Assessment of Water Governance Capacity in thewatergovernance.s3.amazonaws.com/files/F066.01-13 … · · 2013-09-104.1 SWOT analysis of water governance ... 5.6 Lack of skills

Set up of a Water Governance Program in the Awash River

Basin, Central Ethiopia

Assessment of Water Governance Capacity in the

Awash river basin

Report

COLOFON

Copyright All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be duplicated, saved in any data system or published, or in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, provided the source is clearly given, together with the name of WGC and the author, if mentioned. Liability Water Governance Centre and those who have contributed to this publication, have taken the greatest possible care in compiling this publication. However, the possibility cannot be excluded that there are still errors or omissions in this publication. Any use of this document and the information in it is at your own risk. WGC, including those who have contributed to this publication, is not liable for damage that may result from the use of this publication and its data, unless the damage could result from wilful misconduct or gross negligence on WGC and / or those who have contributed to this publication. If you find deficiencies, we ask you to contact us. Author : Ronald Hemel and Henk Loijenga on behalf of WGC Network Date Reference

: :

August, 2013 Final / F066.01-13-007

Set up of a Water Governance Program in the Awash River Basin, Central Ethiopia Page 3 of 28

CONTENT

1 THIS REPORT .............................................................................................................. 4

2 A WATER GOVERNANCE PROGRAM IN THE AWASH RIVER BASIN................................ 5 2.1 Awash river basin ................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Challenges .............................................................................................................................. 6 2.3 Water Partnership Agreement and Water Governance Program .......................................... 6

3 WATER GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT METHOD ............................................................ 8 3.1 The three layer model of water governance .......................................................................... 8 3.2 Approach in this project ......................................................................................................... 9 3.3 Activities ................................................................................................................................. 9

4 IDENTIFICATION OF MAIN WATER GOVERNANCE ISSUES .......................................... 10 4.1 SWOT analysis of water governance ....................................................................................10 4.2 Main water governance issues .............................................................................................12 4.3 Appointing possible interventions for water governance gaps ...........................................12 4.4 Towards a joint working agenda ..........................................................................................14

5 IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS ON WATER GOVERNANCE GAPS ........................................... 17 5.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................17 5.2 Inappropriate financial mechanism .....................................................................................17 5.3 Lack of tools and guidelines for implementing IWRM .........................................................18 5.4 Weak information management ..........................................................................................19 5.5 Poor communication and cooperation with stakeholders ...................................................20 5.6 Lack of skills and knowledge in water resources management ...........................................21 5.7 Inappropriate and incompatible institutional setup ............................................................22

6 WATER GOVERNANCE CAPACITY .............................................................................. 23 6.1 Strengths and opportunities ................................................................................................23 6.2 Gaps ......................................................................................................................................24

7 FOLLOW-UP ............................................................................................................. 27


1 THIS REPORT

The Water Governance Centre (WGC) is involved in the execution of a project of setting up a water governance program in the Awash river basin, Central Ethiopia. Within the project Dutch and Ethiopian water partners work together to establish a framework for good water governance and effective implementation of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) in the basin. This report describes the assessment of water governance capacity in the Awash river basin. It gives an overview of the main water governance issues and a description of the assessment of water governance capacity. This report is divided into two parts. The first part (chapters 2, 3 and 4) focuses on the identification of water governance issues, derived from workshops and interviews during the Ethiopian mission to the Netherlands of 1-7 March 2013. The second part of this report (chapters 5, 6 and 7) describes in more detail the assessment of water governance capacity and some general recommendations for the follow-up of the project, derived from workshops and interviews during the Dutch mission to Ethiopia of 20-28 April 2013. The application of the Water Governance Assessment Method is an important element in this project. The method is developed by the WGC and must be fine-tuned on the ground during projects. The Awash river basin is used as a pilot project for this fine-tuning of the Water Governance Assessment Method. The method is also applied in projects in other countries, e.g. Egypt and Kenya. The WGC will use these experiences to improve the assessment method for better implementation of IWRM projects. The assessment of the water governance capacity described in this report is a base for the further development of the Water Governance Program for the Awash river basin. This report is also published on the WGC website: http://www.watergovernancecentre.nl. A separate appendix report has been prepared by WGC with more detailed back ground information on the assessment and the workshop outcomes. In the report at hand references to this appendix report are made. The appendix report is available upon request.

http://www.watergovernancecentre.nl/


2 A WATER GOVERNANCE PROGRAM IN THE AWASH RIVER BASIN

2.1 Awash river basin Awash river basin is located in central Ethiopia and: • flows through 5 regional states (Oromiya, Afar, Amhara, Somali, SNNP) and 2 administrative

councils (Dire Dawa and Addis Ababa); • rises on the high plateau to the west of Addis Ababa, at an altitude of about 3000m; • is located in the Rift Valley and drains a catchment area of 110,000 km2 ; • has a total length of approximately 1250 km; • has an annual flow of 4.6 billion m3 (3.75% of Ethiopia's total freshwater flow); • is one of the most utilized rivers in the country; • serves as a source of drinking water, hydropower, industrial consumption, irrigation and disposal

of waste water. The mean annual rain fall varies from approximately 1600mm (highlands North East of Addis) - 160mm (Northern part of the basin). The overall population amounts approximately 10.500.000. The Awash river serves multiple uses all along its course. Central in the drinking water supply of Addis Ababa are three reservoirs (Dire, Legadadi and Gefersa) in the Awash basin and a number of ground water sources. In different parts of the basin (among others Adama) ground water is polluted with fluor. In these areas surface water is the source for drinking water. However, the Awash (and its tributaries) are highly polluted. In addition the Awash river is also the source of drinking water for the majority of (nomadic) people in the Afar region. The Awash river is also used for generating hydropower energy in the Koka 1 and 2 hydropower plants.

