72410
An AMCOW Country Status Overview
Water
Supply and
Sanitation in
Ghana
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 Ghana 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: Photographs published with permission from Gallo Images/Getty Images/AFP and
The Bigger Picture/Reuters
© 2011 Water and Sanitation Program
An AMCOW Country Status Overview
Water
Supply and
Sanitation in
Ghana
Turning Finance into
Services for 2015
and Beyond
1
An AMCOW Country Status Overview
Strategic Overview
Since the early 1990s, Ghana’s water and sanitation sector significantly from those of the JMP. The Community Water
has seen major reforms to address weaknesses. Appropriate and Sanitation Agency (CWSA) reports rural coverage of
institutional, legal, and regulatory structures are now 57 percent in 2008, while the Ghana Water Company Ltd
largely in place, particularly for the urban and rural water (GWCL) reports 58 percent as the urban water coverage.
supply subsectors. The Ministry of Water Resources, Works, For sanitation the survey data demonstrate very low access
and Housing (MoWRWH) has provided leadership in the to improved sanitation, with the JMP reporting coverage at
area of drinking water supply, kept to policy formulation, 13 percent in 2008, up from 7 percent in 1990 (implying an
and encouraged and supported the agencies under it to MDG target of 54 percent). Ghana will very likely miss the
perform their roles. There are clear lines of responsibility target for sanitation, given the predominant use of shared
and all subsector policies have been consolidated into the facilities (54 percent), which are considered unimproved
National Water Policy (NWP) and the National Environmental according to definitions used by the JMP. By far the greatest
Sanitation Policy. The Environmental Health and Sanitation challenge is in eliminating open defecation, which is high—
Directorate (EHSD) within the Ministry of Local Government 20 percent nationally and 34 percent in rural communities.
and Rural Development (MLGRD), recently upgraded to a
directorate, has taken on a leadership role for sanitation An estimated US$237 million in capital investment (CAPEX) is
in Ghana. Yet considerable efforts are still required in the required annually for water supply. Estimated requirements
sanitation subsectors, not the least of which is to strengthen for sanitation are higher, at US$406 million per year, a
EHSD’s capacity. Whilst the enabling environment has been substantial part of which the government expects to be
largely created, developing and sustaining service delivery borne by households. It is clear that anticipated spending
presently needs greater emphasis. will not be enough to achieve the sector targets and that
increased and more innovative financing, sector planning,
Data reported by the 2010 UNICEF/WHO Joint Monitoring better targeting, greater efficiency, and cost recovery
Programme (JMP) for Ghana put the use of improved approaches will be needed to address identified gaps.
water sources at 82 percent of the population, as of 2008.
This would mean Ghana has already exceeded its water This second AMCOW Country Status Overview (CSO2) has
supply Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target of 77 been produced in collaboration with the Government of
percent coverage. However, provider-based figures differ Ghana and other stakeholders.
2
Water Supply and Sanitation in Ghana: 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
• Empower District Assemblies to take full ownership of service delivery through capacity building and funding support.
• Ensure greater synergy between the CWSA and GWCL in implementation of projects to benefit from economies of
scale and avoid under- or over-laps in service areas.
• Urgently pursue the development of comprehensive sector investment plans.
• Ensure better linkage between sector targets and funding allocations.
• Increase domestic allocations and disbursements to sector institutions and ensure prompt utilization of funds.
• Provide greater visibility for sanitation by further defining and disaggregating sanitation budget lines.
• Develop innovative approaches to financing, particularly for sanitation.
• Undertake regular monitoring of the equity of access to services.
• MoWRWH should collaborate with Ghana Statistics Service to conduct a water-, sanitation-, and hygiene-specific
survey to provide needed data not captured under the national representative surveys.
• Agree to definitions and a set of national indicators for water supply and sanitation.
• Implement the District Monitoring and Evaluation System nationally.
• Undertake consolidated annual sector reporting.
Rural water supply
• Close the funding gap for rural water supply.
• Revisit implications on sustainability of removing the 5 percent community contribution to capital costs.
• Identify innovative ways of providing drinking water to challenging hydro-geological areas.
Urban water supply
• Set a clear roadmap on actions to be taken after expiry of management contract for urban water supply.
• Bring tariffs in line with full-cost recovery, in parallel with successful achievement of efficiency targets.
• Ensure greater participation of existing consumers and potential consumers in investment and supply decisions of the
GWCL.
• Mainstream independent value-for-money studies in all loans/grants for urban water supply projects.
• Institute a system of incentives and penalties for management of urban water supply.
• Give greater visibility to pro-poor unit within the urban utility.
Rural sanitation and hygiene
• Prepare a national sanitation program to address the rural sanitation deficit if the MDG is to be achieved.
• Declare a clear policy direction on how to deal with the high proportion of shared facilities.
• Make vigorous efforts to establish microfinance schemes to support sanitation delivery.
Urban sanitation and hygiene
• Develop innovative approaches to urban sanitation, including microfinance schemes, to support building of
household sanitation facilities.
• Develop a clear policy for increasing access among peri-urban and low income communities in cities.
• Strengthen institutional capacity for the management of sewerage treatment system since metropolitan, municipal,
and district councils as currently structured and staffed cannot do this.
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. .................................................................................................................. 15
Financing and its Implementation.
6. Sector Monitoring and Evaluation.................................................................................................................. 19
7. Subsector: Rural Water Supply....................................................................................................................... 21
8. ..................................................................................................................... 23
Subsector: Urban Water Supply.
9. Subsector: Rural Sanitation and Hygiene........................................................................................................ 26
10. ...................................................................................................... 28
Subsector: Urban Sanitation and Hygiene.
Notes and References................................................................................................................................... 31
5
An AMCOW Country Status Overview
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AFD Agence Français de Développement MMDAs Metropolitan, Municipal and District
AfDB African Development Bank Assemblies
AMCOW African Ministers’ Council on Water MoE Ministry of Education
AVRL Aqua Vitens Rand Ltd MoFEP Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning
CAPEX Capital expenditure MoH Ministry of Health
CLTS Community-Led Total Sanitation MoWRWH Ministry of Water Resources, Works and
CONIWAS Coalition of NGOs in Water and Sanitation Housing
CSO2 Country Status Overviews (second round) NCWSP National Community Water and Sanitation
CWSA Community Water and Sanitation Agency Programme
DA District Assemblies NESSAP National Environmental Sanitation Action
DWD District Works Department Plan and Investment Plan
DWSP District Water and Sanitation Plan NGOs Nongovernmental organizations
EHSD Environmental Health and Sanitation NWP National Water Policy
Directorate O&M Operations and maintenance
EU European Union OPEX Operations expenditure
EUWI EU Water Initiative PURC Public Utilities Regulatory Commission
GDP Gross domestic product PWD Public Works Department
GNI Gross national income RSH Rural sanitation and hygiene
GoG Government of Ghana RWS Rural water supply
GPRS Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy SEC State Enterprises Commission
GPRSII Ghana Growth and Poverty Reduction SIP Sector investment plan
Strategy SWAp Sector-Wide Approach
GWCL Ghana Water Company Ltd UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
HH Household USH Urban sanitation and hygiene
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency UWP Urban Water Project
JMP Joint Monitoring Programme (UNICEF/WHO) UWS Urban water supply
LIC Low-income country WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
m3 cubic meters WB World Bank
M&E Monitoring and evaluation WHO World Health Organization
MDGs Millennium Development Goals WRC Water Resources Commission
MICS Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey WSMP Water Sector Monitoring Platform
MoLGRD Ministry of Local Government and Rural WSP Water and Sanitation Program
Development WSS Water and sanitation sector
Exchange rate: US$1 = GHC 1.43.1
6
Water Supply and Sanitation in Ghana: 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 its
member governments can do to accelerate that progress across countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).2 The African
Ministers’ Council on Water (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 SSA. This CSO2 report has been produced in collaboration with the Government of Ghana 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 The CSO2 also compares countries’ own estimates
of coverage with data from the UNICEF/WHO’s Joint
Stakeholders in Ghana’s water, sanitation and hygiene Monitoring Programme (JMP), which are themselves based
(WASH) sector generally perceive provider-based data to on GSS national household surveys.5 The impact of these
be a better reflection of the status of water supply and different coverage estimates on investment requirements
sanitation delivery in the country than household surveys.3 is then assessed. The JMP reports the use of improved
Coverage reported for 2008 for rural and small town water sources in Ghana at 82 percent as of 2008 with
water supply by the Community Water and Sanitation 17 percent of the population receiving water piped into
Agency (CWSA) was 57 percent, whilst the Ghana Water premises, and 65 percent relying on other sources such
Company Ltd (GWCL) reported 58 percent as the urban as standpipes and water points. If these estimates are
water coverage, giving a national coverage rate of 58 accepted, then the MDG target of 77 percent has already
percent. Both the CWSA and GWCL plan their interventions been reached (the MDG target, as derived from the latest
to achieve targets of 76 percent for rural water and 80 JMP report, differs from Ghana’s ‘MDG+’).6
percent for urban water supply by 2015 (described as
‘MDG+’). For water supply planning and decision-making The JMP coverage estimate for sanitation, derived from
purposes such provider-based estimates from the CWSA household surveys, is that 13 percent of the population
and GWCL have been used. In addition to the different have improved access, with a further 54 percent using
data collection methods, differences exist in definitions shared facilities and 20 percent practicing open defecation.
between provider-based data and household surveys: for The issue of shared toilet facilities in Ghana is a thorny one,
example, an acceptable per capita consumption for urban given its widespread incidence. A nationwide study has
water supply ranges from 80–140 liters/capita in provider been commissioned to determine the number of households
estimates, whereas household surveys generally do not sharing facilities, and the adequacy and cleanliness of such
quantify consumption per capita.4 facilities. This is in recognition of the fact that under the
JMP definition of improved sanitation, there is very little
In the case of sanitation, there are no credible provider- chance that Ghana can attain the MDG target of 54 percent
based data for access and coverage estimates provided coverage. Coverage estimates and targets are depicted in
by national surveys undertaken by the Ghana Statistical Figure 1 (Ghana’s MDG+ targets are set for urban and rural
Service (GSS) are the reference point. water supply separately—see Sections 7 and 8).
