82415 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Water Supply and Sanitation in Zimbabwe Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond The first round of Country Status Overviews (CSO1) published in 2006 benchmarked the preparedness of sectors of 16 countries in Africa to meet the WSS MDGs based on their medium-term spending plans and a set of ‘success factors’ selected from regional experience. Combined with a process of national stakeholder consultation, this prompted countries to ask whether they had those ‘success factors’ in place and, if not, whether they should put them in place. The second round of Country Status Overviews (CSO2) has built on both the method and the process developed in CSO1. The ‘success factors’ have been supplemented with additional factors drawn from country and regional analysis to develop the CSO2 scorecard. Together these reflect the essential steps, functions and results in translating finance into services through government systems – in line with Paris Principles for aid effectiveness. The data and summary assessments have been drawn from local data sources and compared with internationally reported data, and, wherever possible, the assessments have been subject to broad-based consultations with lead government agencies and country sector stakeholders, including donor institutions. This second set of 32 Country Status Overviews (CSO2) on water supply and sanitation was commissioned by the African Ministers’ Council on Water (AMCOW). Development of the CSO2 was led by the World Bank administered Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) in collaboration with the African Development Bank (AfDB), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO). This report was produced in collaboration with the Government of Zimbabwe and other stakeholders during 2009/10. Some sources cited may be informal documents that are not readily available. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this volume do not necessarily reflect the views of the collaborating institutions, their Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The collaborating institutions do not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the collaborating institutions concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The material in this publication is copyrighted. Requests for permission to reproduce portions of it should be sent to wsp@worldbank.org. The collaborating institutions encourage the dissemination of this work and will normally grant permission promptly. For more information, please visit www.amcow.net or www.wsp.org. Photograph credits: Getty Images © 2011 Water and Sanitation Program An AMCOW Country Status Overview Water Supply and Sanitation in Zimbabwe Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 1 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Strategic Overview Zimbabwe’s experience of water and sanitation sector to improved sanitation. The pessimistic scenario also development is that of a model of African sector assumes that budget allocations are minimal and external development, collapsing within a decade. This reflects resources are restricted to humanitarian aid. Even the the vulnerability of sector service development built on optimistic scenario shows Zimbabwe off-track to meet the state subsidies and donor finance, without sufficient water and sanitation MDGs. focus on sustainability. Encouragingly, a relatively swift recovery may well be possible, given a favorable political The investment gap to meet the national targets is environment, a large injection of finance, and prioritization estimated to be as large as US$365 million per year for of the sector. A second generation of reforms is now water and US$336 million for sanitation (pessimistic needed. They encompass: leadership, role allocation, scenario). Even the more optimistic scenario shows a capacity building and improving sector governance and significant investment requirement. A large portion of stakeholder consultation; shifting government’s role from investment is required for rehabilitating the existing that of implementer to facilitator; filling key policy gaps extensive but dilapidated infrastructure. Sector financing and amending policies to improve sustainability; assisting is low in all subsectors. An overall financing strategy needs service providers to become financially viable; improving to be developed which takes into account Zimbabwe’s donor-government alignment; and putting in place sector current fiscal resource base and learns the lessons from monitoring and annual review processes. the decline in the sector. In the short term, an immediate focus is required on repair and rehabilitation of critical There are different sets of sector targets in Zimbabwe. existing infrastructure in rural and urban areas. Estimates of coverage and investment requirements also vary considerably. An optimistic scenario for future sector The Ministry of Water Resources Development and development is based on WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Management has now assumed leadership for the Programme (JMP) figures. In 2008, the JMP suggests that sector, rejuvenating and extending the mandate of the 82 percent of Zimbabweans had access to safe water coordinating body, the National Action Committee. But and 68 percent to an improved toilet. These estimates some institutional roles still need further clarification as to are higher than national estimates of coverage, while who leads and owns what sector components and how the MDG targets (derived from JMP coverage estimates) resources should be channeled. Zimbabwe’s results in the are also lower than the national targets. As a result, the CSO2 scorecard, which assesses the pathway by which coverage increase, and investment, required under this money is turned into water supply and sanitation services, scenario are more modest, while the optimistic scenario reflects the extreme challenges that the sector now faces, also assumes that domestic budget allocations are especially in planning, budgeting, equity, monitoring, realized and the Multi-Donor Trust Fund commences, output, maintenance, and market development. increasing available resources. A more pessimistic scenario would apply the higher targets and Zimbabwean sector This second AMCOW Country Status Overview (CSO2) agencies’ own figures, namely that in 2008, 46 percent has been produced in collaboration with the Government of Zimbabweans had access to safe water and 30 percent of Zimbabwe and other stakeholders. 2 Water Supply and Sanitation in Zimbabwe: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond Agreed priority actions to tackle these challenges, and ensure finance is effectively turned into services, are: Sectorwide • Rejuvenate government decision-making structures at all levels. • Develop one comprehensive updated water sector policy, covering all subsectors; also develop a sector strategy and financing plan to achieve updated national targets. • Update national data sets through audits and needs assessments; and develop one monitoring framework and a process of annual joint sector reviews. • Develop an overall sector financing strategy. • Develop a national capacity building program. • The urgent case for increased investment needs to be made at the highest levels. • Institute inclusive coordination mechanisms, working in partnership with parallel financing modalities, and establish an independent sector regulator. Rural water supply (RWS) • Initiate a national program to repair and rehabilitate wells and boreholes. • Update RWS mapping and needs. • Place responsibility and asset ownership of RWS with rural district councils, and build their sector capacity, whilst encouraging support from communities and the private sector. • Rethink maintenance/spares policy and develop a regulated, competitive drilling industry. • Development of Sector-Wide Approach, starting with the rural sector. • Address the needs of resettled Zimbabweans. Urban water supply (UWS) • Develop a financing strategy for replacing aging infrastructure. • Update tariff policy to improve financial viability and address the needs of the poor. • Put in place energy policies to make UWS “unsheddable”. • Rebuild the councils’ capacity for financial and technical management and increase their accountability to consumers. • Encourage private sector involvement in service management. • Create autonomous utilities in main cities. • Allocate UWS management to councils or to the Zimbabwe National Water Authority on objective efficiency measures. Rural sanitation and hygiene (RSH) • Create a specific budget line for RSH in national and local budgets. • Initiate a national sanitation behavior change program to eliminate open defecation. • Develop a menu of latrine options for affordable entry to improved services and clarify policies on pit-emptying and latrine replacement. • Develop local private sector capacity for latrine construction and management. Urban sanitation and hygiene • Develop alternatives to high-cost sewerage-only policies. • Develop a financing strategy for urban sanitation. • Increase enforcement of environmental and public health controls. • Attract or buy-in urban sanitation expertise. 