The Awash river basin is the most developed river basin in Ethiopia so far. Water allocation and scarcity is a critical issue. As a result of enormous industrial and agricultural activities in the catchment area. Moreover the Awash river is also the most utilized and polluted river in the country. Protection of water resources, using the full potential of the water system and an integrated approach of water management, is very weak. Population growth is high and food insecure situations and malnutrition exist, together with pollution of crops on

surface water irrigated lands. The two biggest cities of Ethiopia are situated in the Upper Awash river basin. Rapid industrialization in combination with untreated discharges – together with problems like


agricultural pollution, erosion, weak sanitation control – lead to a high pressure on water quality. No structural monitoring is done. Solid and liquid waste is not collected and treated properly, causing ground water and surface water pollution.

2.2 Challenges There are four main challenges for the sustainable development of the Awash river basin: 1. Ensuring that the Awash river basin water resources management is strategically directed,

supervised and integrated with other social, economic and environmental sectors. 2. Ensuring effectiveness of the water policy and the legislative framework already put in place by

involving competent organizations in development and management of water resources and water related services.

3. On the long run: ensuring Awash river basin functional and operational full capacity as it is planned, designed and formulated in the water policies and regulations (facilities, staff, budget, planning, financial management).

4. Improve capability of involved organizations to better realize the potential (hydropower, irrigation) of the water system and to improve the situation on WASH (Water, Sanitation and Hygiene), in order to foster livelihood and wellbeing of local communities.

2.3 Water Partnership Agreement and Water Governance Program To improve the water related living conditions for the people in the Awash river basin, by improving the performance of beneficiary partners on water governance, several Dutch and Ethiopian water institutes signed a Water Partnership Agreement on 1 March 2013 in The Hague. The agreement was signed by the following partner organizations: • Ministry of Water & Energy – Basin Administration Directorate (MoWE-BAD, Ethiopia) • Awash Basin Authority (AwBA, Ethiopia) • Dutch Regional Water Authorities, being:

- Association of Regional Water Authorities - Zuiderzeeland Regional Water Authority - Hollandse Delta Regional Water Authority - Vallei en Veluwe Regional Water Authority - Velt en Vecht Regional Water Authority - Hunze en Aa’s Regional Water Authority

The partners agree to cooperate to improve the water governance situation in the Awash river basin, by setting up a Water Governance Program and Action Plan and the subsequent implementation of these plans. In the project “Set up of a Water Governance Program in the Awash river basin, Central Ethiopia” the Regional Water Authorities of the aforementioned Water Partnership Agreement and the WGC cooperate with the Awash Basin Authority (AwBA) and the Ministry of Water and Energy (MoWE) to identify the main water governance challenges, execute an assessment on water governance capacity and draft the Water Governance Program.


The Water Governance Program will be set up in four steps: • phase 1: inventory ; • phase 2: assessment, definition and training; • phase 3: set up of the draft Water Governance Program; • phase 4: decision making on the Water Governance Program. With the signing of the Water Partnership Agreement, phase 1 is completed. Phase 2 will take approximately one year, phase 3 approximately half a year. The signing ceremony of the Water Governance Program will take place in Ethiopia, in the second half of 2014. This report is part of phase 2. The implementation of the Water Governance Program and Action Plan is foreseen from 2015 onwards.


3 WATER GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT METHOD

3.1 The three layer model of water governance The Academic Round Table of the WGC developed a water governance assessment method based on nine building blocks, identified from different academic working fields such as civil engineering and hydrology, public administration, law and economics. This assessment method is now being made applicable in the field by testing the method in different projects. One of these projects is the Water Governance Program for the Awash basin in Ethiopia. The outcome of the (self) assessments of different basins will be used to fine tune the governance approach and the assessment method.

To be able to communicate clearly about the important aspects of water governance it seems useful to look more closely at the basic elements of water governance. The nine building blocks of the method are developed into the “Three layer model of water governance”, as illustrated in figure 1. Core element of this approach is that good water management comprises of three inter-related layers: • a content layer; • an institutional layer; • a relational layer.

Content layer

Policy, knowledge and skills, information

Institutional layer Organisation, legislation, financing

Relational layer Culture, ethics, communication, cooperation, participation

Fig. 3.1. The three layer model of assessing water governance capacity.

A content layer is necessary to address water management policies, the level of knowledge and skills in water management and information management. Knowledge of the water systems and of the nature of the problems are essential as well as experience and skills to be able to solve the problems and a good information position. However, in most cases this is not enough to reach a good water status. An adequate organizational framework together with the necessary (legal) instruments and a good financing structure are fundamental requirements for successful integrated water resources management (the institutional layer). Besides that, for successfully solving persistent water problems attention to what is called the relational layer is required. Important elements of this layer are communication and cooperation between different actors and with the public, stakeholder participation, transparency and trust. Water governance focuses most explicitly on the institutional and relational layer, without overlooking the importance of and relations with the content layer.


For improving the water governance and successful implementation of IWRM, interventions are needed on all layers. This approach addresses the complexity of implementing IWRM on a basin level.

3.2 Approach in this project The three layer model of water governance was used as a base to address and incorporate all water governance topics within the basin, on different scales. The approach of the assessment is multi layered, composing of: i) a self-assessment by local actors; ii) an assessment by trained experts; iii) an expert judgement in which experts from the different disciplines reflect on the outcomes of

the assessment.

The self-assessment was executed during a one week Ethiopian mission to the Netherlands in March 2013 and identified the main water governance challenges. More in depth these challenges were assessed during a one week Dutch mission to Ethiopia in April 2013. During this mission also the expert judgement of Ethiopian and Dutch IWRM experts was integrated in the assessment. 3.3 Activities In a mission in December 2012 a Memorandum of Understanding between Regional Water Authorities and the MoWE-BAD and the AwBA was signed. Subsequently, in the mission to the Netherlands a Water Partnership Agreement between the AwBA and the MoWE-BAD on the Ethiopian side and the Association of Regional Water Authorities and five Regional Water Authorities on the Dutch side was signed (see section 2.3). Within the framework of this Water Partnership Agreement, the set up of a Water Governance Program will take place.

In the missions to the Netherlands and to Ethiopia, different workshops were held with the key partners in the project, together with interviews with water management experts and field visits to important stakeholders.