Figure 1
Progress in water supply and sanitation coverage
Water supply Sanitation
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 JMP estimates JMP estimates MDG target
MDG target
Sources: For JMP estimates and MDG targets, JMP 2010 Report; for Government estimates, CWSA and GWCL.
8
Water Supply and Sanitation in Ghana: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond
From the perspective of stakeholders at the CSO2 Both the CWSA and GWCL have undertaken assessments
consultation, harmonization of definitions between GSS, of CAPEX requirements in their Strategic Investment
JMP, and provider agencies requires further attention, to Plans (SIPs). For rural and small town WSS an annual total
gain a truer picture of what is required in investments, funding requirement of US$63 million has been estimated
regional allocations, and technology options. for the period 2008–15, to meet the MDG+ target of 76
percent. For urban water supply, the GWCL estimates an
Investment Requirements: Testing the annual requirement of around US$171 million to meet
Sufficiency of Finance a subsector MDG+ target of 80 percent. A consolidated
sector investment plan is needed to establish under- and
Investment requirements for Ghana to achieve its sector over-laps that may exist between these two subsector
targets were estimated using the CSO2 costing model. In investment plans.
the case of urban and rural water supply, the required
investment was estimated relative to the provider-based The investment required to attain the water supply MDG
coverage estimates and the MDG+ targets; while for target, relative to JMP data, is lower—due to higher
sanitation, the JMP’s survey-based estimates and MDG current estimates of coverage and, in the case of rural
target were used. Other input data included population water supply, the share of the MDG target being lower
projections from the United Nations Population Division, unit than the national (MDG+) target.
costs from sector agencies, and a technology distribution
based on the 2008 demographic and health survey and With respect to sanitation, the total CAPEX (hardware)
provider estimates. The resulting investment requirements
requirements to meet the MDG target are estimated at
are compared against anticipated investments from the
US$402 million per year, using the CSO2 model. With
Government of Ghana (GoG) (indicated in the Medium-
the shift to Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS),
Term Expenditure Framework, or MTEF, budget estimates)
households are expected to meet the full costs of
and donors, alongside expected user contributions, to
sanitation hardware. It must be noted, however, that
establish the gap in sector financing.
the policies in respect of sanitation have only recently
An estimated US$237 million in capital investment (CAPEX) been clarified (2010), and it is not yet clear how far the
is required annually to meet the water supply MDG+ mechanisms and finance for promoting nationwide
targets (Table 1), which is assumed to come entirely from uptake of household sanitation are in place. Without
public sources (that is, a 0 percent user contribution). A sufficient software (for example, promotion, marketing
long-standing 5 percent community contribution to and, potentially, innovative microfinancing arrangements),
capital costs of rural water supply was abolished by the the substantial assumed household CAPEX depicted in
current government. Anticipated public investments are Figure 2 is deceptive. Such activities will present a not-
50 percent of what is required, leaving a deficit of US$119 insignificant burden to the public purse, in terms of
million per year. manpower and materials, and CLTS cannot therefore be
Figure 2
Required vs. anticipated (public) and assumed (household) expenditure
Water supply Sanitation
Required CAPEX Required CAPEX
Required OPEX Required OPEX
0 100 200 300 400 0 200 400 600
US$ million/year US$ million/year
Public CAPEX (anticipated) CAPEX deficit Public finance (anticipated) Household CAPEX (anticipated)
Source: CSO2 costing.
9
An AMCOW Country Status Overview
Table 1
Coverage and investment figures—CSO2 data with provider-based coverage data for water supply8
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 37% 57% 76% 461 123 123 20 38 58 0 65
Urban water supply 84% 58% 80% 587 115 115 6 55 61 0 54
Water supply total 54% 58% 77%* 1,141 237 237 26 93 119 0 119
Rural sanitation 4% 7% 52% 849 165 0 0 8 8 165 –
Urban sanitation 11% 18% 56% 778 237 0 0 20 20 237 –
Sanitation total 7% 13% 54% 1,627 402 0 0 28 28 402 –
Sources: JMP 2010 Report; CSO2 costing.
* Note: While the overall water supply target for 2015 depicted in Table 1 is the MDG, the urban/rural subsector targets are the ‘MDG+’ national targets.
viewed as removing the need for public finance for the Table 2
sanitation subsectors.7 The current anticipated annual Annual O&M, CSO2 estimates
public finance depicted in Figure 2 is largely external, and
Subsector O&M
it is not possible to determine how much is for hardware
US$ million/year
(that is, continuing subventions in some donor projects)
Rural water supply 21
vs. software. For progress in the sector, the significant
Urban water supply 46
poverty in parts of the country (especially the northern Water supply total 66
regions) may still require continuation of subventions for Rural sanitation 13
household sanitation. Overall, the apparent availability of Urban sanitation 54
household finance for sanitation capital shown in Figure 2 Sanitation total 68
should be treated with caution.
Source: CSO2 costing.
Table 2 presents the annual OPEX requirements associated
with facilities. As in many countries, in Ghana there is an subsector targets; determining a realistic mix of public and
implicit assumption that operations and maintenance HH/consumer contributions to both OPEX and CAPEX;
(O&M) costs (OPEX) will be recovered from users. In addressing identified policy gaps such as responsibility
urban water supply this is often the case, whilst in rural for post-construction rehabilitation and major repairs of
Ghana many of the systems also cover their O&M in line water infrastructure in small towns and how CLTS can be
with policy. However, in cases where annual OPEX has supported and promoted nationwide. All these will have
to be subsidized this will increase the burden on public an impact on the final costing.
finance. The requirements for public financing (O&M and
eventually capital costs) will be considerably reduced as These considerations are only part of the picture.
the policy on full cost recovery is fully implemented. Bottlenecks can, in fact, occur throughout the service
delivery pathway—all the institutions, processes, and actors
The preparation of a Sector Investment and Strategy that translate sector funding into sustainable services.
document is under way. This will pull the subsector Where the pathway is well developed sector funding
investment plans together (including water resources should turn into services at the estimated unit costs.
management) and will address current weaknesses of the Where it is not, the above investment requirements may
existing SIPs. This is a major requirement for the move to a be gross underestimates. The rest of this report evaluates
Sector-Wide Approach (SWAp). Among issues that should the service delivery pathway in its entirety, locating the
be tackled are: agreement on technology mix for both bottlenecks and presenting the agreed priority actions to
water supply and sanitation; removal of ambiguity around help address them.
10
Water Supply and Sanitation in Ghana: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond
3. Reform Context:
Introducing the CSO2 Scorecard
To achieve the broad objectives set in Ghana’s ‘Vision in 2009 are significant developments. Support is being
2020’ (1995–2020) and the Ghana Poverty Reduction provided by DANIDA, UNICEF and The Netherlands
Strategy (GPRS I and GPRS II), the WASH sector in Ghana Government to strengthen and empower the Directorate
had to undergo significant reforms beginning in the 1990s. to take up the numerous challenges that confront the
The recent history puts the service delivery pathway in sanitation subsector. A National Environmental Sanitation
context, which can then be explored in detail using the Action Plan and Investment Plan (NESSAP) has been
CSO2 scorecard, an assessment tool providing a snapshot launched to accelerate sanitation delivery at national,
of reform progress along the whole pathway. The CSO2 district, and community levels. CLTS is now seen as a
scorecard assesses the building blocks of service delivery viable approach for sanitation.
in turn: three building blocks which relate to enabling
services, three which relate to developing new services, A private operator, Aqua Vitens Rand Ltd. (AVRL), has been
and three which relate to sustaining services. Each building introduced in the urban water supply subsector under a
block is assessed against specific indicators and scored management contract, whilst local private operators are
from 1 to 3 accordingly.9 partnering some communities to operate and manage
small town water systems, with mixed results.