3 4 Contents ........................................................................................................................... 6 Acronyms and Abbreviations. 1. .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction. 2. ............................................................................................... 8 Sector Overview: Coverage and Finance Trends. 3. ......................................................................................... 11 Reform Context: Introducing the CSO2 Scorecard. 4. Institutional Framework................................................................................................................................. 13 5. .................................................................................................................. 16 Financing and its Implementation. 6. Sector Monitoring and Evaluation.................................................................................................................. 18 7. Subsector: Rural Water Supply....................................................................................................................... 19 8. ..................................................................................................................... 22 Subsector: Urban Water Supply. 9. Subsector: Rural Sanitation and Hygiene........................................................................................................ 24 10. ...................................................................................................... 26 Subsector: Urban Sanitation and Hygiene. Notes and References.................................................................................................................................... 28 5 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Acronyms and Abbreviations AfDB African Development Bank MoHCW Ministry of Health and Child Welfare AMCOW African Ministers’ Council on Water MoLGRUD Ministry of Local Government Rural and AusAID Australian Government Aid Agency Urban Development CAPEX Capital expenditure MoTCID Ministry of Transport, Communications, and CSO2 Country Status Overviews (second round) Infrastructure Development DDF District Development Fund MoWAGCD Ministry of Women’s Affairs, Gender, and EMA Environmental Management Agency Community Development ER&RR Emergency Rehabilitation and Risk MoWRDM Ministry of Water Resources, Development, Reduction Program and Management EU European Union NAC National Action Committee GDP Gross domestic product NCU National Coordination Unit GNI Gross national income NGO Nongovernmental organization GTZ Gessellschaft fûr Technische O&M Operations and maintenance Zusammernarbeit, a German technical OPEX Operations expenditure cooperation agency RSH Rural sanitation and hygiene HH Household RWS Rural water supply JMP Joint Monitoring Programme (UNICEF/WHO) SSA Sub-Saharan Africa LIC Low-income country SWAp Sector-Wide Approach M&E Monitoring and evaluation UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund MDG Millennium Development Goal USH Urban sanitation and hygiene MIC Middle-income country UWS Urban water supply MoA Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanization, and WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Irrigation Development WHO World Health Organization MoE Ministry of Energy and Power Development WSP Water and Sanitation Program MoEn Ministry of Environment and Natural WSS Water supply and sanitation Resources Development ZINWA Zimbabwe National Water Authority MoF Ministry of Finance Z$ Zimbabwean dollar Exchange rate: Since the abandonment of the Zimbabwe dollar in 2009, foreign currencies including US$ are used. All financial data in this report is stated in US$. 6 Water Supply and Sanitation in Zimbabwe: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 1. Introduction The African Ministers Council on Water (AMCOW) commissioned the production of a second round of Country Status Overviews (CSOs) to better understand what underpins progress in water supply and sanitation and what they and their governments can do to accelerate that progress across countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).1 AMCOW delegated this task to the World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Program and the African Development Bank who are implementing it in close partnership with UNICEF and WHO in over 30 countries across Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). This CSO2 report has been produced in collaboration with the Government of Zimbabwe and other stakeholders during 2009/10. The analysis aims to help countries assess their own service delivery pathways for turning finance into water supply and sanitation services in each of four subsectors: rural and urban water supply, and rural and urban sanitation and hygiene. The CSO2 analysis has three main components: a review of past coverage; a costing model to assess the adequacy of future investments; and a scorecard which allows diagnosis of particular bottlenecks along the service delivery pathway. The CSO2’s contribution is to answer not only whether past trends and future finance are sufficient to meet sector targets, but what specific issues need to be addressed to ensure finance is effectively turned into accelerated coverage in water supply and sanitation. In this spirit, specific priority actions have been identified through consultation. A synthesis report, available separately, presents best practice and shared learning to help realize these priority actions. 7 An AMCOW Country Status Overview 2. Sector Overview: Coverage and Finance Trends Coverage: Assessing Past Progress 30 percent to improved sanitation facilities. Figure 1 shows the different scenarios against the goals. In the 20 years from Zimbabwe’s Independence in 1980, overall water coverage increased from 32 percent to 56 At Independence in 1980, Zimbabwe inherited a well- percent and overall sanitation access from 28 percent to 55 developed urban sector and a neglected rural sector. The percent.2 Urban services had achieved well over 90 percent detailed JMP subsectoral figures show limited progress in coverage by the late 1990s. Since then there has been a drinking water supply over the whole period and a decline in decline, the exact extent of which is not known. piped supply access (see sections 6 and 9). Despite significant efforts to develop rural infrastructure, the imbalance between The CSO2 compares countries’ own estimates of coverage urban and rural services remains a distinctive feature of the with data from the UNICEF/WHO Joint Monitoring sector in Zimbabwe today:6 98 percent of those without an Programme (JMP).3 The impact of these different coverage improved drinking water source live in rural areas and up to estimates on investment requirements is also assessed. There 42 percent of the rural population practices open defecation. are two different sets of targets for the sector. The lower, Hidden behind the coverage statistics, there has also been a Millennium Development Goal (MDG) targets are for 89 significant decline in the quality of urban and rural services percent water coverage and 72 percent sanitation coverage; (poorer water quality, intermittent supplies, and longer the government’s own, more ambitious targets4 aim for walking distances). Sanitation coverage has stagnated since 100 percent coverage by 2015 in all subsectors, except 1990, with only a slow reduction in open defecation. Without rural sanitation (80 percent). Estimates of coverage also vary a recovery in the water and sanitation sector, Zimbabweans considerably. The WHO/UNICEF JMP figures suggest that, in will face further cholera outbreaks, more deaths, illnesses, 2008, 82 percent of Zimbabweans had access to improved continuing poverty, and negative impacts on livelihoods, drinking water and 68 percent to an improved toilet. industry, tourism, food production and agriculture, pollution Government figures5 for 2008 estimate coverage in the of rivers and water courses: this essentially translates to more range of 46 percent access to improved drinking water and hardship, particularly for women and children. Figure 1 Progress in water supply and sanitation coverage 100% 100% 80% 80% Coverage Coverage 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Government estimates Government target Government estimates Government target JMP estimates MDG target JMP estimates MDG target Sources: JMP 2010 Report, MoHCW data on sanitation coverage, the NAC inventory and urban council estimates. 