U.S. Water and Sanitation Aid
Millions of Beneficiaries Reported in Developing Countries, but Department of State Needs to Strengthen Strategic Approach Gao ID: GAO-10-957 September 24, 2010The Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005 (the Act) made access to safe water and sanitation for developing countries a U.S. foreign assistance policy objective. The United States provides such assistance mainly through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The Act requires the Secretary of State to develop a water and sanitation assistance strategy with the Administrator of USAID; designate high-priority countries for assistance; and report annually to Congress on, among other things, implementation of the strategy and progress toward the U.S. policy objective. As requested, in this report GAO (1) describes USAID's accomplishments; (2) describes USAID's obligations of funds for water and sanitation assistance in fiscal years 2006-2009; (3) assesses the Department of State's (State) development of a U.S. water and sanitation strategy; and (4) examines State's designation of high-priority countries. GAO reviewed State and USAID documents and data and obtained the views of State and USAID officials in Washington, D.C., and 15 countries.
State reported that USAID provided a wide range of water and sanitation activities in 2006 through 2009, such as installing community water taps, building latrines, and constructing major water treatment plants. Nearly 11 million of more than 24 million reported water beneficiaries and nearly 6 million of more than 10 million reported sanitation beneficiaries were in USAID's Middle East and North Africa region. USAID obligations of funds for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) activities increased by approximately 82 percent from fiscal year 2006 to 2009, with the majority of funding supporting WASH activities in three USAID regions--sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and North Africa, and Asia and the Pacific. In fiscal years 2008 and 2009, about $337 million and $495 million, respectively, of USAID obligations for water and sanitation activities was attributed to meet annual congressional appropriations directives that no less than $300 million be obligated for those years. In fiscal year 2009, about 80 percent of the attributed funds were obligated in countries that State designated as high priority. State has taken steps to develop a water and sanitation strategy. In 2008, State and USAID issued a joint strategic framework that, according to State, largely comprises the broad current U.S. strategy. State also identified its annual water and sanitation reports to Congress in 2006 through 2009 as containing elements of this strategy. However, the strategic framework and annual reports do not include specific and measurable goals, benchmarks, and timetables, which the Act requires and which are needed to measure progress toward achieving the overall U.S. foreign assistance policy objective. Further, State has not provided an assessment--also required by the Act--of funding needed to achieve such goals, benchmarks, and timetables. In fiscal year 2008, State began to designate countries as high priority for water and sanitation assistance, designating 36 countries in 2008 and 31 countries in 2009. Nearly half of these countries were in sub-Saharan Africa and more than a quarter were in Asia and the Pacific. State said that in making the designations, it considered USAID mission plans for water and sanitation activities. In addition, State's annual reports to Congress identify factors that are reflected in the high-priority designations, including two criteria specified by the Act: need for improved access to water and sanitation and the existence of conditions that would support long-term sustainable results. Additional factors reflected in the designations include consistency with U.S. foreign policy priorities and compliance with statutory directives. However, GAO found that State's high-priority designations excluded several countries where USAID had provided water and sanitation assistance and included one country where USAID had not provided such assistance. Moreover, the designations for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 are not linked to verifiable analysis. As a result, the basis for State's designations of high-priority countries is unclear. GAO recommends that State (1) ensure that the strategy for U.S. water and sanitation assistance addresses all requirements, including goals and benchmarks, and (2) clearly identify, in its mandated reports, the basis for its designations of high-priority countries. State accepted GAO's recommendations.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: David B. Gootnick Team: Government Accountability Office: International Affairs and Trade Phone: No phone on recordGAO-10-957, U.S. Water and Sanitation Aid: Millions of Beneficiaries Reported in Developing Countries, but Department of State Needs to Strengthen Strategic Approach
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-957
entitled 'U.S. Water And Sanitation Aid: Millions of Beneficiaries
Reported in Developing Countries, but Department of State Needs to
Strengthen Strategic Approach' which was released on September 30,
2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2010:
U.S. Water And Sanitation Aid:
Millions of Beneficiaries Reported in Developing Countries, but
Department of State Needs to Strengthen Strategic Approach:
GAO-10-957:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-957, a report to Congressional Requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005 (the Act) made
access to safe water and sanitation for developing countries a U.S.
