Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
General
The study area, Addis Ababa is the capital city of Ethiopia that is located at about 80 7”northern
latitude and 380 45” eastern longitudes. The city is situated at the downstream of the Enteto
Mountain that as a result is having significant elevation differences among different localities.
The present total population of the city is estimated nearly 4 million with an annual growth rate
of 2.08%, while the total area of the city is estimated to be 540 square kilometers. At present
the city is divided in to 10 sub-cities containing 203 kebeles* in total. Nevertheless the water
authority is still using the boundaries of the old Weredas and kebeles. The city Manager that is
accountable to the mayor of the city is responsible to the provision of all the municipal services
and is organized and performs its duties with 11 different offices that have their own legal
entity. The Addis Ababa Water and Sewerage Authority (AAWSA) is a public institution in the
city that is responsible for the supply of potable water and collection, treatment and disposal of
water and sludge for the city.
The average altitude of Addis Ababa is 2408 meters above sea level. The highest peak is found
at Mount Entoto with 2800 meters. The lower part of the Akaki plain has an altitude of 2200.
The city is surrounded by the Entoto massive in the North.
The upper part of the city is characterized by steep slopes with high mountains, flat topped
plateau while the lower part is less steep (UNCHS, 2000).
The city is endowed with numerous streams that start from North West and North East running
towards the South and draining to the Awash River. The most mportant streams and rivers are
the Kebena, the Ginfle, the Bantyiketu, the Buhe, he Akaki and the Kechene rivers (UNCHS,
2000).
The city has a warm temperate and rainy climate. The average monthly maximum temperature
ranges between 21.4ºC in August and 26.8OC in April during and the average monthly minimum
is between 5.8OC in December and 13.2OC in May. The total annual rainfall amount is 1327.7
mm with variations by month between 0 mm in November and December and 285.4 mm in July
(CSA, 2000).
The land use structure of the city shows that 53.87% of the area is a built up area. Out of this
area, 63.6% is devoted to residential use while 17.9%, 10.3% and 7.9% are used for public,
commercial and industrial uses respectively (UNCHS, 2000).
The 1961, 1967 and 1978 population sample survey for Addis Ababa revealed that the
population of Addis Ababa was 0.4, 0.7 and 1.2 million respectively. The 1984 census put the
population of Addis Ababa at 1.4 million while the 1994 census recorded 2.1 million people.
There is an increase of 0.7 million or 50% increase over a decade period. The annual increase
over the period 1984-1994 is 5 % (UNCHS, 2000).
Main Objective
The main objective of the Project is to evaluate the Demand and Non –demand side water
supply management systems in case of ADDIS ABABA.
Taking the main objective as mentioned above, the following specific objectives are expected to
be achieved:
Specific Objectives
Addis Ababa city water supply managementis more of interested on development ofnew
facilities and structures are using available sources to meet perceived increasing water needs.
The approach has led to over use of the resources, over capitalization, pollution and other
problems of varying problems. The city is try to in designing water supply sourceswith little
attention to demand determinants, pricing structures and financial policies is not sustainable.
Table 0-1 Existing water supply sources serving Addis Ababa city
The surface water component is the largest and most diverse of project program. It is
comprised of six major facilities including:
1 Gerbi dam and reservoir with gross storage volume of 48.5Mm3 and safe yield of 77,000m3/day.
The dam will be located approximately 10 km north of the existing Gefersa dam
Introduction
In order to bring together these different perspectives, more attention must be given to:
i. Securing better access to water for the urban poor
In short, even in low-income settings there are good reasons to concentrate more on the
demand side, but not to prioritize water conservation or rely on expert-led water management.
Indeed, one of the goals of demand-side management in low-income areas could be to prevent
conservation strategies from undermining residents’ entitlements to sufficient water to meet
their basic health and welfare needs, and to increase the involvement of local residents in
driving water provision.
While this could be seen as adding new requirements and conditionality to demand-side
management, it can also be seen as bringing together different strands of a new demand-side
approach to water provision of particular relevance to low income settlements. Many of these
strands have emerged independently of the conservation-oriented demand-side management
It must also be recognized that in many low-income cities managerial capacity in the water
sector is low (not least because of financial problems), and simply adding new management
burdens is likely to be counterproductive. As such, forms of demand-side management that also
ease overall management burdens are far more likely to be successful than initiatives that give
greater responsibilities to already struggling utilities and government agencies.