8 Water Supply and Sanitation in Zimbabwe: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond Investment Requirements: Testing the the MDGs with the current annual financing9 shows a gap Sufficiency of Finance of US$365 million for capital investment alone. A consequence of Zimbabwe’s economic recession and The required increase in investment for sanitation is even hyperinflation from 2000 was that government resources greater, largely because of the costs of rehabilitating declined to the point of having no value and line ministries and extending urban sewerage. The total annual CAPEX only received a fraction of what was budgeted.7 Without requirement for sanitation is US$415 million, of which resources, established government systems for financial US$272 million would need to come from anticipated public disbursement were unused. Most sector finance is now investment. Comparing the annual CAPEX requirements off-budget, managed by nongovernmental organizations to meet national targets with current annual financing (NGOs) and multilaterals. Estimating investment (current public investment for sanitation is US$50 million, requirements is complicated, not only by the different household contributions US$29 million) leaves a total gap coverage figures, but also by the unpredictability of of US$336 million. resources allocated to the sector. A costing model was developed which uses government estimates of the The investment gap presented above relates to the current coverage and estimates of government resources ‘pessimistic’ scenario: estimates using the higher JMP at 2009 levels. It also assumes existing policies and that coverage figures and the lower MDG targets would donor finance continues to be restricted to humanitarian reduce CAPEX financing gap, though it would still be well assistance. Unit costs are largely based on those developed in excess of current available financing. for an assessment of the costs of meeting the MDGs in 2007.8 There are a number of reasons why even this depiction of investments may be over-optimistic. The first is operation Figure 2 and Table 1 show the large scale of the investment and maintenance (O&M) requirements (Table 2). As in gap for water supply, largely as a result of the costs many countries, in Zimbabwe it is assumed that O&M of rehabilitating costly urban infrastructure. The total costs will be recovered from users, though in practice annual CAPEX requirement for water is US$544 million, this is not always achieved. If any of the annual O&M of which US$305 million would need to come from requirements have to be subsidized from the public purse, public investment, assuming a user contribution of 10 for example, utilities that do not achieve operational percent for rural infrastructure, and 60 percent for urban cost recovery, it reduces the amount available for capital infrastructure. Comparing annual requirements to meet investment. While user contribution policies are largely Figure 2 Required vs. anticipated (public) and assumed (household) expenditure Required CAPEX Required CAPEX Required Required OPEX OPEX 0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 US$ million/year US$ million/year Public CAPEX (anticipated) Public CAPEX (anticipated) Household CAPEX (assumed) Household CAPEX (assumed) CAPEX deficit CAPEX deficit Source: CSO2 estimates. 9 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Table 1 Coverage and investment figures Coverage Target Population CAPEX Anticipated Assumed Total requiring requirements public CAPEX HH deficit access CAPEX 1990 2008 2015 Total Public Domestic External Total % % % ‘000/year US$ million/year Rural Water Supply 70% 40% 100% 757 174 157 6 33 39 4 131 Urban Water Supply 97% 60% 100% 374 369 148 20 34 54 81 234 Water Supply total 78% 46% 100% 1,131 544 305 26 67 93 85 365 Rural Sanitation 35% 25% 80% 686 90 45 2 12 14 14 62 Urban Sanitation 99% 40% 100% 483 325 227 11 25 36 15 273 Sanitation total 54% 30% 85% 1,124 415 272 13 37 50 29 336 Sources: CSO2 costing.10 ineffective, the cost of maintaining Zimbabwe’s urban Table 2 service standards is high. With the collapse of industry, Annual O&M, CSO2 estimates incomes, and public sector finance, ability to pay has also Subsector O&M fallen. Government guidance to relate tariffs to costs is an US$ million/year urgent requirement to enable sector recovery. Finally, the above investment requirements do not take into account Rural water supply 19 Urban water supply 37 the costs of construction of additional dams which will be Water supply total 57 needed, for example in Harare, to cater for the growth in Rural sanitation 4 water demand. Urban sanitation 19 Sanitation total 24 These considerations are only part of the picture. Source: CSO2 costing. Bottlenecks can, in fact, occur throughout the service delivery pathway—all the institutions, processes, and actors that translate sector funding into sustainable services. be gross underestimates. The rest of this report evaluates Where the pathway is well developed sector funding the service delivery pathway in its entirety, locating the should turn into services at the estimated unit costs. bottlenecks and presenting the agreed priority actions to Where it is not, the above investment requirements may help address them. 10 Water Supply and Sanitation in Zimbabwe: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 3. Reform Context: Introducing the CSO2 Scorecard Zimbabwe’s sector development story is one of an apparent and village levels. A nationwide cholera epidemic in August model of African sector development dramatically 2008 was a red flag indicator to the state of national collapsing within a decade. It reflects the vulnerability of neglect of the sector. sector service development built on state subsidies and donor finance, without sufficient focus on sustainability. The humanitarian responses to the epidemic, financial Recent developments encouragingly show that a relatively stabilization, and the creation of the Government swift recovery may be technically possible, given a favorable of National Unity, have stimulated sector recovery. political environment. International donors and NGOs support a UNICEF- coordinated Emergency Rehabilitation and Risk Reduction Zimbabwe’s water supply and sanitation infrastructure was (ER&RR) program focusing on urban areas. The Protracted driven by urban and commercial farming interests in the Recovery Program and ZIMWASH programs are helping the first half of the 20th century. Decentralized management transition from emergency to development approaches in was in place from an early date: urban and town services rural areas. The Minister of Finance’s intention (though not were managed through water and sewerage departments realized) to allocate US$109 million to the water sector in in local authorities and essentially built on the revenue the 2010 budget, indicates new interest in the sector. In from urban consumers. February 2010, ministers from the four leading ministries met and agreed on plans to restructure sector leadership Independence in 1980 saw efforts to rebuild the to build momentum for a new era in sector development. country’s infrastructure, notably to extend services to the A cabinet resolution on leadership followed and a new- neglected Communal Lands. The 20 years ending at the look NAC was relaunched in August 2010. millennium saw a near doubling of national coverage, marked by an innovative Integrated Rural Water Supply Figure 3 and Sanitation Program (IRWSSP), while the growing Average scorecard results for enabling, urban population continued to be served by decentralized sustaining, and developing service delivery, and municipal authorities, and coverage levels of nearly 100 peer-group comparison percent were maintained for urban water supply and sewerage services. Enabling From 2000–08, the implosion of the economy, the collapse of public sector investment, and the flight of donor finance have meant minimal new investments in service delivery for nearly a decade. The failure to repair or maintain an already aging infrastructure has led to a severe decline in services. Revenue streams fell and the collapse in public sector salaries led to a significant exodus of skilled staff. Capacity shortages developed in the public and private sector along the entire value chain: from local manufacturing, equipment supply, spares, chemicals Sustaining Developing and commodities, management of water treatment and wastewater plants, engineering supervision, finance, Zimbabwe average scores administration, project design, contract management, Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. <=$500 policy guidance, and necessary skills at provincial, district, Source: CSO2 scorecard. 