At the time the reforms commenced, the rural population’s
access to safe drinking water was low (30 percent) and the More recently, processes for harmonization and the
supply-driven top down approach was seen as unsuitable acceleration of the SWAp have resulted in a clear
for rapid expansion in coverage. In urban water supply, roadmap, and discussions are ongoing on the need for a
rapid urbanization, old and dilapidated water infrastructure, sectorwide monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system with
poor management, high levels of unaccounted-for water, the establishment of a Water and Sanitation Monitoring
low tariffs and lack of investments, all combined to create Platform (WSMP).
the need for extensive reform. The thrust of the reforms
involved: (a) transformation of the role of the public
sector from that of service provider into a facilitator of Figure 3
decentralized (especially for rural and small town water Average scorecard results for enabling,
supply and sanitation), demand-driven service delivery; (b) sustaining, and developing service delivery,
and peer-group comparison
the establishment and strengthening of regulatory bodies
for water resources management and economic regulation
Enabling
of urban water supply; (c the entrenchment of community
ownership and management; (d) highlighting the role of
water and sanitation services in poverty reduction; and
(e) the introduction of private sector participation (PSP)
into urban water supply. Various subsector policies were
consolidated into a National Water Policy (NWP), which is
currently in operation.
The sanitation subsector has also seen modest
transformation and attention given to it. The recent Sustaining Developing
upgrading of the Environmental Health and Sanitation
Ghana average scores
Division to a Directorate (EHSD) of the Ministry of Local
Averages, LICs, GNI p.p.>US$500
Government and Rural Development (MoLGRD), and
approval of the National Environmental Sanitation Policy Source: CSO2 scorecard.
11
An AMCOW Country Status Overview
Table 3
Key dates in the reform of the sector in Ghana
Year Event
1928 Hydraulics Department of Public Works Department (PWD) pioneers delivery of urban water supply
1948 Rural Water Department created within PWD to deal with rural water supply
1958 Hydraulics Department and Rural Water Department merged into Water Supply Division (WSD) of PWD
1965 Ghana Water and Sewerage Corporation (GWSC) established to produce and distribute urban and rural
water supply
1994 Kokrobite Conference endorses the National Community Water and Sanitation Programme (NCWSP)
1994 Separation of urban and rural water supply. Community Water and Sanitation Department (CWSD) created
within GWSC
1995 Study on Restructuring of the Water Sector; National Stakeholders Workshop endorses PSP in urban water supply
1997 GWSC converted into a limited liability company, the Ghana Water Company Limited (GWCL) with responsibility
for urban water supply
1997 Public Utilities Regulatory Commission (PURC—economic regulation) and Water Resources Commission
(WRC—management of water resources) established
1998 Autonomous agency—Community Water and Sanitation Agency (CWSA) created by Act 564
2003 Establishment of Coalition of NGOs in water supply and sanitation (CONIWAS)
2005 Private operator (Aqua Vitens Rand) selected for a five-year management contract for urban water supply
2009 Announcement of abolition of community contribution to capital cost of rural and small town water projects
(Apr)
2009 1st Ghana Water Forum, an annual event to raise visibility of water security issues and place them on
political agenda
Source: CSO2 analysis.
Simultaneous to these reforms, the sector agencies put blocks of policies, plans, and budgets. However, as Figure
together subsector investment plans aimed at marshalling 3 indicates, this has laid a strong platform for developing
resources to address corporate targets, although in the and sustaining services also, for which Ghana’s scores are
1990s these were not effectively aligned with set national also in line with economic peers (low-income countries
targets. In recent years both the CWSA and GWCL have with a GNI per capita above US$50011). For instance, in
developed SIPs that have taken into account the country’s relation to the pricing of water services, there has been a
coverage targets—structured into medium-term and long- positive direction towards achieving cost recovery in the
term—and there has been a more open discussion of these
urban water sector whilst in rural areas, the requirement
documents by sector stakeholders. Whilst there is still
to meet O&M costs through user fees (as a minimum) is
some disconnect between targets and resource allocation,
well-established, driven in large part by the community
there is evidence to suggest that these are increasingly
ownership and management (COM) concept.
being aligned,10 whilst the MTEF has been a useful tool for
capturing sector financial allocations and performance.
Sections 4 to 6 highlight progress and challenges across
The reforms have raised the visibility and importance of three thematic areas—the institutional framework, finance
water and sanitation in the respective ministries (Ministry and monitoring and evaluation (M&E)—benchmarking
of Water Resources and Works and Housing for water Ghana against its peer countries based on a grouping
supply; MoLGRD for sanitation) not least by elevating the by gross national income. The related indicators are
responsible units to Directorates. extracted from the scorecard and presented in charts
at the beginning of each section. The scorecards for
The majority of these reforms relate to the enabling each subsector are presented in their entirety in Sections
environment—the service delivery pathway building 7 to 10.
12
Water Supply and Sanitation in Ghana: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond
4. Institutional Framework
Priority actions for institutional framework
• Undertake assessment of current sector institutional weaknesses and their possible impact on delivery
through the Sector-Wide Approach.
• Empower District Assemblies to take full ownership of service delivery through capacity building and
funding support.
• Ensure greater synergy between the CWSA and GWCL in implementation of projects to benefit from
economies of scale and avoid under- or over-laps in service area.
Ghana’s water and sanitation sector has a well-established Figure 4
institutional set-up with clear lines of responsibility. All Scorecard indicator scores relating to
subsector policies have been consolidated into the NWP and institutional framework compared to peer group
the National Environmental Sanitation Policy, both of which (see endnotes)12
were approved by Parliament and are now in the public
RWS
domain. Whilst sanitation suffered challenges in relation
to institutional leadership in the recent past, this has now
been addressed with the elevation of the Environmental
Health and Sanitation Division into a Directorate, and
strengthening of manpower and logistical support through
USH UWS
DANIDA, UNICEF and the Dutch Government. Figure 5
sets out the institutional architecture. For related scorecard
indicators Ghana scores above the peer-group average
for the water supply subsectors, but slightly below the
average for the sanitation subsectors (Figure 4). A number RSH
of institutional issues and challenges impacting on sector
progress are discussed in the following paragraphs. Ghana average scores
Averages, LICs, GNI p.p.>US$500
Regulation of the sector. Economic regulation of the Source: CSO2 scorecard.
urban water supply subsector has been reasonably well
regarded, with the GWCL’s tariff decisions subjected to enforcement of drinking water quality for community water
public consultation before approval. This notwithstanding, supply, and (b) the registration, licensing, certification,
the Public Utilities Regulatory Commission (PURC) has and monitoring of the operations of private sector firms in
been unable to penalize the utility when efficiency targets the water business. A positive development during 2010
are missed, which has often been the case. The PURC has was the approval by Parliament of regulatory charges to
developed guidelines for tanker service, and is working be built into tariffs, to fund the PURC’s activities and make
with various parties to regulate the quality of service of it truly independent.
secondary and tertiary providers in urban water supply.
PURC responsibilities do not extend to community- Decentralizing the effective delivery of water and
managed water systems, giving rise to a vacuum since sanitation services. Institutional and financial capacities
District Assemblies (DAs) do not have the capacity to at the local level are improving but require further
play this role effectively. Currently, there is no well- development. Capacity improvement—training, logistical
defined institutional responsibility for: (a) monitoring and support, and financial empowerment—is a prime focus of
13
An AMCOW Country Status Overview
Figure 5
Institutional roles and relationships in the water supply and sanitation sector
Water supply Sewerage and General sanitation and School Urban
related hygiene hygiene promotion sanitation Sanitation
Sector promotion
leadership MoWRWH MoLGRD MoE
National
Regulation WRC, PURC
Service CWSA GWCL
development
and provision DAs, DWST MMDAs Regional
WSDB, WATSAN EHSD/DEHO
Local
MoWRWH (Ministry of Water Resources, Works, and Housing) is responsible for setting the water policies for the country—resource management, and
supply of drinking water (both urban and rural). Within MoWRWH the Water Directorate (not shown) oversees sector policy formulation and review,
monitoring and evaluation of the activities of the agencies, and coordination of the activities of donors
MoLGRD (Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development) is responsible for policies and programs for the efficient administration of local
government structures—metropolitan, municipal, and district assemblies (MMDAs). Within MoLGRD, the Environmental Health and Sanitation
Directorate (EHSD, not shown) is responsible for coordinating the activities of all the key sector institutions involved in the sanitation sector
MoE (Ministry of Education) and MoH (Ministry of Health, not shown) have responsibilities with respect to sanitation and hygiene education and hand
washing
Ministry of Environment, Science, and Technology (not shown) ensures that WSS activities are consistent with the country’s environmental policies
and objectives
(MM)DAs (Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies) are responsible for rural and small town water and sanitation delivery using the private
sector for infrastructure delivery and communities or private operators for management. They have responsibility for preparation of District Water and
Sanitation Plans. They also play roles as regulators, for example, approving tariffs. MMDAs are also responsible for providing urban sanitation services
DWSTs (District Water and Sanitation Teams) are three-person teams comprising members from Works, Health and Planning which implement the
District’s water and sanitation program
NDPC (National Development Planning Commission, not shown) is the main body responsible for broad policy formulation on which basis ministries
formulate their sectoral policies
WRC (Water Resources Commission) is responsible for the regulation and management of the utilization of water resources
PURC (Public Utilities Regulatory Commission) is an independent body that undertakes economic regulation for water (in addition to electricity and gas)
CWSA (Community Water and Sanitation Agency) provides support to District Assemblies in promoting the development and sustainability of safe water
and related sanitation services in rural communities and small towns
GWCL (Ghana Water Company Limited) provides, distributes, and conserves water for domestic, public, and industrial purposes in urban communities
DEHOs (District Environmental Health Officers, not shown) educate communities on sanitation and hygiene and enforce regulations regarding the
construction, use, and management of public as well as institutional and household facilities
The private sector is responsible for the provision of goods and services
WSDB (Water and Sanitation Development Boards) are responsible for the management of small town water and sanitation facilities, while WATSAN
Committees play the same role in rural communities.