In the Netherlands a workshop program was prepared by the WGC to identify the main water governance issues in Awash basin. This program was part of the general program for the mission, in which knowledge on implementations of IWRM was shared with the Ethiopian partners. The water governance program is described in appendix 1 of the Appendix report. The results of the workshop program are presented in chapter 4.

In Ethiopia several interviews were held with water management organizations in Addis Ababa and the WGC prepared a three day program to study more in depth the water governance capacity in Awash basin with AwBA staff in their head office in Amibara. Interviews and field visits were part of this program. This program was also part of the general program. The relevant water governance program from this mission can be found in appendix 1 of the Appendix report. The results of the in depth interviews and assessment are described in chapters 5 and 6.


4 IDENTIFICATION OF MAIN WATER GOVERNANCE ISSUES

4.1 SWOT analysis of water governance To get an idea of the water governance capacity in Awash basin a SWOT analysis of the current water governance situation was executed during the Ethiopian mission to the Netherlands in March 2013.

The Ethiopian and Dutch partners prepared this analysis by providing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats categorized by the different layers of the three layer water governance model. During the first workshop the Ethiopian and Dutch input was discussed and adjusted jointly. The most important issues were prioritized. The complete overview of the SWOT analysis is described in appendix 2 of the Appendix report. From the analysis the two priority issues per category are presented in the table below. Content layer Institutional layer Relational layer Strengths • basin based approach and

hydrological river basin delineation

• the current federal & regional governments agenda for natural resources conservation & water resources development

• establishment of the Basin Authority

• the presence of the government structure from federal to the grass root-woreda

• mass mobilization on watershed development across the basin

• users participation in cost sharing

Weaknesses • lack integrated resources development Master Plan for the basin

• lack of skills and knowledge in water resources management

• incapable of implementing the IWRM in the basin

• water charge from users is not sufficient to run the basin

• poor communication / cooperation with stakeholders

• inadequate public awareness creation on the policy & strategy

Opportunities • presence of IWRM policy and strategy

• government policy favours basin management

• high rate of economic development

• process of legal development is fast

• providing hubs improves cooperation

• users are eager to participate on flood protection and to work jointly

Threats • resource conflicts between lower and upper users

• knowledge and skills gaps among development actors/users on water resources utilization

• presence of different institutional arrangements / setup of the regions in the basin

• remoteness of the head office

• poor regional participation might occur during implementation

• presence of different languages, religions ethnics and cultures might be a problem for bringing integration for managing the basin

Table 4.1 Main results of SWOT analysis of water governance in Awash river basin.


Although a lot of weaknesses were mentioned, the strengths and opportunities should be cherished and used within the program to improve the water governance in Awash basin. Important opportunities arise from the attention that on a governmental level is given to basin management and the need for an integrated approach to inter linked challenges in the basin. The threats should be ranked in a risk analysis in order to identify necessary interventions to handle these threats. As a wrap-up of the SWOT analysis, an overview was created of prioritized weaknesses in the current water governance situation. Content layer (2) Institutional layer (10) Relational layer (2) - Lack of skill and knowledge in

water resources management (1) - Policy gap in land, climate change

and coordination - No information management

system - No knowledge transfer - Lack of integrated resource Master

Plan for the Basin - Big gap between theory and

practice

- Inappropriate and incompatible institutional setup (2)

- Incapable of implementing IWRM in basin (1)

- No cost recovery (1) - Implementation of IWRM is at

lower level - Water charge from users is not

sufficient to run basin - Lack budget (no any donor

supporting Awash basin development)

- Lack of structures that can sustain well experienced professionals

- No right tools for proper implementation in laws and regulation

- No coercive power

- Poor communication / cooperation with stakeholders (2)

- Inadequate public awareness creation on the policy and strategy

- Lack of setting clear responsibilities for the private investors for sustainability of development of the basin

- Lack of experience sharing IWRM - Weak participation of

stakeholders/users for the management of the river basin

- No platform for cooperation - Big knowledge and cultural gaps of

the stakeholders - No culture of cooperation

Table 4.2 Overview of prioritized weaknesses in water governance in Awash river basin. In bold the gaps are shown that have been prioritized during the wrap-up of the workshop. In brackets the number of stickers put on this item. From this overview the Ethiopian and Dutch partners discussed on the main priorities to work on. From this discussion it was seen that interventions mainly on the institutional layer are found necessary to improve water governance in Awash river basin. The institutional layer needs to be addressed first because it effects the other layers most. From the discussion the following issues were mentioned as the main water governance gaps: • Lack of skills and knowledge in water resources management (content layer) • Inappropriate and incompatible institutional setup (institutional layer) • Incapable of implementing IWRM in basin (institutional layer) • No cost recovery (institutional layer) • Poor communication / cooperation with stakeholders (relational layer)


4.2 Main water governance issues During the second workshop the Ethiopian and Dutch partners reflected on the draft water governance gaps from the first workshop and compared them with identified gaps from previous missions to Ethiopia. The identified water governance gaps from the mission reports and the draft institutional report that were not mentioned in the ranked SWOT analysis document, were added to the list. The partners discussed in two groups about the governance gaps. The results are shown in appendix 3 of the Appendix report. The results of each group were shared in a plenary wrap-up. It was stated that the differences between the groups were small. From the worksheet the following water governance gaps were derived.

Content gaps Institutional gaps Relational gaps 1. Lack of skills & knowledge in

water resource management

2. Lack integrated resources development Master Plan for the basin

3. Policy gap in land use

development, climate change related to water resource management

4. No capable organization of implementing IWRM in the basin

a. Inappropriate and incompatible

institutional setup b. Inappropriate financial

mechanism c. Lack of structures for incentive

mechanism that can sustain well experienced professionals

d. Lack of tools / guidelines / procedures for implementing IWRM

e. Weak information management

5. Poor communication / cooperation with stakeholders and inadequate public awareness creation

Table 4.3. Main water governance gaps for Awash river basin.