11 An AMCOW Country Status Overview This recent history (see Table 3) puts the service delivery required further consideration. Identified issues included: pathway in context, which can then be explored in detail (a) clarity on sector leadership; (b) clarification on financing using the CSO2 scorecard, an assessment tool providing instruments; (c) sector regulation; (d) approaches to a snapshot of reform progress along the service delivery climate change and environmental protection; (e) rural pathway. The CSO2 scorecard assesses the building blocks water maintenance; and (f) sanitation subsidies and of service delivery in turn: three building blocks which relate behavior change. to enabling services; three which relate to developing new services; and three which relate to sustaining services. Further along the service delivery pathway, Zimbabwe’s Each building block is assessed against specific indicators scorecard reflects the extreme challenges that the sector and scored from 1 to 3 accordingly.11 now faces to develop new services efficiently and sustain them, especially with regard to planning, budgeting, Figure 3 demonstrates that with the collapse of the enabling monitoring, equity, output, maintenance, and markets. environment, Zimbabwe is doing poorly compared with its peer group. In 2004 an updated Domestic Water Supply Sections 4 to 6 highlight progress and challenges across and Sanitation Policy was developed by the National three thematic areas—the institutional framework, finance Action Committee (NAC) and submitted to cabinet. But it and monitoring and evaluation (M&E)—benchmarking was overtaken by events and the policy was not ratified or Zimbabwe against its peer countries, based on a grouping implemented. Government recognizes the need to have by gross national income (low-income countries with per a current policy in place; in 2009 the NAC established a capita GNI below US$50012). The related indicators are Task Force to review the draft 2004 policy. The review extracted from the scorecard and presented in charts at the concluded that the policy does not reflect the current beginning of each section. Scorecards for each subsector challenges of the sector and identified 12 areas that are presented in their entirety in Sections 7 to 10. Table 3 Key dates in the reform of the sector in Zimbabwe Year Event 1980 National Independence 1981 ZIMCORD 1985 National Master Plan for Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (1985–2005) approved 1987 National Action Committee (NAC) established with the Ministry of Local Government Rural and Urban Development in the chair 1999 Water Act promulgated 1999 Establishment of Zimbabwe National Water Authority 2004 Draft Domestic Water Supply and Sanitation policy submitted to cabinet 2006 Urban water assets transferred to the Zimbabwe National Water Authority 2008 Government of National Unity established 2008 Outbreak of national cholera emergency 2008 Urban water assets returned to local authorities 2010 Cabinet approves the Ministry of Water Resources, Development, and Management to lead the sector and the NAC is relaunched. 12 Water Supply and Sanitation in Zimbabwe: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 4. Institutional Framework Priority actions for the institutional framework • Implement the rejuvenated NAC decision-making structures, further clarify roles, work in partnership with parallel financing modalities, adopt inclusive coordination mechanisms. • Government’s role should shift from implementation to facilitation. • Establish an independent regulator. • Fully decentralize authority for asset ownership and management to local government. • Encourage greater private sector participation. • Develop one comprehensive, updated sector policy covering all subsectors; develop a sector strategy and financing plan to achieve updated national targets. • Establish a rural sectorwide approach in coordination with donors and NGOs. • Develop a national capacity building program. With little government finance, the activities of public sector institutions and developing approaches that reflect institutions charged with responsibilities in the water current international thinking. Figure 4 shows that in all sector declined from 2000. Zimbabwe’s institutional subsectors Zimbabwe’s institutional framework now scores framework did not evolve to meet new challenges and lower than its peers, based on related scorecard indicators, many of the gains in earlier institutional reforms are no which include the presence of agreed subsector policies. longer evident. The sector faces the challenge of rebuilding A first step in rejuvenating the sector has been the Figure 4 clarification of ministerial roles. Roles and responsibilities Scorecard indicator scores relating to for the sector are spread amongst several government institutional framework compared to peer group agencies. In June 2010, the Cabinet agreed on sector (see endnotes)13 leadership, the responsibilities of key government ministries, and a coordination framework. Figure 5 RWS presents the new sector coordination arrangements. The main sector roles are now subdivided amongst the following agencies: USH UWS 1. The Ministry of Water Resources Development and Management (MWRDM) leads the entire water sector and chairs a redesigned NAC, responsible for sector coordination. MWRDM has responsibility for water resource management policy and development and RSH implements using its parastatal arm, the Zimbabwe Zimbabwe average scores National Water Authority (ZINWA). 2. The Ministry of Health and Child Welfare (MOHCW) Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. <=$500 has the responsibility for rural sanitation, environmental Source: CSO2 scorecard. health education and public health. 13 An AMCOW Country Status Overview 3. The Ministry of Local Government, Rural, and Urban The private sector should be encouraged in both urban Development (MoLGRUD) hosts rural district and and rural service provision, from design and supervision urban councils and establishes policy and supports the of civil works and drilling, to billing, to operations and planning operations of the councils. maintenance of systems and facilities, small and large. 4. The Ministry of Transport, Communications and Infrastructure Development (MOTCID) hosts the Absence of an independent regulator. Each sector Department for Infrastructure Development, which ministry regulates its own implementation, in its area of supervises rural infrastructure investment. jurisdiction, without independent oversight. Establishing 5. The Ministry of the Environment houses the an independent regulator with authority to enforce license Environmental Management Agency with responsibility provisions, issue regulations, undertake independent tariff for enforcing water pollution control. reviews and benchmark performance is an important step 6. The District Development Fund is a technical parastatal to improve sector governance and performance. with responsibilities for rural water supply and maintenance. Lack of professional utilities for the big cities. There are no independent or semi-autonomous utilities in Over-reliance on government is a central lesson of Zimbabwe. Municipal departments are responsible for Zimbabwe’s recent sector history. Government must lead developing, operating, and maintaining facilities; collecting and set a course. It must mobilize, influence, encourage revenues; and managing expenditures. International best dialog between consumers, service providers, and practice suggests that Zimbabwe should development other stakeholders to identify the best solutions, and autonomous, professional utilities for its major cities. avoid dependence on handouts. The main institutional challenges are: The transition to local authority service management. ZINWA remains responsible for water services in many Capacity in MoWRDM. The designation of MoWRDM small centers.14 The strategy for managing these centers to lead the sector challenges the ministry to increase needs review, to identify options for local capacity its capacity to fulfill new functions and for the smooth enhancement, enabling ZINWA to focus on core water operation of the NAC and NCU. resource management tasks. Lack of clarity in rural sector roles. Further clarification is needed on rural responsibilities, both at ministerial and Lack of accountability to residents or mechanisms local levels. of recourse for consumers. Consumer voice is weak for water and sanitation services. Increased responsiveness to Developing one comprehensive sector policy and consumers would provide important future checks and a sector strategy. In consultation with consumers and balances to improve service management. sector stakeholders, there is a need for NAC, in phases, to develop one sector policy, incorporating policy Address capacity. A capacity development strategy is improvements in all subsectors. A sector recovery strategy needed, both to rebuild public (ministry, local authority, is also needed, providing the basis for detailed sector provincial, and district structures) and private sector development plans. A disaster risk management plan is institutions. Initiatives might include: refresher training, also required to address sector threats, including managing use of professional consultants, improved management extreme climatic events and climate change. of outsourced contracts, and strategic use of technical assistance. A program to determine critical needs, The limited engagement of the private sector. The improve service conditions and provide incentives for involvement of the private sector has declined in the urban skilled Zimbabweans to return to fill key gaps might be sector and its potential not exploited in the rural sector. considered. 