Source: CSO2 analysis.
many donor projects as DAs are now in the driving seat for through collaboration between the PURC, GWCL/operator
their implementation.13 Many DAs now have District Water and communities. These projects have remained as pilots
and Sanitation Plans (DWSPs) in place and these serve as a and their full impacts and lessons are yet to be developed
basis to seek implementation support. However, allocation into knowledge products or replicated in other communities.
of funds dedicated to water and sanitation at the local A visible pro-poor unit within the utility is required.
level is still centrally driven and many DAs do not have the
means to steer their own water and sanitation agenda. Private sector participation. PSP in urban water supply
still struggles to make the expected impact, in spite of
Specific pro-poor units/initiatives. In the rural and small considerable financing that has gone into the subsector.
town water subsector, the dual concepts of demand-driven The absence of specific performance indicators at the
approaches and community ownership and management initiation of the management contract constrained
have improved coverage. However, service improvements monitoring of the operator’s performance. In community
necessary to support the poor and unserved fall short in water supply the participation of local private operators
urban water supply subsector. In major cities such as Accra, through management contracts has been slow even
pilot projects to serve the urban poor have been undertaken though a promising start was made some eight years ago.
14
Water Supply and Sanitation in Ghana: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond
5. Financing and its Implementation
Priority actions for financing and its implementation
• Urgently pursue the development of comprehensive sector investment plans.
• Ensure better linkage between sector targets and funding allocations.
• Increase domestic allocations and disbursements to sector institutions and ensure prompt utilization of
funds.
• Provide greater visibility for sanitation by further defining and disaggregating sanitation budget lines.
• Develop innovative approaches to financing, particularly for sanitation.
• Undertake regular monitoring of the equity of access to services.
The water and sanitation sector receives funding from a revenue, and are still expenditure wish lists. The plans
number of sources, which are captured in the government’s could also go further in adequately establishing O&M
MTEF framework. The sector has enjoyed considerable costs, so as to give a full picture of the required financing
support from donors—principally as grants to the rural and ensure the sustained delivery of services. Additionally,
and small town subsector and mixed grant/loan financing the plans could be informed by the GoG’s policy directions
for the urban water subsector (Figure 7)—in addition to on cost recovery and private sector participation, and seek
government and user contributions. The sector has also more innovative financing.
been able to mainstream user payment for water services
at both rural and urban levels. These sources, however, Investment planning—linking inputs, outputs, and
remain inadequate to meet the set targets. Of particular needs. The investment plans prepared by the GWCL
concern is the relative shortage of funding for urban and CWSA have not benefited fully from the national
sanitation. Urban sanitation scores notably worse than
other subsectors across the range of related scorecard Figure 6
indicators, which look beyond the adequacy of funds Scorecard indicator scores relating to financing and
to include clarity of budgets and levels of utilization. A its implementation, compared to peer group14
number of issues and challenges are discussed below:
RWS
Sector strategy and investment plans. A NESSAP
for sanitation was released in 2010. It constitutes a first
attempt at providing strategic proposals and action
plans with a countrywide scope, which have hitherto
USH UWS
been lacking as interventions have been undertaken
through discrete projects. For water service delivery in
urban and rural areas there are well-developed subsector
investment plans, which are to be further consolidated
into a harmonized Water Sector Investment Plan (WSIP).
RSH
This aims to prevent duplication of efforts and ensure
Ghana average scores
that locations such as peri-urban areas are not left out.
Averages, LICs, GNI p.p.>US$500
However, the plans—particularly in the case of the urban
water subsector—lack clear strategies for obtaining Source: CSO2 scorecard.
15
An AMCOW Country Status Overview
budgeting process. The plan targets are neither linked most recent five years (48 percent in 2006, 69 percent in
to the three-year rolling MTEF nor the annual budget 2007, 78 percent in 2008 and 2009, and 83 percent in
estimates. In addition, performance indicators are settled 2010).
in meetings between the sector agencies and the State
Enterprises Commission (SEC), which is a body mandated In the case of sanitation the budget covers a broad
to oversee the performance of state organizations based interpretation of the subsectors and includes solid waste and
on their investment and corporate plans. But the SEC has drainage. It is therefore difficult to separate the provision
no control over, or significant input into, the budgeting and promotion of toilet facilities from the overall sanitation
process. The apparent disconnect between the investment budget, and also to separate urban from rural spending.
plans, national budgeting, and performance appraisal Funds allocated to the CWSA for sanitation activities as
means that performance targets agreed between the well as donor projects with sanitation components are all
state agencies and the SEC are rarely achieved, with captured under the budget allocation to the MoWRWH
lower-than-envisaged budgetary allocations used as alibi. and described as water supply interventions. Thus the true
The heavy reliance on donor funding and the absence of a allocation to sanitation may be underestimated by looking
link between their timing and the budgeting process also at the budget of MoLGRD alone.
presents its challenges.
Utilization of budgets. The average rate of utilization of
Adequacy and transparency of sector funding. donor funds in the case of community water supply (CWS)
Committed funds for water supply constitute only half has been quite high (over 80 percent) as a result of the
of the capital investment required according to the CSO2 many years of learning, the role played by the CWSA in
costing—less in the case of sanitation, if user contributions supporting assemblies to procure and implement projects,
are not leveraged—even assuming finance were optimally and the existence of dedicated project teams to support
allocated between subsectors. Government contribution the implementation of projects.
to investment has historically been low (about 5–10
percent of the capital investment) and stakeholders have On the other hand, it should be conceded that there is a
questioned GoG commitment to the sector on this basis, low utilization rate for domestic budget allocations within
exacerbated by the fact that while nominal GDP has the rural subsector. For example, as of the third quarter of
grown in the last several years, the allocation per capita to 2009, only 25 percent of the allocation for rural WSS had
the water sector has dropped (Table 4). been released. This, however, compares with 88 percent
for agriculture, 53 percent for education, 50 percent for
The budget structure allows disaggregation of urban and health, 40 percent for roads and transport, and 57 percent
rural water supply, and clearly spells out what is provided for energy. This may indicate that the MoWRWH and its
by the GoG and what is provided by donors. Donor funding sector agencies have been slow in fielding projects for
as a proportion of total sector finance has increased in the funding and the financing gap for WSS cannot be entirely
Table 4
Budget allocations to the water sector, 2006–2010
Water sector annual budget amount (in US$ ’000)A
Description of fund type 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Grand total 191,366 170,236 102,802 173,395 102,124
Annual GDP (nominal) 12,553,611 15,100,151 17,055,342 16,365,700 19,622,194
WSS allocation as percent of GDP 1.52% 1.13% 0.6% 1.06% 0.52%
Source: MoFEP, annual budget statements.
16
Water Supply and Sanitation in Ghana: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond
attributed to neglect by the Ministry of Finance (MoF). Sector-related special funds. As yet no WSS sector-
The very low disbursement of funds allocated to the specific trust funds have been established, despite previous
subsector in 2009 suggests a major weakness in planning discussions on the need for a Water Development Fund,
and subsector readiness, with too much focus on projects which would be funded through allocations by the GoG,
rather than programs. donors, levies on urban water supply and used for sector
investments. The establishment of a Social Connection Fund
In the case of urban water supply, utilization has been to support the connection of low-income consumers to the
mixed. The US$120 million Urban Water Project (UWP, utility’s network, which is mentioned in the NWP, is yet to
funded by the World Bank, GoG, and the NORDIC Fund) take place. One source of funding for rural water supply
saw considerable delay in the procurement of works has been a Rural Water Levy, which represents 2 percent
and services, which negatively affected the delivery of of the revenue generated from urban water tariffs, around
improvements in service. US$0.5 million annually, and has usually been accumulated
to fund the rehabilitation of nonfunctioning facilities.