4.3 Appointing possible interventions for water governance gaps During the third workshop the main water governance gaps for Awash river basin, as identified by the partners, were elaborated further. To appoint the main issues per gap, to prioritize these issues and to appoint possible interventions for improvement, factsheets were produced for each gap. The factsheets for the water governance gaps are presented in appendix 4 of the Appendix report. The factsheets give an overview of the main problems, the questions to be investigated, the issues and possibilities for intervention and the main stakeholders to be involved in this gap. The prioritized problems and possible inventions per gap are shown below. Water Governance gap Problems Possible interventions 1. Lack of skills & knowledge in water

resource management - Absence of strategy for

knowledge transfer and skill development

- Shortage of competent staff (quality/quantity)

- Low knowledge of the basin (water system, socio-economic, environment)

- Making the working environment attractive

- Develop incentive mechanism for retaining and attracting staff

- Data collection, storage, processing, sharing and dissemination

2. Lack integrated resources development Master Plan for the basin

- No planning framework - Lack of experience

- Prepare / update the integrated Master Plan for the basin


Water Governance gap Problems Possible interventions 3. Policy gap in land use

development, climate change related to water resource management

- Disconnection between land and water in the policy document

- No alignment with watershed management

- Develop watershed management strategy for the water sector

4a. Inappropriate and incompatible institutional setup

- The organizational structure of AwBA is inappropriate to facilitate IWRM (Absence of hubs/IWRM branches near stakeholders in 5 regional states)

- The Basin High Council is not yet operational

- Location of the main office of AwBA is wrong

- Opening of pilot offices to facilitate cooperation with stakeholders all over the basin

4b. Inappropriate financial mechanism

- Ineffective water levy system - Shortage of fund - Dependency on government

budget

- Full implementation users/polluters pay principle

- Implementing/devising effective cost recovery system

- Proactive awareness creation campaign

4c. Lack of structures for incentive mechanism that can sustain well experienced professionals

- Lack of good salary and facilities (living and working environment)

- Location of head office

- Improving current organizational structures (salary scales)

- Focus on team building, training of teams, preserve skills and knowledge in teams

4d. Lack of tools / guidelines / procedures for implementing IWRM

- Weak enforcement guidelines - Lack of directives and systems

- Directives and system - Basin High Council must be

operational to decide on guidelines

- Cooperation with stakeholders by formulating guidelines

4e. Weak information management - Lack of skilled manpower - Difficulties in interpretation of

data (from data to information / knowledge) and dissemination to users

- Absence of data exchange/dissemination protocol

- Establishment of information centre within basin (only AwBA or shared service)

- Strenghtening cooperation with all stakeholders in basin on information management

- Transfer of hydrological monitoring data to AwBA

5. Poor communication / cooperation with stakeholders and inadequate public awareness creation

- Absence of platform for stakeholders involvement/engagement

- Absence of communication strategy

- Platform creation - Develop communication strategy - Awareness creation - High Council should steer

Table 4.4 Prioritized problems and possible interventions per water governance gap (derived from factsheets)


4.4 Towards a joint working agenda In the fourth workshop a wrap-up was made of the results so far. From the identified water governance gaps with prioritized problems and possible interventions for improvement a joint working agenda was drafted. To do this the partners identified a shared goal for the program. This goal states:

“We want to establish a good water governance in Awash river basin, that improves continuously, by improving mechanisms for cooperation, knowledge sharing and capacity building in the implementation of IWRM in the basin, to increase public health, increase socio-economic growth, increase the quality of the environment in a sustainable way and eradicate the ever rising water resource management problems.” The partners agreed that the set-up of the Water Governance program should be a co-creation between AwBA and MoWE-BAD, with the support of the Dutch Regional Water Authorities and the WGC. In the drafting of the program there should be attention for the involvement of the main stakeholders and users. This could be done through planning and operational activities.

The partners discussed the prioritization of identified water governance gaps to get a focus for the execution of the in-depth interviews and assessment in April 2013. Partners agreed to start with gaps from the institutional layer, but also to include the other layers. In practice, activities will often consist of elements of all three layers.

The partners agreed on focussing on the following water governance gaps during the in-depth interviews and assessment: • Inappropriate financial mechanism; • Lack of tools / guidelines / procedures for implementing IWRM; • Weak information management; • Poor communication / cooperation with stakeholders and inadequate public awareness creation; • Lack of skills and knowledge in water resources management.

During the in-depth interviews and assessment the other identified gaps could be described more in general or be elaborated in a later phase of the project: • Inappropriate and incompatible institutional setup; • Lack of structures for incentive mechanism that can sustain well experienced professionals; • Lack of integrated resources development Master Plan; • Policy gap in land use development and climate change related to water resources management. The partners agreed that the gap of institutional setup is crucial to the functioning of AwBA, so more attention should be given to this issue in the follow-up of this program.

From this focus the partners drafted joint working agendas of possible activities to be carried out to analyse and improve the main gaps in water governance. The draft joint working agendas for the prioritized water governance gaps are presented below and described in appendix 5 of the Appendix report. These will serve as input for drafting the Water Governance Program for Awash river basin.


Water Governance gap Activity General - Overview and analysis of water sector in Ethiopia and Awash basin

- Assess the linkage with Climate Resilience Green Economy and Growth Transformation Plan

- On-going plans, projects and programs in Awash - Power hierarchy / clear delineation of mandate and responsibilities of involved

parties - Identification major stakeholders and consultation with them - Organize workshop - Preparation of mission report

Water Governance gap Activity Inappropriate financial mechanism

- Assessment of existing financial sources, mechanisms, decision makers (including their objectives, mandate and agenda)

- Identification / assessments of existing guidelines - Finding new sources of funding, linking with donors, investors and institutions - Analyse effectiveness of AwBA to attract funds at government level (making

proposals) - Identification of stakeholders that don’t pay and why - Assessing existing cost recovery system

Water Governance gap Activity Lack of tools / guidelines / procedures for implementing IWRM

- Identify major regulatory functions in the basin - List down tools/guidelines/procedures and systems required for the regulatory

functions - Inventories and assess the capability of the existing tools / guidelines / procedures

and systems - Recommendations based on inventories and assessment - Develop ToR for the preparation of the required and recommended tools /

guidelines / procedures and systems Water Governance gap Activity Weak information management