14 Water Supply and Sanitation in Zimbabwe: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond Figure 5 Zimbabwe water and sanitation coordination structure Deputy Prime Minister Infrastructure cluster Ministerial Committee for Water and Sanitation MWRDM (chair) MoHCW, MoTCID, MoA, MoLGRUD, MoEn, MoE Donor Group NAC (Permanent Secretary level) WASH Cluster MoWRDM (chair) NCU AfDB, AusAID, DFID, MoHCW, MoTCID, MoA, MoLGRUD, EU, GTZ, NGOs, MoEn, MoE, MoWAGCD UNICEF, WB Rural WSS NAC Subcommittee MoTCID (chair) WRM NAC Subcommittee MoLGRUD, MoE, MoHCW, MoF, MoWRDM, MoWRDM (chair) DDF, MoWAGCD ZINWA, EMA, MoE, MoA, MoLGRUD Urban WSS NAC Subcommittee MLGRUD (chair) MoEn, MoHCW, MoWRDM Provincial level District level URBAN COUNCILS CATCHMENT COUNCILS Village level Note: AfDB = African Development Bank AusAID = Australian Government Aid Agency DDF = District Development Fund EMA = Environmental Management Agency EU = European Union GTZ = German technical assistance MoLGRUD = Ministry of Local Government Rural and Urban Development MoA = Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanization and Irrigation Development MoE = Ministry of Energy and Power Development MoEn = Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Development MoF = Ministry of Finance MoHCW = Ministry of Health and Child Welfare MoTCID = Ministry of Transport Communication and Infrastructure Development MoWAGCD = Ministry of Women’s Affairs Gender and Community Development MoWRDM =Ministry of Water Resources Development and Management NAC = National Action Committee NCU = National Coordination Unit NGO = Nongovernmental organization WB = World Bank WSS = Water and sanitation sector ZINWA = Zimbabwe National Water Authority 15 An AMCOW Country Status Overview 5. Financing and its Implementation Priority actions for financing and its implementation • Development of an overall financing strategy for the sector. • The urgent case for increased investment needs to be made at the highest levels. • Reviewing tariff policy, re-establishing a culture of service payment, ring-fencing sector finance in councils, and instituting performance requirements for revenue generation. • Shadow alignment with donors as a step towards returning to on-budget financing. The scorecard indicators relating to financing and its Key issues that need addressing include: implementation measure the existence and functioning of financing mechanisms and efficiency in the use of Development of a sector financing strategy. The finance. As can be seen from Figure 6, Zimbabwe’s assumptions and financial instruments in the sector reflect average scores are comparable with, or better than, the a financing strategy dependent on central government and peer-group average across most subsectors, except for donor finance. A new strategy to meet the MDGs or national Rural water supply (RWS). The main financing challenge targets is urgently required for the current environment and is not efficient utilization or lack of mechanisms, but the opportunities. Water budgets and revenue should be ring- severe unavailability of finance (see subsector breakdown fenced. The financial performance of council-run utilities in Figure 7). needs benchmarking and performance management systems need to be put in place. Figure 6 Tariff settings and guidelines require urgent review. Scorecard indicator scores relating to financing and Weak, nontransparent systems, deriving insufficient its implementation, compared to peer group15 revenue to cover costs, predominate. Guidelines are RWS urgently needed for tariffs that make for financially sound management, whilst addressing the needs of the poor. Severe constraints on local revenue generation continue. The habit of nonpayment of water bills by USH UWS many consumers, including government departments, has become entrenched. The development of cost recovery strategies is a priority. Absence of specific budget lines for sanitation or RSH hygiene. Budget lines are specifically needed for hygiene Zimbabwe average scores promotion and sanitation behavior change. Lack of finance Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. <=$500 is a central issue limiting MoHCW from carrying out its water, sanitation, and hygiene responsibilities. Source: CSO2 scorecard. 16 Water Supply and Sanitation in Zimbabwe: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond Shadow alignment with donor finance. An important to explore ways in which the private sector can augment step in the transition from emergency to development capacity, improve cost recovery (through management approaches in the sector is close consultation between contracts to improve billing), and operational and government and donors. Programs, such as the ER&RR maintenance efficiency. program, should be aligned with, and help to rebuild, government systems. Creation of an urban capital development fund: When public finance begins to flow, mechanisms will Leveraging private sector finance. It is unlikely that be needed to make strategic allocations. A rural capital the private sector will be willing to invest in water and development fund exists; the creation of a similar sanitation services in Zimbabwe and take on significant urban fund would enable efficient allocations against risk in the current climate. It would, however, be beneficial performance criteria. Figure 7 Overall and per capita investment requirements and contribution from different sources Rural water supply: Urban water supply: Rural sanitation: Urban sanitation: Total: $174,000,000 Total: $369,000,000 Total: $90,100,000 Total: $325,000,000 Per capita: $90 Per capita: $254 Per capita: $35 Per capita: $132 Domestic anticipated investment Assumed household investment External anticipated investment Gap Source: CSO2 scorecard. 17 An AMCOW Country Status Overview 6. Sector Monitoring and Evaluation Priority actions for sector monitoring and evaluation • Update all sector inventories and undertake needs assessments; and develop one monitoring framework and a process of annual joint sector reviews. • Review M&E functions and new strategies put in place for collecting, collating, storing, and reporting. Zimbabwe has three main locations for sector monitoring— analysis is also weak and is not regularly used to provide ZINWA (gathering and updating information on national strategic direction to the sector. water resources, and tracking progress of services under its management); NCU and the Environmental Health Zimbabwe needs to rebuild its sector information systems, Department (monitoring the rural sector—the last inventory as indicated by Figure 8, which shows its low performance was undertaken in 2004); and MoLGRUD (tabulating in related scorecard indicators, compared to peer group information of all services managed by local authorities). countries. Key steps are: Capacity to update these databases has greatly diminished and the quality of official sector information is weak. With Gather baseline data. All national sector inventories and no method in place for tracking the breakdown of services databases need updating. Needs assessment and mapping and updating these national inventories, existing service of facilities are urgently required, especially in the rural coverage data is no longer regarded as reliable. Sector sector. Databases developed by donors and NGOs should be harmonized and definitions aligned with government systems, to aid the development of national databases. Figure 8 Focus is needed to better understand disparities between Scorecard indicator scores relating to sector M&E, data sets. Definitions of sector data are not explicitly linked compared to peer group16 to MDG definitions and goals. RWS Update data management and analysis. Management systems and procedures need to be updated in all aspects of data management, including storage, updating, analysis, and reporting. Systems should adopt modern information technology approaches. USH UWS Adopt systems of annual reporting on sector progress. When capacity is restored, Zimbabwe should revert to its prior practice of annual reports and hosting annual sector reviews with its partners. RSH Commission key studies in complex areas to solve Zimbabwe average scores critical problems and give policy options. Priority subjects Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. <=$500 for further study are: tariffs, rural maintenance, capacity building, development of public-private partnerships, Source: CSO2 scorecard. financing, monitoring, and sustainable sanitation. 