REPUBLIC OF RWANDA NATIONAL RURAL DRINKING WATER...

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



- Infrastructure Expert


11 2



5 Supervision 24/11 -

02/12/2008 9 4


- Consultant, Financial Analyst

- Consultant, Water Systems Engineer

- Transport Engineer


9 2



7 Supervision

28/10 -

05/11/2009

23/03/02

9 2 - Principal Water and Sanitation Engineer


9 Completion Report 21/02 -

04/03/2010 11 2



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


START-UP PHASE


(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


(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


(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


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


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


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


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



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)

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA NATIONAL RURAL DRINKING WATER...

Documents

Transcript of REPUBLIC OF RWANDA NATIONAL RURAL DRINKING WATER...