- Identify the types of information and information systems required for good water governance

- Identify and assess the type of available data and information in the systems identified

- Identify sources of data and information - Identify the gap of data and information - Identify the uses and users of information - Assess the sharing of data and information - Propose methodology for improvement of information management system - Develop ToR for the proposed methodology

Water Governance gap Activity Poor communication / cooperation with stakeholders and inadequate public awareness creation

- Identification of relevant stakeholders in relation to challenges - Agenda for discussion (issues/expectations) - Organize workshop/meeting - Give them a possibility to evaluate/reflect on current status of communication and

cooperation - Introduction of proclamation and regulation of AwBA - Idea of own goals/ambition of AwBA in the communication / cooperation - Prioritizing of activities that needs their cooperation - Identification of problems, interests, attitudes and powers in a stakeholder

assessment - Interview - Clustering and conducting group discussions according to engagement - Finding sources: past studies, reviews, evaluations


Water Governance gap Activity Lack of skills and knowledge in water resources management

- Identify what kind of skills and knowledge are missing - Assessing the working environment - Assessing sources for new staff - Assess equipment and used technology - Assess financial strategy/possibilities to invest in better working environment - Evaluate existing knowledge transfer system, HRM activities - Find out why people leave AwBA - Find out/bench mark institutions for knowledge transfer and experience sharing - Assess training needed - Is team approach possible to retain skills and knowledge, role of

protocols/guidelines - Assessing facilities: library, IT centre - Assessing shared services - Identify conditions on opening hubs/branch offices

Table 4.5 Draft joint working agendas for the prioritized water governance gaps in Awash river basin.


5 IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS ON WATER GOVERNANCE GAPS

5.1 Introduction In this chapter the results of the in-depth interviews on water governance gaps are described. The water governance gaps were identified and prioritized during the Ethiopian mission to the Netherlands in March 2013. During the Dutch mission to Ethiopia in April the governance gaps were elaborated more in depth. This was done through interviews and field visits with Ethiopian IWRM specialists of AwBA in their head office in Amibara and with IWRM specialist from federal institutions in Addis Abeba. Information of important private stakeholders was obtained during field visits. The guidelines for the interviews are described in appendix 6 of the Appendix report. The results of the interviews were used to assess the water governance capacity in Awash basin. To do so, all interviews were build up in the same way, giving answers to the following main questions: • What is the current situation for the governance mechanism? • What are the main bottlenecks with regard to the governance mechanism? • Water are the needs for improvement for the governance mechanism? • What are possible interventions for improvement of the governance mechanism? An overview of the detailed minutes of the in-depth interviews from the Dutch mission to Ethiopia can be found in appendix 7 of the Appendix report. The results of the in-depth interviews are described in the next paragraphs. With these interviews the first activities of the joint working agendas have been executed.

5.2 Inappropriate financial mechanism The main problems related to the financial mechanism of IWRM in Awash basin were identified during the Ethiopian mission to the Netherlands. The main problems are that the water levy system is ineffective, that there is a shortage of funds and that there is a large dependency on governmental budgets. In Ethiopia two financing systems are working: • Block Grant System: this is only for Regional Governments, not for federal organizations. • MoFED (Ministry of Finance and Economic Development) financing: federal government bodies

are financed by MoFED. The financing from MoFED is relevant for AwBA. The process of getting the needed finances is time consuming and rather formal:

• AwBA submit their budget and physical activity proposal for MoFED (September) • MoFED Desks revise and comment the proposal and advise the Federal organization for

adjustment (usually they put the ceiling budget, December) • AwBA rewrites the proposals into requests (March) • MoFED organises budget hearings (April) • MoFED puts together all claims into one proposal • Minister of Finance: advocacy of proposal in Council of Ministers


• Council of Ministers: add comments • House of Parliaments: approves • AwBA gets the notification from MoFED (June)

In the future all internal income must be transferred to MoFED, according to regulation. There are about 15-20 mandates in the proclamation, but AwBA never asked MoFED money to execute full mandate. Most of the time, the capital budget from MoFED is not enough. Apart from salaries, excess budget on projects can be saved and (re)allocated for AwBA activities. On average, AwBA uses their annual budget entirely. If there is a shortage at the end of the year, AwBA writes a proposal to MoFED. In case of shortage throughout the year, AwBA asks for money at MoWE. The MoWE money is a loan and has to be repaid. Because some of the work of AwBA is based on incidents (floodings, repairing constructions), there is a shortage of budget to be effective. AwBA is putting a lot of effort in getting the water levy system working. In the current situation there is no clear registration of water users and it is not clear how many of them are paying. In most cases stakeholders will get a license for abstracting or using water. There are illegal users and there are legal users that are not paying. Enforcement of these licenses is weak. There is no real control on water users, which makes water allocation in times of scarcity a problem. It is not clear what the amount of money is that AwBA gets from the levy system. There are not enough branch offices to collect water charges and branch offices are not mandated to do so. Detailed directives and regulations for collection and enforcement are needed. Financially, it would be wise to mandate branch offices to collect fees, together with improving communication between AwBA and stakeholders on how the financial mechanism for IWRM works.

5.3 Lack of tools and guidelines for implementing IWRM According to the findings in the joint work plan focus was given to the tools and guidelines for the major regulatory functions in the basin. Therefore within the in-depth interview the permit system of AwBA was assessed.