18 Water Supply and Sanitation in Zimbabwe: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond 7. Subsector: Rural Water Supply Priority actions for rural water supply • Develop a national program to repair and rehabilitate wells and boreholes. • Update RWS mapping and needs. • Place responsibility and asset ownership of RWS with rural district councils, and build their sector capacity, whilst encouraging support from communities and the private sector. • Rethink maintenance/spares policy and develop a regulated, competitive drilling industry. • Development of SWAp, starting with the rural sector. • Address the needs of resettled Zimbabweans. According to JMP figures, the RWS sector has stagnated CSO estimates indicate a RWS investment shortfall of since 1990, with piped water access declining. The US$131 million per year, to meet the national target of 100 government’s own estimates reflect the breakdown in percent coverage by 2015. The household contribution public sector finance and loss of capacity for repairs, to CAPEX in communal water points is low (around 10 maintenance, and spares. Many rural boreholes and percent of total costs, that is, current anticipated public wells—the mainstay of the rural water infrastructure—are finance of US$49 million per year will leverage a further now not functioning.17 This, combined with the legacy of US$4 million from households). There is also a considerable neglect in communal lands, has resulted in great inequity shortfall in O&M finance ($19 million). of access between urban and rural areas. The JMP reports that 98 percent of those without an improved drinking The RWS scorecard in Figure 11 shows low scores all water source are in rural areas. the way along the delivery pathway. The scorecard uses Figure 9 Figure 10 Rural water supply coverage Rural water supply investment requirements 100% 80% Coverage 60% Required CAPEX Required 40% OPEX 20% 0% 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 0 50 100 150 200 250 US$ million/year Government estimates Government target Public CAPEX (anticipated) JMP improved JMP, piped Household CAPEX (assumed) CAPEX deficit Sources: JMP 2010 report, NAC inventory. Source: CSO2 costing. 19 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Figure 11 Rural water supply scorecard Enabling Developing Sustaining Policy Planning Budget Expenditure Equity Output Maintenance Expansion Use 1 0 0 2 1 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 Source: CSO2 scorecard. a simple color code to indicate: building blocks that are RWS information systems. Updated rural information largely in place, acting as a driver on service delivery is urgently needed to direct repair and rehabilitation (score >2, green); building blocks that are a drag on efforts—the low score for the maintenance building block service delivery and require attention (score 1–2, yellow); in Figure 11 in part reflects the out-of-date inventories and building blocks that are inadequate, constituting mentioned in Section 7. a barrier to service delivery and a priority for reform (score <1, red). Responsibility for development and ownership of rural water assets. Government or donors essentially Figure 12 shows that Zimbabwe’s performance falls some cover all the costs associated with RWS development. A way below the peer-group average. The major challenges more sustainable policy would be that the responsibility in the RWS subsector are: for development, ownership, and upkeep of water assets lies with local authorities. Government may assist the poor, Figure 12 but consumers would contribute capital development Average RWS scorecard scores for enabling, costs, with tariffs collected to cover O&M costs. sustaining, and developing service delivery, and peer-group comparison Rural maintenance policy. A robust rural maintenance policy is less dependent on government finance. Rural Enabling districts should assume this responsibility, whilst exploring options for contracting out to small-scale private contractors. The current low score for maintenance also reflects the minimal of cost recovery for these purposes. Drilling policy. Clarification is required on rural drilling policy. The District Development Fund does not have the capacity to drill the required boreholes, nor can government afford to subsidize all boreholes. Drilling Sustaining Developing tenders should be competitively bid at market prices to encourage development of a domestic drilling industry. Zimbabwe average scores Without resolving this question, the output of the Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. <=$500 subsector will remain very low, as depicted in the score for Source: CSO2 scorecard. this building block (Figure 11). 20 Water Supply and Sanitation in Zimbabwe: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond Spare parts supply and manufacturing standards. Resettlement areas. The collapse of commercial farming Spare parts delivery now depends on central government removed service provision for farm workers and resulted procurement—policies are needed to encourage private in new resettlements, adding an additional burden to sector provision of spare parts. Policy is also required to the state in servicing the resettled populations. The need improve quality control on locally manufactured RWS in newly-resettled areas should be assessed and policies pumps and equipment. established for RWS, rural sanitation and hygiene (RSH), and irrigation needs. Sector-Wide Approach (SWAp). There may be considerable advantages for Zimbabwe to return to the development of a SWAp, beginning with the rural water supply and sanitation sector. 21 An AMCOW Country Status Overview 8. Subsector: Urban Water Supply Priority actions for urban water supply • Develop a financing strategy to replace aging infrastructure. • Develop and implement new tariff guidelines that enable financial recovery and address the needs of the poor. • Put in place energy policies to make UWS “unsheddable”. • Rebuild the capacity of councils for financial and technical management. • Increase the accountability of urban service providers to consumers. • Encourage private sector involvement in service management. • Create autonomous utilities in main cities. • Allocate management to councils or ZINWA on objective efficiency measures. Urban water services, based on national utility data, have of access via piped connections (grey line) also shows declined from their once high standards. Failure to repair a decline, suggesting the substantial deterioration in or maintain an already aging infrastructure has led to a network infrastructure which lie behind the government severe decline in services. Reports from urban settlements, supply-side estimate. including growth centers, give a consistent picture of high levels of unaccounted-for water, distribution Reaching government targets is estimated to require systems in need of repair, and effluent and raw sewage additional investment of US$234 million per year, almost outflows entering rivers and dams, which are often the twice the current anticipated CAPEX from public funding major sources of bulk water supply. A great many water and households. The costing model follows the policy treatment plants are dysfunctional, do not have the power assumption, that users will contribute 60 percent of the to pump consistently or lack chemicals. Intermittent power total costs of urban water supply, but in practice this is supply to water services is a major contributing factor. unlikely to be leveraged: ineffective cost recovery from While there is again a substantial discrepancy between user fees is a significant limitation to further investment. the JMP and national estimates, the former’s depiction The case of Harare is, however, encouraging: in response Figure 13 Figure 14 Urban water supply coverage Urban water supply investment requirements 100% 80% Coverage 60% Required CAPEX Required 40% OPEX 20% 0% 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 0 100 200 300 400 500 US$ million/year Government estimates Government target Public CAPEX (anticipated) JMP improved JMP, piped Household CAPEX (assumed) CAPEX deficit Sources: JMP 2010 report, NAC inventory, and urban council estimates. Source: CSO2 costing. 