GoG contributions. As mentioned, government’s own
contribution to investment has historically been low. Local government financing of WSS. DAs are required
However, there were clear intentions to increase the GoG’s to pay 5 percent of the capital cost of many donor-funded
own funding for WSS, as evidenced in the allocation of projects and, whilst some have been able to meet these
US$25 million for community water supply and sanitation contributions, others have not. This may be due more to an
alone in the 2009 budget: albeit that the utilization rate was unwillingness to prioritize water than an inability to pay.18
low. In the 2010 budget US$44.8 million was allocated to Community contributions have also been a major feature
rural water supply a 12 percent increase over the allocation of sector funding in the last decade and a half. With the
for 2009. Given the CWSA reported an annual requirement abolition of the 5 percent community contribution to rural
of around US$60 million for rural and small town WSS, water supply projects it is as yet not clear whether the GoG
this is a welcome development.15,16 The GoG’s intention to or donors will fill the gap. The policy to move towards cost
further raise funding to the sector was also reaffirmed in recovery for urban water supply will continue to make
the Ghana Sanitation and Water for All Compact.17 resources available to the sector via user tariffs, though it
Figure 7
Overall annual and per capita investment requirements and contribution of anticipated financing
by source
Rural water supply: Urban water supply: Rural sanitation: Urban sanitation:
Total: $123,000,000 Total: $115,000,000 Total: $165,000,000 Total: $237,000,000
Per capita (new): $94 Per capita (new): $141 Per capita (new): $130 Per capita (new): $261
Domestic anticipated investment Assumed household investment
External anticipated investment Gap
Source: CSO2 costing.
17
An AMCOW Country Status Overview
has been followed with varying degrees of commitment. procedures for WSS delivery, monitoring and evaluation
For rural and small town WSS, communities set tariffs to are now uniform across all projects and all communities.
recover at least O&M and this will continue to be the rule. At the Ministerial and Development Partner’s Roundtable
Domestic commercial credit is virtually absent for rural of the First Ghana Water Forum (October 2009), the
and small town WSS. For the urban utility only short- representative of the MoF indicated that no project would
term bank facilities to meet working capital/overdraft be funded outside GoG’s the MTEF Framework. Whilst this
requirements have been available. No attempt has been is a move to streamline public expenditure, it also implies
made by the GoG to raise financing for the sector through that the sector must make a strong case for its investment
bonds or other nontraditional instruments, and Municipal, program to be included in the MTEF.
Metropolitan and District Assemblies do not have the
expertise—legal or financial—to launch municipal bonds Civil society engagement and participation. The
to raise financing for WSS projects. coalition of NGOs in water and sanitation (CONIWAS)
coordinates the work of NGOs in the WSS sector.
Aid coordination and harmonization. Aid delivery Through CONIWAS, NGOs comply with NCWSP principles
is mostly undertaken in the form of discrete projects. and implementation strategies. In the urban water
However, plans to move towards a Sector-Wide Approach supply subsector NGO investment and engagement is
(SWAp) are now in place and an MoU to this effect was negligible. The establishment of CONIWAS has significantly
signed at the Second Ghana Water Forum (October 2010). improved sector dialogue; however, there remain issues,
A significant step is the agreement by all partners to deliver including monitoring equity, addressing the concerns of
rural and small town WSS using the Project Implementation the urban poor and tariff setting, on which the various
Manual (PIM). This means that the processes and parties could engage.
18
Water Supply and Sanitation in Ghana: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond
6. Sector Monitoring and Evaluation
Priority actions for sector monitoring and evaluation
• The Ministry of Water Resources, Works, and Housing should collaborate with Ghana Statistics Service
to conduct WASH-specific survey to provide needed data not captured under the various representative
surveys.
• Agree definitions and a set of national indicators.
• Implement the District Monitoring and Evaluation System (DIMES) nationally.
• Undertake consolidated annual sector reporting.
Ghana’s WSS sector M&E would benefit from further Figure 8
strengthening as current systems for data capture, storage, Scorecard indicator scores relating to sector M&E,
consolidation and dissemination are not unified. Though compared to peer group19
a strong annual sector review process has been in place RWS
for several years, consolidated sector reporting of outputs
is missing and data can only be obtained at agency level.
Figure 8 shows that measured against its peers, Ghana’s
performs well for scorecard indicators related to M&E in the
water supply subsectors, but scores very low in sanitation. USH UWS
The following points identify some of the crucial issues
and challenges in sector M&E.
Different sources of data. There are different sources of
relevant sector data, including information on coverage, RSH
functionality, inputs and outputs and investments, which Ghana average scores
can be difficult to access. In most cases they have to be Averages, LICs, GNI p.p.>US$500
requested from subsector agencies (CWSA and GWCL), Source: CSO2 scorecard.
as they are not published or presented in a manner that
is publicly available. This is, however, being addressed including information on water and sanitation facilities
through the establishment of the Water and Sanitation from drilling works through to subsequent functionality.
Monitoring Platform (WSMP) discussed here. The sector The tool can be used to gather information on urban
does not have an annual publication that consolidates all systems as well but the sector has as yet been unable to
information. Sector investment tracking is also a challenge adopt it for universal application. It is hoped that with the
and recent efforts to prepare Public Expenditure Reviews move towards a SWAp, this will be the tool of choice.
faced considerable bottlenecks in obtaining all the relevant
data—particularly at the DA level. Improving information dissemination, participation,
and sector learning. Deficiency in consolidation of sector
District Monitoring and Evaluation System (DIMES). information is being addressed with the establishment of
Established by the CWSA, DIMES is a useful tool for the WSMP. The platform assembles, analyzes, repackages,
capturing relevant sector data at community level, and disseminates all relevant water and sanitation
19
An AMCOW Country Status Overview
data through regular media briefs, publications, and project is not addressing urban water supply, where there
dissemination forums. The Platform has membership from is urgent need to obtain information on unit costs.
all relevant stakeholders, including the sector ministries,
development partners, GSS, civil society, academia, and the Agreeing to national definitions and indicators. In
private sector. Harmonizing the data is still a challenge. spite of the establishment of the WSMP, agreement on
sector definitions and indicators has not been secured.
Sector agencies have functioning websites but key Surveys (such as Demographic and Health Survey, Ghana
information on subsector performance is often missing. Living Standards Survey, and Multiple Indicator Cluster
Annual reports are either missing (GWCL, AVRL, CWSA) or Survey) undertaken by the GSS now apply MDG definitions
completely outdated (PURC). The sites for PURC and AVRL in their interpretation of the data collected.20 Because
do, however, provide avenues for customer complaints. some of these surveys are externally supported and driven,
The MoWRWH recently launched a newsletter for the GSS engagement with the sector has been limited. For
sector, but this does not present detailed sector data. example, during the CSO2 consultation process, it was
indicated that GSS had refused to include in its 2010
The Ghana WASHCost Project is collecting and collating Population and Housing Census a set of three questions
information relating to the real disaggregated life cycle requested by MoWRWH, citing additional cost. Meanwhile
costs of WASH service delivery to poor people in rural the adoption of the JMP definition of improved sanitation,
and peri-urban areas in Ghana. The unit-cost information which excludes shared facilities, continues to be a thorny
gathered will help in decision making and further aid issue in Ghana as shared facilities are the means of access
transparency in the water sector. Unfortunately the for many households.21
20
Water Supply and Sanitation in Ghana: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond
7. Subsector: Rural Water Supply
Priority actions for rural water supply
• Close the funding gap for RWS.
• Revisit implications on sustainability of removing the 5 percent community contribution to capital costs.
• Identify innovative ways of providing drinking water to challenging hydro-geological areas.
According to the CWSA, rural water coverage has 2008 and 2012 stand at US$175 million, implying an
increased at promising rates from 32 percent in 1990 to 57 overall deficit of US$330 million. However, the CWSA
percent in 2008, but acceleration is still required to meet costing underestimates requirements for rehabilitation,
the subsector MDG+ target of 76 percent. The agency which are crucial for sustaining service delivery, and does
indicates that an additional 2–3 percent of rural and small not address OPEX requirements.
town dwellers gain access to safe drinking water supply on
an annual basis. However, in their estimation, to achieve Based on the CWSA coverage figure of 57 percent for
the national MDG+ target the annual increase in coverage 2008 and the MDG+ 2015 target, the CSO2 costing model
would need to be around 6 percent, starting from 2009. gives a higher estimate of capital investment requirements,
The JMP meanwhile reports much higher coverage based at US$123 million per year (including rehabilitation of
on household surveys, reaching 74 percent in 2008, up existing systems). Compared with anticipated annual
from 37 percent in 1990. public expenditure of US$58 million per year this leaves a
deficit of US$65 million per year. Options for cost recovery
The CWSA’s 2008–2015 SIP sets the total investment from users are limited given the relative poverty and the
requirements for achieving what it terms the MDG+ target already high tariffs (US$0.66–US$1 per m3) in many rural
of 76 percent for rural and small town WSS at US$505.3 and small town communities, which are required simply
million (US$63 million per year), distributed as US$360.5 to meet O&M. Currently many community water supply
million for hardware, US$108.8 million for sanitation, schemes are able to meet O&M expenses (estimated as an
US$18.02 million for project management and US$18.7 additional US$21 million per year) without resort to public
million for software costs. Known commitments between funds. However, they do not meet capital maintenance
Figure 9 Figure 10
Rural water supply coverage Rural water investment requirements
100%
80%
Coverage
60% Required CAPEX
Required OPEX
40%
20%
0%
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 0 50 100 150 200
US$ million/year
CWSA estimates MDG+target Public CAPEX (anticipated) CAPEX deficit
JMP, Improved JMP, Piped
Sources: JMP 2010 Report and CWSA. Source: CSO2 costing.