Exaggerated and simplistic claims about the relationship between water and disease abound in
the international literature on water management. It is not uncommon for80% of disease in
‘developing’ countries to be ascribed to the consumption of contaminated water
(Kjellén&McGranahan 1997). One of the few certainties in this highly inexact field is that such
figures are grossly misleading. A more considered estimate of the share of the burden of
disease attributable to poor water supply, sanitation and hygiene is 8% (Murray & Lopez 1996),
of which only a small part is likely to be the result of the consumption of contaminated water.
This 8% still represents an enormous burden, second only to malnutrition in a list of major risk
factors, and more than twice the next in line.1 But these water-related problems are closely
bound up with poverty, and should not be taken to reflect the technical mismanagement of
water resources. Moreover, while exaggerated and simplistic claims may once have been a
means of promoting water projects, they have helped to stifle research and informed debate,
and their exaggeration is no longer stimulating action.
3. That freeing up water through demand-side conservation provides more water to meet
basic needs.
It is often assumed that water saved in one part of an urban water system will be transferred to
meet the basic needs of deprived residents in another part of the city (or town). This is a more
technical version of the view that inadequate access to safe water reflects city-wide water
scarcity, and is equally misleading. First, even if demand management reduces supply problems
within the piped water system, the households with the most serious water problems are
typically unconnected, and getting them adequate water is likely to require infrastructural
improvements. Second, the reason they are unconnected is likely to be because their needs are
not economically or politically influential, and freeing up water within the piped water system is
unlikely to change this. Third, if conservation is being promoted in response to water supply
problems, then there are likely to be competing demands for the saved water, and quite
possibly a need to reduce water withdrawals. In short, it is extremely unrealistic to assume that
water saving measures will yield water for the currently deprived, unless this is made an explicit
and effective part of a broader water strategy.
The claim that water is an economic good is frequently evoked, and has even been adopted as
an international guiding principle for the water sector. Since economists do not recognise a
category of ‘non-economic’ goods, the claim is not, strictly speaking, very controversial. It is
often taken to imply, however, that water should be priced at its marginal cost, taking into
account the value of water in alternative uses. In situations where inadequate water use is
facilitating the spread of infectious diseases, however, water is not a ‘normal’ commodity in the
sense assumed in arguments for marginal cost pricing. The healthy use of water reduces
negative externalities.2 Healthy use may not be achievable through price mechanisms alone,
but pricing policy should ideally take health externalities (as well as equity, assuming that it is
considered to be of value) into account. Moreover, even piped water poses numerous
challenges for water pricing, and many of the more deprived households do not have piped
The phrase “demand-side management” is often taken to refer to measures designed to reduce
water demand without compromising water-related services. It is often simply assumed that a
planner’s purpose in managing water demand is to reduce waste and thereby avoid the need
for expensive infrastructure investment and excessive water withdrawals. As indicated above,
this stands in sharp contrast to the archetypal planner of the sanitary era, who may not have
used the phrase “demand-side management”, but was certainly concerned with managing
water demand – principally so as to improve public health. Demand-side management did not
emerge in opposition to sanitary reform, however.
Market economists tend to focus on prices and the institutions through which prices are set
rather than the practices that user ought to adopt. They are inclined to assume that consumers
are rational and, if well informed, will demand and use a commodity in ways that best suit their
budgets and highly as their cost. The appropriate price is usually taken to be the “marginal
cost”: the cost of providing an additional unit, ideally including resource depletion and other
environmental costs. Facing this price, the consumer will, again ideally, use water up to the
point at which the marginal benefits from consuming an additional unit are equal to the
marginal costs of providing it needs. The price of water provides an indicator of scarcity, which
both suppliers and consumers can respond to, both serving their own interests and ensuring
that water only goes to uses that are valued at least asThe basic argument here is that getting
Market economics can also explain, however, how ‘underpriced’ piped water may actually
contribute to ‘overpriced’ water and excessive collection costs in low-income neighborhoods.
