 521 778 6 475 737 10 341 284 17 717 750 1 833 118 213 1 709 389 806
Year 15 2020 95 704 831 539 596 3 118 585 1 559 293 24 918 949 125 841 253 1 731 300 564 104 571 586 2 521 778 6 475 737 10 341 284 17 717 750 1 872 928 700 1 747 087 447
Year 16 2021 97 266 438 539 596 3 180 957 1 590 478 25 433 926 128 011 395 1 772 086 681 104 571 586 2 521 778 6 475 737 10 341 284 17 717 750 1 913 714 817 1 785 703 422
Year 17 2022 93 173 543 98 874 270 539 596 3 244 576 1 622 288 25 959 701 223 413 973 1 813 873 323 104 571 586 2 521 778 6 475 737 10 341 284 17 717 750 1 955 501 459 1 732 087 485
Year 18 2023 202 606 077 100 529 701 539 596 3 309 467 1 654 734 26 496 504 335 136 079 1 856 686 046 104 571 586 2 521 778 6 475 737 10 341 284 17 717 750 1 998 314 181 1 663 178 102
Year 19 2024 640 990 896 102 234 146 539 596 3 375 657 1 687 828 27 044 571 775 872 694 1 900 551 080 104 571 586 2 521 778 6 475 737 10 341 284 17 717 750 2 042 179 215 1 266 306 521
Year 20 2025 103 989 062 539 596 3 443 170 1 721 585 27 604 144 137 297 557 1 945 495 354 104 571 586 2 521 778 6 475 737 10 341 284 17 717 750 2 087 123 490 1 949 825 933
Year 21 2026 105 795 951 539 596 3 512 033 1 756 017 28 175 468 139 779 066 1 991 546 512 104 571 586 2 521 778 6 475 737 10 341 284 17 717 750 2 133 174 647 1 993 395 582
Year 22 2027 93 173 543 107 656 359 539 596 3 582 274 1 791 137 28 758 797 235 501 706 2 038 732 930 104 571 586 2 521 778 6 475 737 10 341 284 17 717 750 2 180 361 066 1 944 859 360
Year 23 2028 109 571 876 539 596 3 653 919 1 826 960 29 354 387 144 946 738 2 087 083 741 104 571 586 2 521 778 6 475 737 10 341 284 17 717 750 2 228 711 877 2 083 765 139
Year 24 2029 111 544 143 539 596 3 726 998 1 863 499 29 962 500 147 636 736 2 136 628 853 104 571 586 2 521 778 6 475 737 10 341 284 17 717 750 2 278 256 989 2 130 620 253
Year 25 2030 113 574 847 539 596 3 801 538 1 900 769 30 583 407 150 400 157 2 187 398 971 104 571 586 2 521 778 6 475 737 10 341 284 17 717 750 2 329 027 106 2 178 626 950
CASH FLOW
YEAR
CALCULATION OF ECONOMIC RETURN LARGE-SCALE DWS
Discount rate Net present value (NPV)
in Rwandan francs
Internal Economic Rate
of Return (%)
COSTS
TOTAL COST
FINANCIAL BENEFITS
TOTAL BENEFITS
(B0+B1+B2+B3+
B4)
Annex 10 - Bibliography
Project and strategy documents
1. AFDB, Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Initiative - Framework for Implementation: “A Regional Response
to Africa’s Rural Drinking Water and Sanitation Crises
2. AFDB, 2003, Rwanda, National Rural Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Programme (PNEAR), Appraisal
Report
3. AFDB, 2010, Rwanda, PNEAR (First Sub-programme), Completion Report
4. AFDB, 2004, Loan agreement between the Republic of Rwanda and the African Development Fund (PNEAR
Programme Start-up Phase)
5. AFDB, 2004, Memorandum of understanding between the Republic of Rwanda and the African Development
Fund (PNEAR Programme Start-up Phase)
6. AFDB, PNEAR Programme Start-up Phase – Summary Ledger
7. AFDB, 2003, Rwanda: Country Strategy Paper 2002-2004
8. AFDB, 2004, Rwanda: Country Strategy Paper 2002-2004, updated 2004
9. AFDB, 2005, Rwanda: Country Strategy Paper 2005-2007
10. AFDB, 2008, Rwanda: Country Strategy Paper 2008-2011
11. Rwanda, 2010, National Policy & Strategy for Water Supply and Sanitation Services, Ministry of
Infrastructure
12. Rwanda, Vision 2020
13. Rwanda, 2004, Water and Sanitation Sector Policy, Ministry of Lands, Forest Environment, Water and Natural
Resources
14. Rwanda, 2006, Poverty Reduction Strategy – Evaluation Report (2002-2005)
15. Rwanda, 2006, Water and Sanitation Sector Joint Review
Aide-mémoires and back to office reports
1. Aide-mémoire of the supervision mission, PNEAR, Kigali 28/10 - 5/11 2009
2. Aide-mémoire of the supervision mission, PNEAR.1, Kigali 21/02 - 02/03/2010
3. Back to office report, Rwanda – PNEAR Phase I completion mission, Kigali 28/02 - 04/03/2009
4. Back to office report, Rwanda – Supervision mission, Drinking Water Supply and Electricity Programme
(PAEPE) and PNEAR Phase I, Kigali 28/10 - 06/11/2009
Evaluation reports
1. ADB, 2010, Evaluative Findings in Water Supply and Sanitation Projects. Asian Development Bank
2. ADB, 2010, Urban and National rural drinking water supply and sanitation, Synthesis note of evaluation
results – Operations Evaluation Department
3. ADB, 2008, Rwanda Gender Assessment: Progress towards improving women’s economic status
4. AFDB, 1999, Review of Bank Experience in Financing Rural Water Supply Projects – Operations Evaluation
Department (OPEV)