22 Water Supply and Sanitation in Zimbabwe: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond Figure 15 Urban water supply scorecard Enabling Developing Sustaining Policy Planning Budget Expenditure Equity Output Maintenance Expansion Use 0 0 0 2 0.5 2 1.5 2 2.5 Source: CSO2 scorecard. to cholera, following a US$17 million investment in or allow for local participation. No consolidated asset and increasing water production and replacing aging pipes, location inventory exists for UWS services. Plans exist for the city authorities claim over a 50 percent increase in water resource development and service expansion for coverage in a six-month period. Urban water supply (UWS) some urban centers, but many are out of date and need can recover, but the investment needs are substantial, to be recosted. Major areas for attention in UWS include: both for urgent rehabilitation as well as for development of new water sources. Financing strategy, regulation, and tariffs. A financing strategy is needed for replacing aging infrastructure and Zimbabwe’s urban councils have much ground to recover to enable urban authorities to move to financial viability. in establishing a sound enabling environment and put Key steps are the introduction of regulatory mechanisms, in place realistic policies, plans, and budgets—as can be including tariff guidelines and benchmarking of seen from Figure 15 and Figure 16, the UWS subsector performance improvement such that service providers can attract new investment. receives a score of zero throughout these building blocks, due to factors such as the absence of an up-to-date Incentives in transfers. There is currently no connection subsector policy, investment plan or annual review, and between service quality and state support: MoLGRUD the lack of clear budget lines and finance in general. In should link future capital investments to improved service addition, through the service delivery pathway the score provision and operational efficiency, restore sustainability for expenditure is limited because, while levels of budget and, over time, reduce reliance on national funding for utilization are perceived to be relatively high, only the main subsidies and investments. cities have audited accounts and balance sheets. Equity considerations are not used to direct the limited resources Capacity building. Support and incentives are needed for councils to develop capacity for investment planning, Figure 16 project implementation and procurement, and contract Average UWS scorecard scores for enabling, sustaining and developing service delivery, and out works and construction supervision. peer-group comparison Balance of management between ZINWA and local Enabling authorities. The current situation—where some urban areas still have their services managed (and owned) by ZINWA— needs rationalization and an objective efficiency measure developed for deciding on management responsibility. Creation of autonomous utilities. Most large cities have found that water and sewerage services require management by professional utilities, rather than by a Sustaining Developing municipal department. Zimbabwe average scores Addressing the urban poor. Zimbabwe is experiencing Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. <=$500 a fast rate of peri-urban growth and specific strategies will Source: CSO2 scorecard. be required to address these growing communities. 23 An AMCOW Country Status Overview 9. Subsector: Rural Sanitation and Hygiene Priority actions for rural sanitation and hygiene • Create a specific budget line for RSH in national and local budgets. • Start a national RSH behavior change program to eliminate open defecation. • Develop a menu of latrine options for affordable entry to improved services; and clarify policies on pit- emptying and latrine replacement. • Develop local private sector capacity for latrine construction and management. JMP data shows a flat trajectory in rural sanitation coverage, costs).19 The model assumes that households contributions despite a vigorous rural sanitation program in the 1980s will match public finance, that is, the current projected and ’90s using innovative technologies, a disciplined funding of US$14 million per year will leverage the same cadre of environmental health extension workers, and amount in household funds. This scenario leaves a CAPEX government subsidies to cover the cost of building materials deficit of US$62 million per year. However, as discussed later, that could not be sourced on-site. Government estimates policy on subsidies vs. promotion requires clarification. show a significant decline in rural sanitation coverage. With capital subsidies drying up, few new facilities have The upstream building blocks of the rural sanitation been built. Meanwhile aging superstructures, full latrine delivery pathway (policy, planning, and budget) score pits, unavailability (and unaffordability) of cement, have poorly (Figure 19). The collapse of the earlier program led many rural families to revert to open defecation. The has meant minimal expenditure, output, and no resources latest Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey study estimates or use of targeting mechanisms to assist the poor. The that 42 percent of the rural population still practices open sustainability of the services has also been weak, with defecation.18 insufficient markets (in terms of sanitation goods and services) further inhibiting rates of uptake of sanitation The estimate of the CSO2 costing model is that a total of and hygiene by households. The subsector performs well US$90 million per year is required for sanitation hardware below the average of peer countries (Figure 20). The main alone (that is, not including promotion and marketing issues that need to be addressed in rural sanitation are: Figure 17 Figure 18 Rural sanitation coverage Rural sanitation investment requirements 100% 80% Coverage 60% Required CAPEX Required 40% OPEX 20% 0% 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 0 20 40 60 80 100 US$ million/year Government estimates Government target Public CAPEX (anticipated) Household CAPEX (assumed) JMP improved JMP, improved + shared CAPEX deficit Sources: JMP 2010 report, MoHCW data on sanitation coverage, Source: CSO2 costing. and NAC inventory. 24 Water Supply and Sanitation in Zimbabwe: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond Figure 19 Rural sanitation scorecard Enabling Developing Sustaining Policy Planning Budget Expenditure Equity Output Markets Uptake Use 1.5 0 0 2 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 Source: CSO2 scorecard. Figure 20 Eliminating open defecation. To address the public Average RSH scorecard scores for enabling, health risks of open defecation, priority focus should be sustaining, and developing service delivery, and placed on mass sanitation behavior changes to stimulate peer-group comparison the demand for sanitation and eliminate open defecation. Enabling Specific budget line for sanitation. A specific budget line needs to be established for sanitation and hygiene activities. Experience suggests that unless sanitation funds are ring-fenced, these allocations are spent on water instead. This approach is in line with the 2008 African Union summit’s Sharm El-Sheikh Declaration, which endorsed the importance of specific budget lines for sanitation. Sustaining Developing Upgradeable sequences of Zimbabwean sanitation technologies. The policy of only having one standard Zimbabwe average scores option, the Blair Ventilated Improved Pit latrine, does not Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. <=$500 cater for the range of demand and affordability for rural Source: CSO2 scorecard. sanitation services, especially considering the increased costs and the poverty of many rural Zimbabweans. Instead, an upgradeable sequence of sanitation options should Focus public sector finance on promotion and be considered, which allow more affordable entry, as behavior change. Prior subsidy-led approaches to rural well as assisting households who want a higher standard sanitation are now not affordable: a continuation of of service. this policy will not achieve widespread improvements in public health. An alternative approach would give priority Encouragement of the private sector. Sustainable for scarce public sector sanitation finance to be spent on sanitation service development requires long-term demand creation, promotion and behavior change using partnerships between the public and private sectors. modern behavior change techniques. This would aim Current policy assumes that the government plays most to stimulate households’ own investment in sanitation roles in RSH. Greater private sector engagement in the rural services, encourage pit-emptying and latrine replacement, sanitation sector is required, not only in the manufacture and attract credit and other resources. Subsidies and of components, their distribution and marketing, but also public finance could then be targeted to the indigent and in providing construction, emptying and maintenance institutional sanitation. services which respond directly to consumer demand. 