Very briefly, if a utility depends on water sales to meet costs, compelling them to charge
excessively low prices for piped water will inhibit the expansion of the water supply system, low
income neighborhoods will remain unconnected (even if residents would be willing to pay the
full economic cost), and resale markets will be undersupplied, leading to higher prices in these
secondary markets. Moreover, economics predicts that efforts to control secondary water
markets by punishing vendors who sell at high prices are likely to reduce supplies still further,
leading to still higher ‘black market’ prices for the urban poor, or increasing collection costs.
There are a number of pricing measures that can be taken to target the urban poor and their
economic needs. Which measures are most suitable depends heavily on local circumstances.
Indeed, the demand-side economics can be quite complex, even if superficially the pricing
options are straightforward. Examples include:
Lifeline tariffs – Water can be provided free or at a very low price to residential users
consuming quantities considered just sufficient to meet basic water needs. This works best
when the urban poor have individual, metered water connections. In principle, minimal
provision can also be supplied using water tanks or water connections that limit consumption
Increasing block tariffs – With an increasing block tariff, the first block (typically a specified
number of cubic meters of water consumed in a given month) is charged at lower price than
the subsequent block, which is in turn charged at a lower price than the next block, and so on.
Ideally, the blocks would be sized and priced to take into account public health, redistributive,
water resource, and cost recovery concerns, though these goals can rarely be reconciled
perfectly. As a possible compromise, the size of first block could be set at the quantity of water
required to meet water-related health requirements, and priced low to reflect the public health
and redistributive benefits; the last block could be priced at the long run marginal cost; and any
intermediate blocks (and a fixed charge or rebate) could be sized and priced with a view
towards cost recovery and redistributive concerns.10 In practice, this rarely comes even close
to being achieved, and in many low-income cities the first block is well above minimal
requirements, and may even be sufficiently large to cover all water consumption of the
majority of households. In any case, as with the lifeline tariff, if increasing block tariffs are to
assist the urban poor, care must be taken to ensure that very poor residents do not end up
paying higher prices as the result of meter sharing, or insufficient connections and high vendor
prices.
Single volumetric rate with rebate – On the grounds that increasing block tariffs rarely serve
either efficiency or equity goals, Dale Whittington has recently proposed a two part tariff,
consisting of a single volumetric charge combined with a fixed monthly credit or rebate (Boland
& Whittington 2000). The single water rate can be set at the long run marginal cost (or some
approximation thereof), while the rebate can help ensure that purchasing small quantities of
water is not a financial burden. A small minimum fee is also proposed to prevent abuse of the
system. One of the main advantages of this system is its relative simplicity, though it does
require metering, and does not address the problems of those without connections.
Reduced tariffs for ‘low-income’ housing or deprived areas – If deprived areas or housing
types can be identified, connections for these residents can be charged preferential rates.
Reduced connection costs – Economics suggests that reduced connection costs may be more
advantageous to low-income households than reduced water rates. The urban poor often find
it difficult to make large lump-sum payments. They rarely have substantial savings and often
face very high borrowing costs. In some circumstances, a utility is in a good position to provide
the equivalent of low interest loans to newly connected households, paid off through the water
bills, or to cross subsidize connection costs with water bills. This assumes that the billing system
is operating efficiently, and that the utility has the capacity to meet the demand for new
connections.
A choice of tariffs – Utilities can offer a choice of tariffs to individuals or communities. This can
include, for example, pre-payment meters which allow consumers to pay for water in small
amounts in advance, the option of paying for a share of the connection costs in the monthly
bill, or larger blocks for shared connections. This may be administratively difficult, but
overcomes the disadvantages of either assuming that one tariff suits all connections or having
the utility or government decide who should be charged at which tariff. It does, of course, limit
On the other hand, as with the conservationist perspective, the demand-side perspective of the
market economist need not focus exclusively on resource issues. Moreover, from an economic
perspective it is important not to treat the demand and supply sides independently. How the
water markets function, the scope for competition, the importance of non-market mechanisms
of water access and distribution (whether based upon government intervention, the actions of
user association, or social norms), and many other critical issues are all suitable topics for water
economics, and influence both water demands and supplies.