5. AFDB, 2000, Review of Bank Experience in Financing Rural Water Supply Projects: Presentation Note
(OPEV)
6. AFDB, 2000, Study on Bank Experience in Financing Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Projects (OPEV)
7. AFDB, 2004, Evaluating Bank’s Assistance for Capacity Strengthening of Urban Water Supply and Sanitation
Entities in Regional Member Countries (OPEV)
8. AFDB, 2000, Water Supply & Sanitation – Sectoral and Project Performance Indicators in the Water Supply
and Sanitation Sub-Sector (OPEV)
9. AFDB, 2001, Rapport de synthèse sur l’expérience de the Bank en matière de projets d’hydraulique urbaine et
rurale et d’assainissement (Summary Report of Bank Experience with Urban and Rural Water Supply and
Sanitation Projects) (OPEV)
10. ECG, 2011, Evaluation Findings on URBAN AND National rural drinking water supply and sanitation, ECG
Paper 4
11. EIB;2009; “Evaluation of EIB financing of water and sanitation projects outside the European Union
12. Union Européenne, 2010, Evaluation Externe finale du projet “Amélioration des conditions d’accès à l’eau
potable et à l’assainissement des populations vulnérables du quartier Bardo – San Pedro –Côte d’Ivoire” (Final
External Evaluation of the “Improving access to drinking water and sanitation for vulnerable groups in the
Bardo district of San Pedro, Côte d’Ivoire”)
13. Rwanda, 2004, Medium-Term Expenditure Framework 2005-2007 For the Water and Sanitation Sector,
prepared by Gaspard Ahobamuteze, Ministry of Lands, Forest Environment, Water and Natural Resources.
14. Rwanda, 2008, Rapport définitif de l’étude d’impact environnemental et social stratégique (EIESS) du PNEAR,
Etude (Final Report of the PNEAR Strategic Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (SESIA)) by
Professor Jean Biemi (Environmental Consultant)
15. Rwanda, 2006, Programmemes d’action nationaux d’adaptation aux changements climatiques (National
Programme of Action for Adaptation to Climate Change) (PANA-RWANDA), Ministry of Lands,
Environment, Forests, Water and Mines
16. UNDP-World Bank, 1997, Assurer la pérennité de l’approvisionnement en eau en milieu rural –
Recommendations issues d’une étude mondiale” (Making Rural Water Supply Sustainable: Recommendations
from a Global Study)
17. World Bank, “Better Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor: Good Practice from Sub-Saharan Africa”
18. World Bank, 2007, Promotion et Mise en Place de Partenariats Publics Privés (PPP) pour la Gestion des
Systèmes AEP Ruraux/ Mission d’Evaluation et de Programmemation (Promoting and Implementing Public-
Private Partnerships (PPP) to Manage Rural DWS Systems/Evaluation and Programmeming Mission)
19. World Bank, 2010, Rwanda: Délégation de gestion du service d’eau en milieu rural et semi urbain (Delegation
of Water Service Management in Rural and Semi-Urban Areas) – Water and Sanitation Programme (WSP)
20. World Bank; 2009, Les performances du PPP pour la gestion des adductions d’eau rurales au Rwanda, Rapport
final – Tome 1 Les performances de la gestion déléguée (PPP Performance in Managing Rural Water Supply
Systems in Rwanda, Final Report, Volume 1, Delegated Management Performance), WSP
21. World Bank; 2009, Les performances du PPP pour la gestion des adductions d’eau rurales au Rwanda, Rapport
final – Tome 3 Annexes (PPP Performance in Managing Rural Water Supply Systems in Rwanda, Final
Report, Volume 3, Annexes), WSP
22. World Bank, 2005, Private solutions for Infrastructure in Rwanda, A country Framework Report
23. World Bank, 2008, What Works in Water Supply and Sanitation, Lessons from Impact Evaluations – A
Summary of Findings,” Independent Evaluation Group
24. World Bank, 2009, Development of Financing Mechanism of Rural Water Supply in Rwanda – Final Report
Draft
25. World Bank, 2010, Tariff Recommendations for Rural Water Sector in Rwanda, Hydroconseil
26. World Bank, 2010, Rwanda: delegation of the management of rural systems to the private sector, Hydroconseil
Draft version – Field Note Project on Private Sector Participation for management of Drinking Water Supply
27. World Bank, 2010, Water Supply and Sanitation in Rwanda – Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and
Beyond
28. World Bank –IFC, 2010, Improving Rural Water Service in Rwanda with Public-Private Partnerships – Smart
Lessons, real experiences, real development
29. World Health Organization, 2000, Operation and maintenance of water supply and sanitation systems – A
training Package for Managers and Planners
Other documents