foreign assistance policy objective. The United States provides such
assistance mainly through the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID). The Act requires the Secretary of State to
develop a water and sanitation assistance strategy with the
Administrator of USAID; designate high-priority countries for
assistance; and report annually to Congress on, among other things,
implementation of the strategy and progress toward the U.S. policy
objective. As requested, in this report GAO (1) describes USAID‘s
accomplishments; (2) describes USAID‘s obligations of funds for water
and sanitation assistance in fiscal years 2006-2009; (3) assesses the
Department of State‘s (State) development of a U.S. water and
sanitation strategy; and (4) examines State‘s designation of high-
priority countries. GAO reviewed State and USAID documents and data
and obtained the views of State and USAID officials in Washington,
D.C., and 15 countries.
What GAO Found:
State reported that USAID provided a wide range of water and
sanitation activities in 2006 through 2009, such as installing
community water taps, building latrines, and constructing major water
treatment plants. Nearly 11 million of more than 24 million reported
water beneficiaries and nearly 6 million of more than 10 million
reported sanitation beneficiaries were in USAID‘s Middle East and
North Africa region.
USAID obligations of funds for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene
(WASH) activities increased by approximately 82 percent from fiscal
year 2006 to 2009, with the majority of funding supporting WASH
activities in three USAID regions”sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East
and North Africa, and Asia and the Pacific. In fiscal years 2008 and
2009, about $337 million and $495 million, respectively, of USAID
obligations for water and sanitation activities was attributed to meet
annual congressional appropriations directives that no less than $300
million be obligated for those years. In fiscal year 2009, about 80
percent of the attributed funds were obligated in countries that State
designated as high priority.
State has taken steps to develop a water and sanitation strategy. In
2008, State and USAID issued a joint strategic framework that,
according to State, largely comprises the broad current U.S. strategy.
State also identified its annual water and sanitation reports to
Congress in 2006 through 2009 as containing elements of this strategy.
However, the strategic framework and annual reports do not include
specific and measurable goals, benchmarks, and timetables, which the
Act requires and which are needed to measure progress toward achieving
the overall U.S. foreign assistance policy objective. Further, State
has not provided an assessment”also required by the Act”of funding
needed to achieve such goals, benchmarks, and timetables.
In fiscal year 2008, State began to designate countries as high
priority for water and sanitation assistance, designating 36 countries
in 2008 and 31 countries in 2009. Nearly half of these countries were
in sub-Saharan Africa and more than a quarter were in Asia and the
Pacific. State said that in making the designations, it considered
USAID mission plans for water and sanitation activities. In addition,
State‘s annual reports to Congress identify factors that are reflected
in the high-priority designations, including two criteria specified by
the Act: need for improved access to water and sanitation and the
existence of conditions that would support long-term sustainable
results. Additional factors reflected in the designations include
consistency with U.S. foreign policy priorities and compliance with
statutory directives. However, GAO found that State‘s high-priority
designations excluded several countries where USAID had provided water
and sanitation assistance and included one country where USAID had not
provided such assistance. Moreover, the designations for fiscal years
2008 and 2009 are not linked to verifiable analysis. As a result, the
basis for State‘s designations of high-priority countries is unclear.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that State (1) ensure that the strategy for U.S. water
and sanitation assistance addresses all requirements, including goals
and benchmarks, and (2) clearly identify, in its mandated reports, the
basis for its designations of high-priority countries. State accepted
GAO‘s recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-957] or key
components. For more information, contact David Gootnick at (202) 512-
3149 or gootnickd@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
USAID Implements Wide Range of WASH Assistance, with Largest Numbers
of Beneficiaries in Middle East and North Africa Region:
USAID Funding for Water and Sanitation Increased, Exceeding Minimum
Annual Congressional Requirements:
State's Current Water and Sanitation Strategy Lacks Required Elements
Needed to Measure Progress:
State Began Designating High-Priority Countries in 2008, but Basis of