21
An AMCOW Country Status Overview
Figure 11
Rural water supply scorecard
Enabling Developing Sustaining
Policy Planning Budget Expenditure Equity Output Maintenance Expansion Use
3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3 2.5 1.5 2.5
Source: CSO2 scorecard.
costs and this could compromise future sustainability Figure 12
and bring forward the need for rehabilitation, which is a Average RWS scorecard scores for enabling,
deferred burden on public finance. sustaining, and developing service delivery,
and peer-group comparison
Figure 11 shows the subsector scorecard results, indicating Enabling
that Ghana has largely put in place the building blocks
of the service delivery pathway for rural and small town
water supply. The scorecard uses a simple color code to
indicate: building blocks that are largely in place, acting
as a driver on service delivery (score >2, green); building
blocks that are a drag on service delivery and require
attention (score 1–2, yellow); and building blocks that are
inadequate, constituting a barrier to service delivery and
a priority for reform (score <1, red). Ghana scores higher Sustaining Developing
than its economic peer-group throughout the service
Ghana average scores
delivery pathway (Figure 12). However, there is still room
Averages, LICs, GNI p.p.>US$500
for improvement.
Source: CSO2 scorecard.
An area of concern is the expansion of existing systems,
given that many communities do not have the capacity
and certainly cannot price water in the manner required to look to the government to finance all expenditures. In
undertake this. Private management of water facilities is many communities this contribution was put into a fund to
also an area to be further developed to ensure long-term undertake needed capital maintenance. Thus the abolition
sustainability of facilities.22 Officially, only five small town of the community contribution may have drawbacks and
water schemes are managed by private operators under could undo the sense of ownership, which had been a
a contract with Water Boards and respective MMDAs. In strong feature of the subsector.
addition, backstopping requires improvement (particularly
through the private sector). Responsibility for monitoring drinking water quality in
rural areas remains unclear. For now this is undertaken
Abolition of the 5 percent contribution on the grounds of by the CWSA. Water quality tests are done before the
equity did not take into account the existence of safety commissioning of facilities based on standards set by the
nets that allowed communities with high incidences of Ghana Standards Board. The difficult hydro-geological
poverty, water-related diseases or facing emergencies situation and problems associated with water quality
to be provided with facilities. The wholesale abolition is in some parts of the country, particularly the Northern
beginning to result in a reintroduction of paternalism in Region of Ghana, raise concern for increasing access in
the sector as communities willing and able to pay now those regions.
22
Water Supply and Sanitation in Ghana: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond
8. Subsector: Urban Water Supply
Priority actions for urban water supply
• Set a clear roadmap on actions to be taken after expiry of management contract for urban water supply
• Bring tariffs in line with full-cost recovery, in parallel with successful achievement of efficiency targets.
• Ensure greater participation of existing consumers and potential consumers in investment and supply
decisions of the GWCL.
• Mainstream independent value-for-money studies in all loans/grants for urban water supply projects.
• Institute a system of incentives and penalties for management of urban water supply.
• Give greater visibility to pro-poor unit within the urban utility.
Urban water supply coverage, according to the GWCL, was to establish coverage may indeed underestimate access in
58 percent as of 2008. According to the service provider, big cities and towns where a substantial section of the
coverage showed a consistent decline from the 1970s population (up to 40 percent) may be using no more that
through to the ’90s and only recently (2007) began to pick 35 liters per capita per day.23
up again. The JMP on the other hand reports access in
urban areas at 90 percent in 2008, though it also estimates Urban water supply capital investment requirements
that access to piped water has declined since 1990, to 30 estimated using the CSO2 costing model total US$115
percent in 2008, which may reflect the historic decline in million annually, with additional required OPEX (O&M
access according to provider data. The significant difference expenditure) of US$46 million per year. Public financing
between survey and provider data can be explained by the for CAPEX is anticipated to be US$61 million per year,
use of much higher per capita consumption thresholds by leaving a shortfall of US$54 million, which would need to
GWCL—80 to 140 liters per day depending on the supply be addressed through the tariff if public investments do not
area—and the different definitions of ‘urban’ applied in increase. Meanwhile, If the additional OPEX requirement
the water supply subsector and by GSS (population above is not fully met through user contributions, it will place
5,000). The per capita consumption rates used by GWCL additional burden on the public purse.
Figure 13 Figure 14
Urban water supply coverage Urban water investment requirements
100%
80%
Coverage
Required CAPEX
60% Required
40% OPEX
20%
0%
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 0 50 100 150 200
US$ million/year
CWSA estimates Government target Public CAPEX (anticipated) CAPEX deficit
JMP, Improved JMP, Piped
Sources: JMP 2010 Report and GWCL. Source: CSO2 costing.
23
An AMCOW Country Status Overview
Figure 15
Urban water supply scorecard
Enabling Developing Sustaining
Policy Planning Budget Expenditure Equity Output Maintenance Expansion Use
3 2.5 2.5 3 1.5 2 2 2.5 2
Source: CSO2 scorecard.
The GWCL’s revised Sector Investment Plan estimates a Figure 16
total CAPEX requirement of US$1,373 million between Average UWS scorecard scores for enabling,
2008 and 2015, broken down into rehabilitation (US$452 sustaining, and developing service delivery,
million) and new facilities (US$921 million).24 This equates and peer-group comparison
to around US$170 million per year. No indication is given
Enabling
of OPEX in the GWCL’s estimates.
Ghana’s urban water subsector, whilst having its own
challenges, scores quite well against its peers throughout
the service delivery pathway (Figure 16). In large measure
there are clear policies and strategies guiding the
subsector, whilst mechanisms exist for planning with
the regular preparation and revision of sector investment
plans. Contrary to what has often been indicated by the Sustaining Developing
GWCL, the sole urban water utility, the subsector has
enjoyed substantial injections of capital investment, while Ghana average scores
regular reviews of tariffs have provided needed revenues Averages, LICs, GNI p.p.>US$500
to cover both O&M and some capital maintenance.
Source: CSO2 scorecard.
The utility attracted over US$614 million in grant and
commercial funding between 2002 and 2008, and a existing and future consumers whom these investments
further US$185 million worth of grant/loan projects are are to serve, and who have to bear the impact of increased
ongoing. However, the impact on coverage from these tariffs.
investments has not been significant. Over the period
2003 and 2008 data provided by the utility indicates that The GWCL has a set of criteria for its investment decisions.25
coverage moved from 59 percent in 2003 down to 55 However, the lack of inclusiveness in the utility’s decision
percent in 2006, climbing back to 58 percent in 2008. making and absence of well-defined strategies to direct
This implies that recent investments have only been able services to the poor have raised equity concerns, as
to reverse the downward trend in coverage, given the reflected in the scorecard score for this building block
state of infrastructure and the high growth in Ghana’s (Figure 16). Indeed a significant proportion of the urban
urban population, particularly in the major cities of poor do not enjoy direct access to the utility’s mains and
Accra, Kumasi, and Sekondi-Takoradi. It could also imply have to depend on secondary and tertiary suppliers.
that some systems are over-designed, with consequent
implications for tariffs. Overall, what is suggested is While the GWCL engages the public when it is seeking
the need for greater scrutiny of the GWCL’s investment upward adjustments to its tariffs, it is of some concern that
decisions by the regulator and wider consultations with subsector output and performance are not in the public
24
Water Supply and Sanitation in Ghana: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond
domain: significantly, no annual report can be found on water storage and supply. Major expenditure for dam
the utility’s website. The full impact of PSP in urban water expansion is required to meet shortfalls in service delivery,
supply is yet to be assessed, but performance indicators particularly for Ghana’s major cities. Most of these have
such as nonrevenue water remain high (estimated at over already been planned or are under construction. Major
50 percent), four years into the management contract. projects for regional capitals include Accra (US$198
million for construction of a new 285,000 m3/day intake,
Over the years, the PURC has approved tariffs that have expansion of existing treatment plant to 250,000 m3/
approached full cost recovery (including allowing for day and transmission lines), Sunyani (US$85 million
CAPEX replacement). Unfortunately, tariff increases for a 44,000 m3/day water treatment plant, laying of a
have not been matched by efficiency gains, a situation 66.8 kilometer transmission and distribution network
which has led to considerable consumer discontent. So and construction of booster pump facilities and storage
far there has been no occasion when the utility has been reservoirs to serve about 266,567 people), and Wa (€39
taken to task or penalized for the nonachievement of set million for expanding supply). These costs of raw water
performance targets. storage and supply are additional to the estimate of
investment requirements provided by the CSO2 costing—
Ghana scores well for the expansion building block, not partly explaining the difference between the GWCL SIP
least due to the consideration given to developing raw and the CSO2 urban investment estimates.
25
An AMCOW Country Status Overview
9. Subsector: Rural Sanitation and Hygiene
Priority actions for rural sanitation and hygiene
• Prepare a national sanitation program to address the rural sanitation deficit if the MDG is to be achieved.