The main problems with regard to the permit system are lack of directive and systems and weak enforcement. In the current situation AwBA is issuing permits for water uses of the main river. These include: • Water development permit (groundwater exploration); • Water users permits (irrigation Upper Awash); • Waste water discharge permit. Furthermore AwBA is involved in permit renewal, monitoring and collecting water charges from users. Regarding the issuing of permits AwBA is not covering the whole basin, only half of it. Permits are related to the main river. Principle is: no activity without license. Current situation is that there are only irrigation permits and not for the other mandated activities/users. They miss a lot of water


users. Most of these users don’t have a permit. There are no guidelines for an integrated approach to permit and licensing. Upstream and downstream effects are not always taken into account. There are no guidelines for enforcement. AwBA is only focusing on the issuing of permits. There are a lot of bottlenecks with regard to the permit system: • No clear policy on water use for different users, especially Lower Awash • Overlapping mandates with regional water bureaus • Permits issued by other authorities influence permit issuing by AwBA • No overview of activities in the whole basin (the area is too big) • No cooperation/coordination with regional/zonal water bureaus, also no cooperation with EPAs

(Environmental Protection Agencies) • No awareness of necessity of permit for water use: many polluting industries around Addis Ababa

and Adama that don’t pay for water use and discharge • Water users don’t know about AwBA • Tariffs set only for irrigation There is a need for skilled manpower for assessment of developments and improvement of the information database and GIS system. Because the core process of water administration department is inter linked with the factual water system knowledge additional expertise is needed within the information and basin study department.

5.4 Weak information management The main problems related to information management are a lack of skilled manpower, difficulties with the interpretation of data and dissemination to users and the absence of a proper data system for storing, analysing and providing information. With regard to information management AwBA should: • 1. Be an information centre for the basin stakeholders • 2. Carry out studies on different issues in the basin • 3. Collect and analyse data and disseminate to internal and external stakeholders • 4. Store data and setting up of a GIS/information management system

Studies are carried out to identify the basin challenges (land degradation, flood occurrence, salinity, deforestation, Lake Beseka). Most studies are out sourced. AwBA is collecting data at several points in the basin, mostly on hydro meteorological parameters, water quality and salinity. The integrity of the data is unclear. Most information is collected manually. It’s difficult to access the gauging stations (in times of heavy rain). Most effort is put in tasks 2 and 3, which means that storage, analysis and dissemination of data is not executed properly. The current data available is insufficient to execute all AwBA tasks and are unreliable as a base for a Basin Master Plan. Data is fragmented, there is no structured database and there are no guidelines for proper information management. Again the information management is only focusing on the


main river and there is no clear coordination on information management with other institutions involved in IWRM in the basin. There is a need for a proper, integrated base line analysis of the basin. This includes the additional collection of information on the functioning of the water system, land use and planning of developments. For becoming an information centre for all stakeholders, AwBA needs: • Implementation of an information / ICT system (also communication system) • Skilled manpower on GPS and GIS • Capacity building on data collection and processing

5.5 Poor communication and cooperation with stakeholders From the joint working agenda it is stated that this governance gap focuses on the role of AwBA as a coordinating body for the implementation of IWRM. This coordinating role gives AwBA status as the water authority in the area. Important governance mechanisms are cooperation and communication with stakeholders. Main problems identified are the absence of a communication strategy within AwBA and the lack of platforms for stakeholder involvement in IWRM. With regard to internal coordination within AwBA it is clear that there should be more interaction between departments. The work processes interlink. With regard to the external coordination with stakeholders AwBA recently starting working in the field of Public Relation and Communication. Since 2013 AwBA is making brochures, newsletters and a magazine. There is an overview of stakeholders. The Basin policy planning department is organizing (yearly) meetings with stakeholders per region (upper and lower Awash). Middle and Lower Awash is focusing on irrigation, flooding, water allocation. For upper Awash a high level meeting with other (government) stakeholders will be organized by AwBA in future. AwBA brings their plan to these stakeholder meetings for reflection. Before bringing the plans to the stakeholder meetings, AwBA is preparing plans in coordination with local stakeholders (Chiefs of Community, exporter association, water users associations, cotton production associations). Main goals of the stakeholder meetings are: • Awareness creation on IWRM and AwBA role; • Presenting activities of AwBA (water allocations, flood protection, permits etc) • Presentations of plans of stakeholders • Define and adjust action plans • Decision making responsibility!

There are many stakeholders. For local (operational) challenges, stakeholders platforms are organized. It is about resolving local problems related to: • Water allocation • Flood control • Water quality


From the interview with Woredas it became clear that AwBA has a good cooperation and communication with the local stakeholders and public institutions. Most of the time this is about water allocation, flood protection works, collection of fees and dispute of conflicts. There is no clear process defined for decision making where AwBA should focus on. There is no clear prioritization of challenges to focus on. This makes it difficult to prioritize activities for budget proposals for MoFED. Summarized, the main challenges are: • AwBA is mainly working on the local level • AwBA is mainly working on operational tasks • There is no clear prioritization of challenges to focus on • There are many stakeholders with different wishes • Public relation has to be set up • Lack of experience • Lack of facilities (Internet, website)

Preparing a Basin Master Plan could be helpful to prioritize challenges and to coordinate activities: • If it is combined with a basin wide strategy; • If there is a proper communication of the planning and executing of activities; • If there is a proper mechanism to improve the availability of monitoring data/basin information; • If there are clear responsibilities defined between AwBA and stakeholders; It is concluded that a Master Plan is essential to overcome the coordination gap.

5.6 Lack of skills and knowledge in water resources management Due to a change in the program, this governance gap was not discussed as a separate topic during the mission. The results are based on all interviews with AwBA staff.

The main problems with this governance gaps are that: • There is no strategy for knowledge transfer and skill development; • There is shortage of competent staff (both in water quantity and water quality); • There is low knowledge of the water system and basin as a whole.

AwBA is responsible for the integrated management of water resources, mainly focusing on the river Awash, in an area of 110.000 km2 (which is almost 3 times the Netherlands). In general and on all levels, there is a lack of skills and knowledge at AwBA to execute its mandate fully. This means that there is not enough staff and that there is not enough knowledge available. In all interviews AwBA indicates this should be addressed. However, there is no clear strategy for the development of AwBA and what this means in terms of human resources. The cooperation with MoWE is needed to develop this strategy. On a federal level the ambition is to establish river basin organizations throughout the country, but AwBA is not getting the full support to execute the mandate that goes with the implementation of this model. AwBA has been established, but needs to make a lot of steps to become a water authority. Currently, AwBA has a focus on the local level, concerned with


operational tasks and hardly not involved in cooperation on the regional/zonal level and not involved in strategic discussions on the federal level. Current skills and available knowledge are barely suitable for the execution of operational tasks. AwBA staff agrees and sees a need to increase their capacity. The main field of focus for improving skills and knowledge according to the interviews are: • IWRM and water system functioning (water allocation, water quality) • Information management (monitoring) • Communication • Permitting and enforcement • Finances

Within the set-up of the Water Governance Program trainings will be formulated to start the development of knowledge and skills within AwBA.