25 An AMCOW Country Status Overview 10. Subsector: Urban Sanitation and Hygiene Priority actions for urban sanitation and hygiene • Develop alternatives to high-cost sewerage-only policies. • Develop a financing strategy for urban sanitation. • Increase enforcement of environmental and public health controls. • Attract or buy-in specialist urban sanitation expertise. The urban sanitation subsector in Zimbabwe once had even assuming a 30 percent contribution by households. one of the highest coverage levels in Africa, including for OPEX is also well below what is required, ultimately networked sewerage. The economic collapse has led to increasing the burden on public funds as facilities require a severe decline in services, reflected in both data sets, more significant rehabilitation work. though the government estimates of coverage present a far more rapid deterioration. Lack of water flow causes The urban sanitation and hygiene (USH) scorecard frequent sewer blockages. Densification means that many shows poor upstream and downstream scores (Figure more households use the same infrastructure. Many 23), though Zimbabwe’s urban sanitation sector still wastewater treatment plants are now dysfunctional. outperforms many of its peers for building blocks relating to sustaining services (Figure 24). This is due to relatively CSO2 estimates show a massive capital investment gap well developed markets for sanitation, with services for of US$273 million per year, relative to the US$325 million construction and pit emptying provided by the private per year required to meet national targets, requiring a sector. In contrast, there has been widespread neglect of six-fold CAPEX increase to rehabilitate neglected services. service management by councils and the sustainability of Current anticipated CAPEX has fallen to US$51 million, the services has been weak. Figure 21 Figure 22 Urban sanitation coverage Urban sanitation investment requirements 100% 80% Required CAPEX Required Coverage 60% OPEX 40% 20% 0 100 200 300 400 0% 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 US$ million/year Government estimates Government target Public CAPEX (anticipated) Household CAPEX (assumed) JMP improved JMP, improved + shared CAPEX deficit Sources: JMP 2010 report, MoHCW data on sanitation coverage, the NAC Source: CSO2 costing. inventory, and urban council estimates. 26 Water Supply and Sanitation in Zimbabwe: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond Figure 23 Urban sanitation and hygiene scorecard Enabling Developing Sustaining Policy Planning Budget Expenditure Equity Output Markets Uptake Use 1 0 1.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 2 1.5 2 Source: CSO2 scorecard. Figure 24 need to be considered. Lower-cost technologies would Average USH scorecard scores for enabling, decrease investment costs for the local authority and the developing and sustaining service delivery, and consumer, and provide services that are easier to manage, peer-group comparison with less environmental risk when sewage treatment fails. In any case, the selection of wastewater treatment options Enabling should take sustainability and environmental impact more centrally into consideration. Also, at present some cities have by-laws prohibiting the construction of pit latrines in urban areas. Proposed policy changes would need consultation with consumers. Financing strategy for urban sanitation. A review is Developing needed of strategies to refinance the USH sector. Options Sustaining such as specific sanitation levies or sale of wastewater for irrigation might be considered. Zimbabwe average scores Averages, LICs, GNI p.p. <=$500 Enforcement of environmental and public health Sources: CSO2 Scorecard controls. Zimbabwe has the environmental and public health legislation in place to hold councils to account, but From an institutional and financial perspective, USH monitoring and enforcement is weak. policy issues are similar to those confronted in the UWS subsector. Additional challenges include: Specialist expertise. The USH sector has suffered from skills loss. A specific capacity-building initiative is needed Alternatives to high-cost sewerage-only policy. A to attract back, or buy-in, the specialist engineering specific USH policy challenge facing Zimbabwe is whether it expertise needed to rehabilitate and manage sewerage is realistic to have a goal of 100 percent sewerage coverage and wastewater treatment facilities in Zimbabwe’s cities in urban areas. If not, policies on lower-cost approaches and towns. 27 An AMCOW Country Status Overview Notes and References 1 The first round of CSOs was carried out in 2006 covering 16 ZINWA retains management for 538 growth centers, 14 countries and is summarized in the report, ‘Getting Africa towns and service centers. On-Track to Meet the MDGs on Water and Sanitation’. Indicators relating to the section on financing and its 15 2 Government estimates. implementation are as follows: All subsectors: programmatic 3 JMP estimates are based on a linear regression of nationally Sector-Wide Approach; investment program based on representative household surveys. MDG needs assessment; sufficient finance to meet MDG (subsidy policy for sanitation); percent of official donor 4 Government of Zimbabwe. 2004. Domestic Water Supply commitments utilized; percent of domestic commitments and Sanitation Policy, draft. utilized. 5 Derived from MoHCW data on sanitation coverage, the Indicators relating to the M&E section are as follows: 16 NAC inventory, and urban council estimates. All subsectors: annual review setting new undertakings; 6 UNICEF. 2010. Improved Access to Drinking Water and subsector spend identifiable in budget (UWS: inc. recurrent Sanitation in Zimbabwe, 1990–2010. subsidies); budget comprehensively covers domestic/donor 7 A 2007 sector assessment quotes a total annual sector finance; RWS, RSH, and USH: domestic/donor expenditure allocation of Z$3 trillion (approximately US$3 million at reported; UWS: audited accounts and balance sheets that time). from utilities; RWS, RSH, and USH: periodic analysis of 8 African Development Bank. An Assessment of the Rural equity criteria by CSOs and government; UWS: pro-poor and Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Sector: Meeting plans developed and implemented by utilities; RWS/UWS: the Millennium Development Goals, 2007. nationally consolidated reporting of output; RSH/USH: 9 Current public investment for water is US$93 million and monitoring of quantity and quality of uptake relative to household contributions US$85 million. promotion and subsidy efforts; all subsectors: questions and choice options in household surveys consistent with 10 Due to rounding, component figures may not sum to MDG definitions. totals. The 2004 WASH inventory estimated that 75 percent of the 17 11 The CSO2 scorecard methodology and conceptual 47,000 handpumps in the country were not functioning. framework are discussed in detail in the synthesis report. The latest household survey estimates open defecation at 18 12 World Bank Atlas Method. 48 percent (2009 Central Statistical Office/UNICEF Multiple 13 Indicators relating to the Institutional framework Indicator Monitoring Survey). section are as follows: All subsectors: targets in national The CSO2 investment requirement estimates do not 19 development plans/PRSP; subsector policy agreed and include the cost of hygiene promotion and other ‘software’ approved (gazetted as part of national policy or as activities, relative to the targets, due to the difficulty of standalone policy); RWS/ UWS: institutional roles defined; estimating such costs on a per capita basis. RSH/USH: institutional lead appointed. 28 For enquiries, contact: Water and Sanitation Program–Africa Region The World Bank, Upper Hill Road P.O. Box 30577, 00100, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +(254) 20 322 6300 E-mail: wspaf@worldbank.org Web site: www.wsp.org