Distribution Component
The existing water distribution system in Addis Ababa is divided into several distribution sub-
systems due to the topography of the city. These sub-systems are interconnected to some
extent and supplied from the major sources through separate transfer pipelines.
The existing water transfer and distribution system in Addis Ababa has evolved over several
decades. The most recent significant upgrading took place in the late 1 980s under the Stage II
Water Supply Project in conjunction with the expansion of the Legedadi water treatment plant.
At the implementation of the WSS 111-A project and the commissioning of the new sources of
water at Gerbi and Sibilu, the transfer network must be re-arranged and expanded.
In the future, most water will flow by gravity from the upper, northern area of the city to the
lower, southern area instead of being pumped in the reverse direction. Primary distribution
pipes will also be installed in all sub-systems. This will integrate the delivery and transfer of
The facilities will include pipelines, service reservoirs; pump stations and modifications to
existing works. When completed, this system will be capable of delivering approximately
1,253,000m3/day of water to consumers in all parts of the city, and include the following
facilities:
In connection with this design work, a comprehensive computer-based model of the entire
water transfer and primary distribution network for Addis Ababa has been created. This model
is linked with the new digital topographic mapping prepared for WSS 111-A project and with
several databases containing land use, population and water consumption information. This
model provides AAWSA with a powerful tool to monitor and operate the existing water supply
system as well as plan and manage future changes.
Estimating water demand and use at rural areas is problematic due to the lack of measured
data available. Estimates of rural water demand are further complicated by the lack of
The type of water source used e.g. in the rainy season rain water harvesting may be the main
source of water, whereas in the dry season a deep borehole may be the only source of water;
The security and reliability of the supply;
The quality of the supply;
Access to water.
Rural water supply and sanitation schemes are usually typified by the following:
There are two main methods of assessing rural water demand. These are:
Indirect methods:- where the quantity of water consumed is calculated from population levels
and estimated demand levels in terms of per capita consumption;
Direct methods:- where socio-economic surveys and participatory techniques involving the
relevant stakeholders are used to estimate future water demand.
Background
Urban water demand and use can be divided into the following categories:
There are a number of forecasting methods that are commonly used to predict future urban
water demands. These include:
The water demand is derived from projected population growth figures multiplied by an
estimated per capita water use or demand. The per capita figure may be derived either directly
where water use is divided by the population (normally for a year in which a census has been
undertaken) or from international estimates for average water use, minimum standards or
from selective surveys.
Past trends of total water demand are projected into the future
It assumes the historical water use and demand is representative of future water demand and
use;
It can produce inaccurate results because the forecast is dependent on the fitting function;
The method cannot account for the effects of a reduction in unaccounted for water.
Very different predictions can be gained from trends which fit past data equally well;
The methods assume past trends will continue into the longer-term future;
Any errors that occur in the forecast do not provide a sound basis for future learning. This is
because the errors occur owing to changes in trends;
Extrapolation techniques tend to use aggregate demands rather than components of demand.
Professional biases : the profession of a person may influence their judgment e.g. professionals
who are used to supply oriented solutions may produce forecasts greatly in excess of
professionals who look at demand management issues. Different professions may also use
different methods and data;
Spatial and project biases: the forecasts may be based on areas that have common factors (e.g.
accessibility) and these areas may not be representative;
Person biases: the stakeholders interviewed and assessed to determine demand forecasts may
in some cases overestimate their needs to ensure supplies under extreme conditions;
Seasonal and climatic biases: judgments may have been made during untypical dry or wet
periods.
It can be useful in determining the effect of changing uses and production technologies on
overall water use;
It can be used to identify key areas of use, predict areas of use which may increase or decrease
and how these may affect the total water use.