1. Eau Vive, 2010, “Pour une meilleure diffusion des ouvrages d’assainissement en milieu rural sahélien – 80
propositions concrètes” (80 specific proposals for better distribution of sanitation systems in rural areas of the
Sahel)
2. AMCOW, 2006, Water Supply and Sanitation in Rwanda – Turning Finance into Services for 2012 and
Beyond – conference edition only
3. ECG, 2011, “Good Practices for the Evaluation of Public Sectors Operations”, 2011 Revised Edition, First
Draft of March 3, 2011
4. GRET, 2009, “Implantation d’un service d’eau potable: quels changements des pratiques de consommation ? –
L’expérience du Programme au Cambodge” (Implementation of drinking water service and changes in
consumption practices: Experience from the Cambodia programme)
5. pS-Eau, 2007, “Eléments pour l’évaluation de projets d’approvisionnement en eau potable (Factors in the
evaluation of drinking water supply projects) Preliminary version, Cahier technique n° 15
6. pS-Eau and F3E, 2011, “Concevoir et mettre en œuvre le Suivi-Evaluation des projets eau et assainissement –
Guide méthodologique” (Designing and implementing monitoring and evaluation for water and sanitation
projects. Methodological guide) 1st Edition
7. pS-Eau,X, “La prise en compte du genre dans les projets d’adduction d’eau potable en milieux rural et semi-
urbain – Guide méthodologique” (Gender considerations in rural and semi-urban drinking water supply
projects. Methodological guide)
8. PARIS21, 2008, Officials Statistics and Monitoring and Evaluation Systems in Developing Countries: Friends
or Foes?”
9. Gérard Verger, S.P.I.D. Verger Inc., 2008, “La participation du sector privé dans l’exploitation des systèmes
d’eau potable en milieux rural et semi-urbain en Afrique et l’utilisation optimum des fonds publics” (Private
sector involvement in operating drinking water systems in African rural and semi-urban areas and optimum use
of public funds)
10. World Bank, 2005, “Directives opérationnelles pour les équipes du Groupe de the World Bank: Eau potable et
assainissement – Approche programmeme et Appui budgétaire” (Operational directives for World Bank group
teams: drinking water and sanitation – Programme approach and budgetary support)
11. World Bank – Water and Sanitation Programme – Africa (PEA-AF), 2002, “Les hommes et les femmes du
Bénin évaluent leur projet d’approvisionnement en eau potable et d’assainissement” (Men and women of
Benin evaluate their drinking water supply and sanitation project)
12. World Bank, “The handwashing handbook: a guide for developing a hygiene promotion programme to increase
hand washing with soap”
13. World Bank, 2009, Les performances du PPP pour la gestion des adductions d’eau rurales au Rwanda ((PPP
Performance in Managing Rural Water Supply Systems in Rwanda), Volumes 1 and 3 – Hydroconseil
14. World Bank, 2011, Managing the Flow of Monitoring Information to Improve Rural Sanitation in EAST Java”
Global Scaling Up Rural Sanitation – Water and Sanitation Programme Working Paper
15. Mauritania, 2000, “Adduction d’eau potable en milieu rural – Guide des projets” (Rural water supply systems
– Project guide), Ministry of Water Systems and Energy, Directorate of Water and Sanitation Systems
16. Madagascar, 2005, “Projet Pilote d’alimentation en Eau Potable et assainissement en milieu rural – Manuel de
procédures pour la mise en place des projets Eau et Assainissement” (Pilot rural drinking water supply and
sanitation project – Procedures manual for the implementation of water and sanitation projects), Ministry of
Energy and Mines, Water and Sanitation Directorate
17. Burkina Faso, 2006, Programme National d’Approvisionnement en Eau Potable à l’Horizon 2015 (National
drinking water supply programme 2015) (PN-AEPA 2015) – Programme Document, Ministry of Agriculture,
Water Supply and Fishery Resources, Directorate General of Water Resources
18. Mali, X, “Guide méthodologique des projets d’alimentation en eau potable et textes législatifs et
réglementaires –En milieu rural, semi-urbain et urbain pour les collectivités territoriales, version finale
(Methodological guide for drinking water supply projects and legislative and regulatory texts– in rural, semi-
urban and urban areas for local authorities, final version)
19. Senegal, 2006, Programmeme d’Eau Potable et d’Assainissement du Millénaire (PEPAM 2015) Procédures et
outils de mise en œuvre (version provisoire) (Millennium Water Supply and Sanitation Programme (PEPAM
2015), Implementation procedures and tools (Preliminary version)
top related