• Declare a clear policy direction on how to deal with the high proportion of shared facilities.
• Make vigorous efforts to establish microfinance schemes to support sanitation delivery.
According to JMP data, access to improved sanitation in An estimated US$165 million is needed annually to
rural areas increased marginally from 4 percent in 1990 meet the CAPEX (‘hardware’) requirements for rural
to 7 percent in 2008. When shared facilities are included, sanitation. This is not surprising given the very low level
the figures are 25 percent and 45 percent, respectively. of access to improved facilities. The subsector is aiming
As much as 21 percent of the rural population use to transition to a CLTS approach, which would ordinarily
unimproved facilities, while an even more worrying entail users meeting the full hardware cost, without public
phenomenon is the incidence of open defecation which subvention.
was registered at 34 percent, having increased from 28
percent in 1990. The government’s definition of improved Figure 18 depicts this scenario, with assumed household
sanitation is largely consistent with the JMP’s; however, CAPEX matching the CAPEX requirement. However,
the relevant policy documents are silent on the issue of for this to be achieved, the government will need to
shared facilities.26 The ESP and the accompanying NESSAP significantly step up promotion and marketing efforts
note that the “strategies and targets are not related (‘software’) to encourage households to invest in their
directly to any specific MDG but rather considered as own facilities. There are also plans to support CLTS with
severally contributing to achieving aspects of the targets innovative financing schemes, including (a) previously
of all the MDGs, in particular Goal 7”. NESSAP further tested revolving fund (loan) schemes; and (b) relying on
indicates that home toilets will be promoted through the enhanced presence and operations of microfinance
emerging techniques such as CLTS “to achieve a modest institutions and rural banks to implement microcredit
countrywide target of 75 percent coverage by 2015”.27 schemes, especially targeting women heads of families
This will be done through training of staff to manage a and community-based women’s associations.28
vigorous nationwide scaling-up campaign.
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 50 100 150 200
US$ million/year
JMP, improved JMP, improved + shared Public finance (anticipated) Household CAPEX (assumed)
Source: JMP 2010 Report. Source: CSO2 costing.
26
Water Supply and Sanitation in Ghana: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond
Figure 19
Rural sanitation and hygiene scorecard
Enabling Developing Sustaining
Policy Planning Budget Expenditure Equity Output Markets Up-take Use
2.5 1.5 0 2.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 1
Source: CSO2 scorecard.
Public finance for the subsector remains limited—the Figure 20
current anticipated spend of around US$8 million per year Average RSH scorecard scores for enabling,
is from donors and NGOs, and it is not clear how this will be sustaining, and developing service delivery, and
divided in terms of hardware (that is, ongoing subventions peer-group comparison
in some donor projects) and software. Dedicated domestic Enabling
support to household sanitation cannot be discerned in
the budget, as in a number of cases this is subsumed
under the budget for water supply projects undertaken
through the CWSA, which falls under the MoWRWH and
not the MoLGRD. However, the operational expenditures
of the EHD can be gleaned from the budget allocations
to MoLGRD. Without adequate material support from
government, CLTS is likely to have very little impact. Sustaining Developing
Figure 18 also depicts additional OPEX requirements of Ghana average scores
US$13 million per year. Averages, LICs, GNI p.p.>US$500
Source: CSO2 scorecard.
Ghana performs poorly against her peers in building blocks
related to ‘enabling’ and ‘sustaining’ services in the rural
sanitation and hygiene subsector. Whilst performance the identified investments whilst public financing goes into
in relation to ‘developing’ building blocks is higher on institutional facilities and supporting software. Notably
average, the service delivery pathway depicted in Figure both the NESSAP strategies and CWSA costing of the
19 reveals a number of potential concerns. Performance is sanitation interventions include support to District Credit
generally low in the areas of planning (there is no well- Schemes for Sanitation—assumed to be the revolving loan
defined sectorwide approach and a subsector investment schemes mentioned in NESSAP—which can complement
plan is yet to be agreed and shared nationally) and the messages of CLTS. However, it still remains unclear
budgeting (there is inadequate funding at both national how this is to be rolled out.
and household level; sanitation expenditures as defined
in the national budget are too broad, combining support The MoLGRD concedes that the capacity of officers in many
for promoting toilet facilities with funding for solid waste MMDAs is inadequate to fully implement the sanitation
and drainage). agenda. The MoLGRD has responded by recently deploying
‘sanitation guards’ as part of the Sanitation Module under
Critically, the scale of uptake of CLTS is yet to be the National Youth Employment Programme, and has also
established. With the shift in emphasis to CLTS and the indicated short and medium to long term measures at
withdrawal of subsidies, households are required to meet building both manpower and institutional capacity.
27
An AMCOW Country Status Overview
10. Subsector: Urban Sanitation and Hygiene
Priority actions for urban sanitation and hygiene
• Develop innovative approaches to urban sanitation, including microfinance schemes, to support delivery of
household schemes.
• Develop a clear policy towards peri-urban and low income communities in cities.
• Strengthen institutional capacity for the management of sewerage treatment system since MMDAs as
currently structured and staffed cannot do this.
According to the JMP’s 2008 figures, access to improved As in the case of the rural subsector, Figure 22 depicts
sanitation in urban Ghana increased from 11 percent in households as responsible for contributing the full capital
1990 to 18 percent in 2008, with an additional 70 percent investment requirement for urban sanitation, of US$237
using shared facilities (up from 44 percent) whilst 7 million per year, in line with the new policy of CLTS.
percent of the urban population are estimated to practice However, how the uptake of household sanitation in
open defecation. The predominant use of shared facilities urban areas can be encouraged is even less clear than for
in urban communities is principally due to residence rural areas, and again, the apparent sufficiency of finance
patterns—several households living in compound housing. is illusory unless sanitation software (that is, promotion
A more worrying development is the heavy reliance by many and marketing) is effectively organized and resourced.
on public toilets which have become quite commonplace, Additionally, CLTS implementation is limited to rural areas
as landlords convert toilets into living rooms. The ‘urban and small towns of populations of less than 7,500 and it
share’ of the MDG target for sanitation equates to 56 is not clear how low-income households in major towns
percent. If the JMP definition of improved sanitation is and cities are to be addressed. Planned interventions in
used, excluding shared facilities, it appears that that this sewerage (such as the AfDB-funded Accra Sewerage
will be missed by a considerable margin. Improvement Project, which makes up the US$20 million
Figure 21 Figure 22
Urban sanitation coverage Urban sanitation investment requirements
100%
80%
Coverage
60% Required CAPEX Required
40% OPEX
20%
0%
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 0 100 200 300 400
US$ million/year
JMP, improved JMP, improved + shared Public finance (anticipated) Household CAPEX (assumed)
Source: JMP 2010 Report. Source: CSO2 costing.
28
Water Supply and Sanitation in Ghana: 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 Up-take Use
1 0.5 0.5 2 0 1 2 1 0.5
Source: CSO2 scorecard.
per year depicted as anticipated public finance) are Figure 24
likely to directly benefit only wealthier citizens since low Average USH scorecard scores for enabling,
income communities are rarely connected to the network. sustaining, and developing service delivery, and
Additional OPEX requirements are estimated at US$52 peer-group comparison
million per year. The depicted investment requirements Enabling
are for household sanitation only, and do not include
communal and public facilities.
Ghana’s urban sanitation and hygiene subsector performs
below the peer-group average throughout the service
delivery pathway (Figure 24). For the same reasons as
in the rural subsector, budgeting presents a barrier to
service delivery (Figure 23). The scores for planning and
Sustaining Developing
equity also indicate barriers, with limited investment
planning (though this is now being addressed by the Ghana average scores
MoLGRD), use or analysis of budget allocation criteria, Averages, LICs, GNI p.p.>US$500
or local participation in planning and implementation. Source: CSO2 scorecard.
The low score in the final building block, use, reflects
the limited levels of coverage and unlikely prospects of
obtaining the urban share of the MDG target, as discussed disposal of the septage is a major challenge in urban
in relation to Figure 21. areas. Thus, whilst immediate delivery arrangements may
improve access, long-term environmental sustainability is
Limited effort has historically been given to the promotion a critical issue.
of urban household sanitation facilities, compared with the
situation in rural areas. The comprehensive assessment of Options for improved sanitation in urban areas are
urban environmental sanitation requirements, presented in varied and it is difficult to judge which of the strategies
the NESSAP to guide subsector decisions, is yet to be shared identified by the NESSAP will contribute the most to the
nationally. The NESSAP notes that sanitation technologies achievement of the subsector target. The expansion in
will not be prescriptive as the policy emphasizes the sewerage and particularly treatment facilities in Accra (if
concept of “the sanitation ladder” and thus endorses delivered on time) may see some improvement, although
all categories of improved technologies. It is, however, those likely to be connected already have the means to
conceded that even where facilities have been available build on-site facilities. The use of microfinancing schemes
(on-site, communal or network) effective treatment and could complement delivery of household sanitation
29
An AMCOW Country Status Overview
infrastructure, particularly in low-income communities. provide a better understanding of the scale of the problem.