ADDIS ABABA
628986
CITY ADMINISTRATION
90206 58123 35684 28903 95520 62009 258541
AKAKI KALITY-SUB
45751CITY 9949 1743 1531 1950 5700 5091 19787
NEFAS SILK-LAFTO-SUB
75080 10424
CITY 8569 4606 4429 9191 8027 29834
KOLFE KERANIYO-SUB
93334 CITY
14018 7586 2985 6470 9165 16220 36890
GULELE-SUB CITY
57840 8827 3215 2524 1937 9341 5283 26713
LIDETA-SUB CITY
44351 5431 1778 2907 1166 9930 2273 20866
KIRKOS-SUB CITY
52584 5096 5701 3722 1606 11360 2827 22272
ARADA-SUB CITY
47364 4426 3829 3809 2008 12168 2703 18421
ADDIS KETEMA-SUB
49041 CITY6232 1780 3235 1558 10425 2564 23247
YEKA-SUB CITY
87347 13124 6686 4403 3492 11688 11110 36844
BOLE-SUB CITY
76297 12679 17236 5963 4288 6553 5910 23668
ADDIS ABABA
628986
CITY ADMINISTRATION
612071 16416 382 117
AKAKI KALITY-SUB
45749CITY 44367 1361 21 -
NEFAS SILK-LAFTO-SUB
75079 72859
CITY 2188 27 5
KOLFE KERANIYO-SUB
93333 CITY
90386 2824 91 32
GULELE-SUB CITY
57839 56619 1194 16 10
LIDETA-SUB CITY
44351 43158 1145 43 5
KIRKOS-SUB CITY
52583 51440 1016 111 16
ARADA-SUB CITY
47364 46223 1126 5 10
ADDIS KETEMA-SUB
49043 CITY
48220 790 22 11
YEKA-SUB CITY
87346 85539 1780 16 11
BOLE-SUB CITY
76299 73259 2992 32 16
ADDIS ABABA
628985
CITY ADMINISTRATION
36663 162861 236223 178640 6022 6855 1721
AKAKI KALITY-SUB
45750CITY 1404 10653 17832 14574 302 381 604
NEFAS SILK-LAFTO-SUB
75079 CITY
3882 19073 34853 15443 584 788 456
KOLFE KERANIYO-SUB
93333 CITY
3946 25266 31559 29180 1745 1562 75
GULELE-SUB CITY
57839 2183 14911 25194 13812 723 953 63
LIDETA-SUB CITY
44351 2289 12086 14855 15110 11 - -
KIRKOS-SUB CITY
52582 4232 13055 21198 14086 11 - -
ARADA-SUB CITY
47365 3762 12640 16060 14882 16 5-
ADDIS KETEMA-SUB
49042 CITY2483 13769 11020 21727 38 - 5
YEKA-SUB CITY
87345 3931 21569 37082 20599 2183 1690 291
BOLE-SUB CITY
76299 8550 19838 26571 19227 411 1475 227
ADDIS ABABA
628986
CITY ADMINISTRATION
90206 58123 35684 28903 95520 62009 258541
AKAKI KALITY-SUB
45751CITY 9949 1743 1531 1950 5700 5091 19787
NEFAS SILK-LAFTO-SUB
75080 10424
CITY 8569 4606 4429 9191 8027 29834
KOLFE KERANIYO-SUB
93334 CITY
14018 7586 2985 6470 9165 16220 36890
GULELE-SUB CITY
57840 8827 3215 2524 1937 9341 5283 26713
LIDETA-SUB CITY
44351 5431 1778 2907 1166 9930 2273 20866
KIRKOS-SUB CITY
52584 5096 5701 3722 1606 11360 2827 22272
ARADA-SUB CITY
47364 4426 3829 3809 2008 12168 2703 18421
ADDIS KETEMA-SUB
49041 CITY6232 1780 3235 1558 10425 2564 23247
YEKA-SUB CITY
87347 13124 6686 4403 3492 11688 11110 36844
BOLE-SUB CITY
76297 12679 17236 5963 4288 6553 5910 23668
ADDIS ABABA
628985
CITY ADMINISTRATION
126725 41259 403985 40722 16294
AKAKI KALITY-SUB
45749CITY 8439 2511 32368 1361 1070
NEFAS SILK-LAFTO-SUB
75079 13893
CITY 4204 49508 5115 2359
KOLFE KERANIYO-SUB
93334 CITY
16048 6266 62462 5557 3001
GULELE-SUB CITY
57840 8676 4461 41849 2100 754
LIDETA-SUB CITY
44352 12012 3642 26360 1507 831
KIRKOS-SUB CITY
52582 13776 3727 29757 4264 1058
ARADA-SUB CITY
47364 12614 3300 28067 2646 737
ADDIS KETEMA-SUB
49042 CITY
11426 3327 32612 1114 563
YEKA-SUB CITY
87346 14681 5012 60972 4721 1960
BOLE-SUB CITY
76298 15161 4809 40030 12337 3961
ADDIS ABABA
628987
CITY ADMINISTRATION
510639 29169 6695 49209 21074 12201
AKAKI KALITY-SUB
45750CITY 40940 805 270 1955 932 848
NEFAS SILK-LAFTO-SUB