5.7 Inappropriate and incompatible institutional setup As indicated in chapter 4.4 this governance gap is important in the functioning of AwBA, but was not studied in depth during the mission of April 2013. In the follow up of the program this gaps should get more attention.

AwBA is accountable to minister of MoWE on technical issues and to the Basin High Council on political issues. However, the accountability is not clearly defined in terms of rules and regulations. AwBA should give advice on all IWRM issues and challenges to MoWE, Basin High Council and eventually to the parliament. All problems in the basin are mostly faced by AwBA. For example dikes are considered infrastructure and the government is responsible for construction. The users are responsible for operating and maintenance. AwBA is in between and has no clear role. On the other hand, AwBA has full mandate on implementing IWRM. The regional water bureaus however, also execute water task that may interfere with the mandate of AwBA. These overlapping mandates should be resolved to make AwBA more effective.

It is important that the Basin High Council will be operational. However, the High Council is organized on a high level, which makes it difficult to discuss regional and local issues. It was said that the High Council would only become operational if there are disputes. On the other hand it is felt that the High Council could be guiding the way for AwBA by deciding on frameworks and guidelines for the implementation of IWRM. The director of AwBA, as a secretary of the High Council, could come up with an agenda. In practice this lies with MoWE, but they are not pushing for a meeting with the High Council. In the new constellation of AwBA, with no clear guiding lines for institutional development, it is felt that there is no clear business plan for the organization. In such a plan institutional growth of AwBA can be described, together with the development of knowledge and skill.

Another main issue is the organizational structure of AwBA and mainly the location of the head office and the vicinity to stakeholders. Throughout AwBA it is felt that Amibara, although in the centre of the basin, is remote and far away from important stakeholders. It was discussed during the interviews that regional or local hubs of AwBA should be established to become more effective in the implementation of IWRM. It is also necessary that on the regional and federal level AwBA gets more involved with its partners and stakeholders. This cannot be done from Amibara alone.


6 WATER GOVERNANCE CAPACITY

In this chapter a description is given of the assessment of the water governance capacity in Awash basin.

On the one hand the assessment focuses on the current strengths and opportunities. Together with the draft joint working agendas and the in depth interviews, the strengths and opportunities provide a framework for drafting the Water Governance Program.

On the other hand the assessment focuses also on weaknesses and gaps. The identified water governance gaps were assessed using a water governance scorecard. In this scorecard the results of the in-depth interviews were used, together with the expert judgement of IWRM specialists of the Dutch Regional Water Authorities and the WGC.

In this way, an overall picture of the current water governance situation can be given. The character of the assessment is unique, because the Ethiopian partners AwBA and MoWE-BAD reflect on their own functioning together with Dutch partners. This self-assessment shows a great sense of responsibility and willingness to improve the water governance of IWRM in the basin.

6.1 Strengths and opportunities Based on the SWOT analysis several strengths were mentioned that should be kept in mind. The most important self-assessed strengths and opportunities in water governance in Awash basin are described below (see also section 4.1). Content layer Institutional layer Relational layer Strengths • basin based approach and

hydrological river basin delineation

• the current federal & regional governments agenda for natural resources conservation & water resources development

• establishment of the Basin Authority

• the presence of the government structure from federal to the grass root-woreda

• mass mobilization on watershed development across the basin

• users participation in cost sharing

Opportunities • presence of IWRM policy and strategy

• government policy favours basin management

• high rate of economic development

• process of legal development is fast

• providing hubs improves cooperation

• users are eager to participate on flood protection and to work jointly

Table 6.1 Important strengths and opportunities in water governance in Awash basin The fact that a river basin authority was established in the basin and the attention given to the need of proper and sustainable management of national resources show that Awash basin is important to Ethiopia.


The attention for a basin based approach to IWRM favours a more sustainable management of developments in the basin. AwBA is the first basin organisation to self-assess its functioning and come up with steps to improve itself and developing into a water authority. On the local level governance structures are clear and operational tasks already executed. During crises situations stakeholders are involved to overcome the water related problems. The high rate of economic development and the related demands in water use provide good opportunities for AwBA to distinguish itself and become a more visible partner in the development of the basin. 6.2 Gaps The workshops and in depth interviews provided a lot of information on the current gaps in water governance. The identified water governance gaps were assessed using a water governance scorecard. In the assessment of the water governance capacity four parameters were scored: • Sufficiency: are the governance mechanisms working? • Stability: are the governance mechanisms subject to changes or flexible enough? • Effectivity: are the governance mechanisms working good to meet targets? • Efficiency: How much effort do the mechanisms take compared to the effect?

The scorecard was completed on the basis of insights from the workshops and interviews. The information was triangulated, so not based on the opinion of a single individual. The overview of the water governance capacity in Awash river basin is shown on the next page. In the overview a short description of the governance mechanism and gap is given and scores are ticked. The scores are:

- Suffiency - Very sufficient, mechanism working properly (4) - Mechanism works, but not always (3) - Mechanism close to working (2) - Mechanism doesn’t work (1)

- Stability - Very stable, mechanism not subject to changes (4) - Mechanism stable, but changes occur (3) - Mechanism subject to changes (2) - Mechanism not in place (1)

- Efficiency - Very efficient, mechanism effect are higher than efforts (4) - Mechanism efficient, but more effort is needed (3) - Mechanism needs more effort than effect (2) - Mechanism not liable (1)

- How effective is the governance tool? - It is very effective (4) - Many things happening but there are questions on quality and fairness (3) - Only a few things happen – but not the really important actions (2) - Nothing happens (1)