These, however, remain intentions and are yet to be rolled Ultimately, accelerated coverage for household latrines to
out as comprehensive programs. meet the needs of different housing segments at different
rungs of the sanitation ladder is among the NESSAP’s key
Achieving progress in urban sanitation and hygiene delivery strategies.30
is highly dependent on the capacity of the MMDAs to own,
plan, and drive the agenda, as unlike urban water supply, The NESSAP includes a number of strategies which
there is no national, dedicated utility. A major challenge in recognize that communal and public facilities will continue
this regard is the ability of local level structures to attract to be an important aspect of excreta management for
and retain the requisite personnel to provide support. The some time to come. These include: (a) the haulage and
establishment of District Works Departments that would transport of septage and fecal sludge, mainly by the
provide facilitation and backstopping services has stalled private sector; (b) franchising management of public
largely as a result of this. toilets and the provision of cesspit emptying services by
private operators in all districts in the medium term; and
The urban sanitation subsector (and sanitation in general) (c) providing appropriate low-cost treatment and disposal
currently has no systematic monitoring of the number facilities for septage and fecal sludge. Some of these
and quality of facilities built by households and surveys efforts will also support household sanitation delivery, for
have rarely addressed hygiene behavior in urban areas— example, fecal sludge management. Substantial reliance
reflected in the low score for uptake. The adequacy of is put on the private sector playing these roles, and clear
shared facilities in compound houses (the main housing strategies and innovative mechanisms have to be put in
type in low-income areas, and settlements in rural, small, place to ensure that they engage fully in practice. While
and large towns) used by 70 percent of households in the current strategy claims that implementation of CLTS
urban areas, is in question and the NESSAP indicates the is likely to enhance accelerated coverage, it does not
need for further efforts to upgrade existing facilities and address how this will work in practice in urban areas,
expand options. The recently commissioned comprehensive given constraints on land, house ownership, and the
study29 to investigate the use of shared facilities will heterogeneous character of urban dwellings.
30
Water Supply and Sanitation in Ghana: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond
Notes and References
1
World Bank, Global Economic Monitor, 2010 Average. 9
The CSO2 scorecard methodology and conceptual
2
The first round of CSOs was carried out in 2006 covering 16 framework are discussed in detail in the synthesis report.
countries and is summarized in the report, ‘Getting Africa 10
A decision to allocate an amount of GHC 30 million to
On-Track to Meet the MDGs on Water and Sanitation’. community WSS in the 2009 budget was reportedly based
3
Such as the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS), on submissions made by CWSA in relation to the identified
the Demographic and Health Survey, and the National funding gap. The MoFEP also participated actively in the
Population and Housing Census. These are produced review of the latest SIP as previous ones were based
regularly but in different years by the Ghana Statistical on a target (85 percent) which was not shared by that
Service (GSS) alone or in collaboration with other ministry.
organizations such as UNICEF. The access figures obtained 11
World Bank Atlas Method.
through these surveys provide an indication of ‘use’ of the 12
Indicators relating to the institutional framework
water and sanitation facilities available and are thought by section are as follows: All subsectors: targets in national
others to be a better indicator of access than the estimates development plans/PRSP; subsector policy agreed and
of provider agencies. Alternative government estimates approved (gazetted as part of national policy or as
are based on provider data, calculated from delivered standalone policy); RWS/UWS: institutional roles defined;
facilities and the population each is intended to serve. RSH/USH: institutional lead appointed.
4
From the perspective of stakeholders at the CSO2 13
The sector is increasingly using DAs to implement water
consultation, harmonization of definitions between Ghana and sanitation projects, from procurement through
Statistical Service, the JMP, and provider agencies needs contract supervision. A District Development Fund has also
further attention. This is essential to get a truer picture of been established to provide more resources to Districts to
what is required in investments and where the emphasis implement their infrastructure projects, and some donors
should be placed in relation to regional allocations, supply are already contributing to this.
and technology options. 14
Indicators relating to the section on financing and its
5
JMP estimates are based on a linear regression of nationally implementation section are as follows: All subsectors:
representative household surveys. Notwithstanding the programmatic Sector-Wide Approach; investment program
different definition of improved water supply access and based on MDG needs assessment; sufficient finance
the JMP’s discounting of shared sanitation facilities, the to meet MDG (subsidy policy for sanitation); percent of
JMP estimates for Ghana are reasonably robust, since the official donor commitments utilized; percent of domestic
trendline is calculated using a relatively large number of commitments utilized.
household survey results, with few outliers. 15
Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, (2009) FY2010
6
The MDG target for water supply and sanitation is to halve, Budget Statement, p 355.
by 2015, the proportion of people without improved 16
CWSA investment figures have been noted to be on the
access, relative to 1990 levels. Internationally, it is broadly
low side as the CSO2 costing puts the combined rural
accepted that the 1990 baseline used to calculate the
water supply and sanitation requirement at US$388 million
MDG target is that provided by the JMP. However, due to
per year (see Section 7). Thus whilst the rise is appreciated,
the linear regression method used to derive the trendline,
this still falls far short of the likely requirements.
this figure can change from one JMP report to the next.
Ghana’s 1990 water supply coverage estimate provided by
17
GoG 2010. Ghana Sanitation and Water for All Compact.
the 2010 JMP report is 54 percent, implying an MDG of http://www.sanitationandwaterforall.org/files/The_
77 percent. The ‘MDG+” is a national target developed by Ghana_Compact.pdf
Ghana itself. 18
Based on information from DAs in the Northern, Upper
7
The CSO2 investment requirement estimates do not East, Upper West, Brong Ahafo, Ashanti, and Western
include the additional cost of hygiene promotion and regions indicating less than 6 percent utilization of the
other software activities, relative to the targets, due to the District Assemblies Common Fund in investments for
difficulty of estimating such costs on a per capita basis. water, in contrast with investments in educational and
health facilities. Maple Consult. 2009. The Compilation of
8
Due to rounding, component figures may not sum to
Information on Water and Sanitation Sector Investments
totals.
in Ghana.
31
An AMCOW Country Status Overview
19
Indicators relating to the sector M&E section are: All While GoG policy is keen on promoting private participation
22
subsectors: annual review setting new undertakings; in all areas of the sector, actual implementation has been
subsector spend identifiable in budget (UWS: inc. recurrent slow. The MoWRWH has now established a working group
subsidies); budget comprehensively covers domestic/donor of various stakeholders to define a roadmap for the active
finance; RWS, RSH, and USH: domestic/donor expenditure engagement of the private sector.
reported; UWS: audited accounts and balance sheets Public Utilities Regulatory Commission. 2002. Water
23
from utilities; RWS, RSH, and USH: periodic analysis of Accessibility and Supply in Ghana: Large Scale Quantitative
equity criteria by CSOs and government; UWS: pro-poor Socio-Economic Research amongst Residential Customers.
plans developed and implemented by utilities; RWS/UWS:
A closer examination of the listed investments shows
24
nationally consolidated reporting of output; RSH/USH:
some duplication as various projects had been completed
monitoring of quantity and quality of uptake relative to
in earlier years.
promotion and subsidy efforts; All subsectors: questions
and choice options in household surveys consistent with The following criteria have informed decisions on expansion
25
MDG definitions. and new networks: supply gap, financial viability,
socioeconomic considerations, health considerations, and
20
Prior to the Demographic and Health Survey 2008, GSS
lack of alternative water supply.
did not exclude shared toilet facilities in its definition of
access. Thus whereas the 2006 Multiple Indicator Cluster Consistency with MDG definition of access is demonstrated
26
Survey for Ghana reported sanitation coverage of 61 in references made in the Environmental Sanitation Policy
percent, the JMP reported coverage for the same year of with respect to sanitation “technologies that include
15 percent as a result of the removal of shared facilities. water closet and septic tank system, the pour flush latrine
(where water is used for anal cleansing), the ventilated
21
By 2008, about 54 percent of Ghana’s population used
improved pit latrine (VIP), the aqua privy, and any other
shared facilities which, according to the current JMP
proven technologies recommended by MoLGRD. Bucket
classification, are not considered as an improved toilet
(pan) and open trench latrines are actively discouraged
facility (29 percent in 1990). However, sector stakeholders,
and must be phased out as they do not meet minimum
led by the Environmental Health Sanitation Directorate of
sanitary standards”.
the MoLGRD, are not in agreement with the exclusion of
shared facilities from improved access and have therefore MoLGRD. 2009. National Environmental Sanitation
27
commissioned a study to gather field evidence that can Strategy and Action Plan, p. 59. NESSAP limits the
contribute to better understanding and learning on shared implementation of CLTS to rural areas and towns under
facilities. The study will, among other things, provide facts 7,500 population.
and figures on the proportion of Ghana’s shared toilet MoLGRD. 2009. Draft NESSAP p. 105.
28
facilities that meet acceptable criteria of convenience, See note 20.
29
safety and hygiene, and hence need to be considered as
See note 27.
30
improved toilet facilities at the household level.
32
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