75079 57261
CITY 3839 1019 7314 4027 1619
KOLFE KERANIYO-SUB
93333 CITY
76228 3774 709 7205 1831 3586
GULELE-SUB CITY
57839 49300 2110 565 3257 1806 801
LIDETA-SUB CITY
44352 39485 1198 309 1869 1065 426
KIRKOS-SUB CITY
52581 41285 3432 821 4095 2543 405
ARADA-SUB CITY
47365 40100 1993 498 3259 1069 446
ADDIS KETEMA-SUB
49042 CITY
44660 1060 292 1726 779 525
YEKA-SUB CITY
87346 72490 3703 784 6019 2734 1616
BOLE-SUB CITY
76299 48890 7254 1428 12511 4288 1928
Table 8.17 Housing Units of Sub Cities by Type of Waste Disposal: 1999e.c
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of Waste Disposal
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collected Collected
All by by Private Open Space/
Housing Municipality
Establishments/
Behind the Dump in Burn/
Sub City Units Individuals Housnig Unit
River Bury Other
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDIS ABABA
628986
CITY ADMINISTRATION
213925 223723 36512 72789 77531 4506
AKAKI KALITY-SUB
45751CITY 20062 7242 6294 2591 9207 355
NEFAS SILK-LAFTO-SUB
75079 17303
CITY 32017 5072 6751 13239 697
KOLFE KERANIYO-SUB
93333 CITY
26415 28724 6550 15038 15747 859
GULELE-SUB CITY
57839 28414 12320 3058 10011 3827 209
LIDETA-SUB CITY
44351 23437 13710 596 5170 1081 357
KIRKOS-SUB CITY
52582 19851 27241 432 3558 1263 237
ARADA-SUB CITY
47364 21399 19645 643 4245 1173 259
ADDIS KETEMA-SUB
49042 CITY
18546 20623 536 8331 768 238
YEKA-SUB CITY
87346 26761 23778 7094 8313 20817 583
BOLE-SUB CITY
76298 11737 38423 6237 8781 10409 711
The breakdown between local and foreign currency has not yet been determined. However, the
foreign cost component for projects of this type in Ethiopia is typically in the range of 60-80
percent.
The preliminary estimates prepared to date indicate the following capital costs:
A pretender estimate of costs will be available after the designs have been completed.
The article appears in the publication of the EACE (Ethiopian Association of Civil Engineers) who
owns the copyright. All due acknowledgements and copyright belong to EACE (POBox 20930,
Code 1000, Addis Ababa). EACE Bulletin Vol 1, No 1, 1998
Baumann, D. D. & Boland, J. J. 1998, "The Case for Managing Urban Water," in Urban Water
Demand Management and Planning, D. D. Baumann, J. J. Boland, & W. M. Hanemann (eds),
McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 1-30.
Baumann, D. D., Boland, J. J., &Hanemann, W. M. (eds) 1998, Urban Water Demand
Management and Planning, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Black, M. 1998, Learning What Works: A 20 Year Retrospective View on International Water and
Sanitation Cooperation, UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, Washington DC.
Boland, J. J. & Whittington, D. 2000, "The Political Economy of Increasing Block Tariffs in
Developing Countries: Increasing Block Tariffs versus Uniform Price with Rebate," in The
Political Economy of Water Pricing Reforms, A. Dinar (ed), Oxford University Press, New York,
pp. 215-236.
Bond, P. 2000, Cities of Gold, Townships of Coal, Africa World Press, Trenton, N.J.
Briscoe, J. & Garn, H. A. 1995, "Financing water supply and sanitation under Agenda 21",
Natural Resources Forum, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 59-70.