Also the main barriers to effectiveness are mentioned. These are: • There is no integration of different interests (in other words the IWRM process is not working) (A) • No-one makes an effort to enforce laws and/or there is no capacity to make the organizations

function (B) • No one knows the laws or recognizes that the organization exists (C) • The law or new organization is not operational and has no authority (D)

It can be seen that water governance capacity in Awash river basin in the current situation is low to very low. This means that on average the governance mechanisms are not in place or are not properly working. The only more positive score is that the financial mechanism is actually working, but with the federal structures in the country it’s not stable and reliable. All other mechanisms are in an early stage of development or don’t exist, such as basic river basin knowledge and systems for enforcement. Overall the governance capacity of AwBA is not sufficient to execute their mandate properly, to name a few: • AwBA is working on a local and operational level, not on regional/federal level; • AwBA is not cooperating or coordinating with other stakeholders/institutions; • AwBA is invisible and unknown to most institutions and stakeholders; • Organizational structure is not suitable for effective water management in whole basin; • Basin High Council not operational; • No clear focus or prioritization of activities; • No good connection between departments; • Insufficient base line knowledge available of water system functioning; • Lack of skilled staff, especially in basin studies, monitoring, permitting and finance; • No good provision of information to stakeholders; • No guidelines for enforcement of permits; • No guidelines for waste (water) discharge permitting.

The AwBA has got a problem of scale and a problem of focus. They can’t comply with their mandate (IWRM on catchment level), instead they have an operational focus. The basin is far too big for the amount of people working within AwBA. They act local/regional around the head quarter’s area and give little attention to the coordination activities at the regional level and the strategic activities on the federal level, which are needed for the further development of AwBA.

Set up of a Water Governance Program

in the Awash River Basin, Central Ethiopia

Page 26 of 28

Overview of water governance capacity in Awash river Basin, Central Ethiopia

Score Summary Water Governance Barriers

Suffi

cien

cy

Stab

ility

Effic

ienc

y

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Total score (out of 16) Governance mechanism Description

1 1 1 2 5/16 Cooperation and coordination Working on local and operational level, no cooperation strategy or platforms, invisible C

2 2 1 1 6/16 Permit system and enforcement Permit system only related to river abstractions/uses, not efficient, no enforcement C

1 1 2 2 6/16 Information management Information is available, not prioritized and no integrated approach in basin management A

3 2 2 2 9/16 Financial mechanism Mechanism works, but budget allocation is rather hierarchical and time consuming A

1 1 2 2 6/16 Institutional setup Organizational structure not defined, Basin High Council not active, stakeholders not involved C

2 2 1 1 6/16 Knowledge and skills Low level of knowledge and skills, no HR policy D

Explanation of scores: Status of sufficiency Status of stability Status of efficiency Status of effectiveness Barriers to effectiveness Total score

Very sufficient, mechanism working properly [4]

Very stable, mechanism not subject to changes [4]

Very efficient, mechanism effect are higher than efforts [4]

Very effective, mechanism good to meet the goals [3]

No integration of different interests [A]

14 – 16 points

Mechanism works, but not always [3]

Mechanism stable, but changes occur [3]

Mechanism efficient, but more effort is needed [3]

Mechanism exists but not fair to meet all goals [3]

No one enforces [B] 11 – 13 points

Mechanism close to working [2] Mechanism subject to changes [2] Mechanism needs more effort than effect [2]

Exist but not official [2] Not many know it exists [C] 8 – 10 points

Mechanism doesn’t work [1] Mechanism not in place [1] Mechanism not liable [1] Mechanism does not exist [1] No yet ready to go [D] 4 - 7 points


7 FOLLOW-UP

From the assessment of water governance capacity it can be stated that IWRM is in an very early stage of development in Awash river basin. On all identified governance gaps the capacity is low and improvement is needed to achieve the goals and to meet the mandates.

In the discussions with the staff, core process owners and the director of AwBA some priorities were given for the follow-up of the assessment.

There should be a development strategy for AwBA. First of all AwBA should adopt the multi-layer approach. This means that AwBA should become active on different levels (and scales). The figure below shows the current position of AwBA within the framework of their mandate.

national

regional

local

operational coordination strategy

To be active on different levels it means AwBA should reconsider their organizational structure and to be present in the Upper, Middle and Lower part of the river basin. To be effective in water management throughout the basin AwBA should focus more on their coordination role. Besides the role of coordinator, AwBA should also develop its role as water system manager and regulator and the provider of adequate information to stakeholders. This means a focus on the development of water system knowledge and skills and a focus on information management.

In short the focus of AwBA should be: • Focus on coordination role; • Focus on skills and knowledge for implementing IWRM; • Focus on information management.

To achieve these different ambitions as a water authority and the supposed focus, AwBA could achieve this by a three way approach: • develop a Business Plan, where institutional set-up, financial mechanism and knowledge and skills

(HR) are described;


• develop a Basin Master Plan (with focus on water allocation, flooding, water quality and monitoring) to get an overview of the water system functioning, provide adequate information to others and interact with stakeholders;

• implement coordination/cooperation by initiating and running stakeholder platforms. As a summary the possible roles and approaches of AwBA are presented in the table below.

Role Governance Issues Approach Good coordination Cooperation and coordination

Permit mechanism

Master Plan with focus on - Water allocation (scarcity) - Flooding - Water quality - Monitoring Good information provision Information management

Good water management Knowledge and skills Being an authority in IWRM Institutional setup

Financial mechanism

Knowledge and skills

Business plan

Table 7.1 Roles, governance issues and approaches for development of AwBA. The results of the assessment of the water governance capacity in Awash river basin, Central Ethiopia show that there should be a clear focus for the development of AwBA as water authority in the area. This could be done in a two way approach, integrating several water governance gaps. The linkages between the approaches are shown in figure 7.1.

Figure 7.1. Approaches to the development of AwBA, linkages between products (blue) and ambitions (red)

Documents

Assessment of Water Governance Capacity in thewatergovernance.s3.amazonaws.com/files/F066.01-13 … · · 2013-09-104.1 SWOT analysis of water governance ... 5.6 Lack of skills