Designations Is Unclear:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Observations from Visits to USAID Missions and Activities
in Six Countries:
Appendix III: USAID Obligations for Water and Sanitation in Fiscal
Year 2009, with Countries' UN-Reported Access:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State:
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International
Development:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Reported Beneficiaries of USAID Water and Sanitation
Activities in Fiscal Years 2006-2009:
Figures:
Figure 1: Attribution of USAID Obligations for Water and Sanitation
Assistance to Meet Annual Appropriations Directives for Fiscal Years
2008 and 2009:
Figure 2: Latrine with Illustrated Hygiene Instructions and Hand-
Washing Station in Rural Mwingi District, Kenya:
Figure 3: Rainwater Collection Barrel for Rural Household and
Rainwater Collection Reservoir for Urban Household in Jordan:
Figure 4: Total Beneficiaries of USAID Water Activities in Fiscal
Years 2006-2009, by USAID Region:
Figure 5: Total Beneficiaries of USAID Sanitation Activities in Fiscal
Years 2006-2009, by USAID Region:
Figure 6: USAID Obligations for WASH Sector Activities in Fiscal Years
2006-2009:
Figure 7: USAID Obligations for WASH Activities in Fiscal Years 2006-
2009, by USAID Region:
Figure 8: USAID Obligations Attributed to Meet $300 Million Minimum
Annual Appropriations Directive for Fiscal Year 2009:
Figure 9: USAID Obligations in Fiscal Year 2009 Attributed to Meet
Minimum Required Appropriations Directive, by Percentage and Country:
Figure 10: Countries Designated as High Priority for Fiscal Years 2008
and 2009, by USAID Region:
Figure 11: State-Designated High-Priority and Non-High-Priority
Countries Ranked by UN as Having Greatest Need for Improved Water and
Sanitation:
Figure 12: Population Access to Water and Sanitation in Countries
Designated High Priority for Fiscal Year 2009:
Figure 13: Countries Visited by GAO, September 2009-February 2010:
Figure 14: Observations from GAO Visit to Ecuador, September 2009:
Figure 15: Observations from GAO Visit to Ethiopia, February 2010:
Figure 16: Observations from GAO Visit to Haiti, January 2010:
Figure 17: Observations from GAO Visit to Jordan, January-February
2010:
Figure 18: Observations from GAO Visit to Kenya, February 2010:
Figure 19: Observations from GAO Visit to Sudan, February 2010:
Abbreviations:
the Act: Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005:
CBO: Congressional Budget Office:
ESF: Economic Support Fund:
NGO: nongovernmental organization:
OES: Bureau of Oceans, Environment and Science:
State: Department of State:
UN: United Nations:
USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development:
UNICEF: United Nations Children's Fund:
WASH: water supply, sanitation, and hygiene:
WHO: World Health Organization:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 24, 2010:
The Honorable Donald M. Payne:
Chairman:
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health:
Committee on Foreign Affairs:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Dick Durbin:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Earl Blumenauer:
House of Representatives:
In dozens of developing countries around the world, a lack of access
to safe water and basic sanitation severely limits economic growth and
development and leads to suffering and death for millions each year.
To improve health and quality of life in developing countries, the
United States and many other countries, as well as numerous
organizations, have provided water and sanitation assistance for
decades. The United States has provided such assistance primarily
through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in three
broad sectors: water supply, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH); water
resources management, which includes natural resources management and
protection of watersheds and ecosystems; and water productivity, which
includes management of water for agriculture, energy, and industry.
USAID supports such assistance in all five of its geographic regions:
Asia and the Pacific, Europe and Eurasia, Latin America and the
Caribbean, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East and North Africa.
In December 2005, Congress passed the Senator Paul Simon Water for the
Poor Act of 2005 (the Act) to make access to safe water and sanitation
for developing countries a specific U.S. foreign assistance policy
objective.[Footnote 1] In annual appropriations legislation for fiscal
years 2008 and 2009, Congress directed that at least $300 million be
obligated[Footnote 2] for specific activities authorized by the Act,
[Footnote 3] including at least $125 million for such activities in
sub-Saharan Africa.
The Act requires the Secretary of State, in consultation with the
Administrator of USAID,[Footnote 4] to develop and implement a
strategy to further the U.S. foreign assistance policy objective of
providing affordable and equitable access to safe water and sanitation
in developing countries. This strategy is to include, among other
elements, (1) specific and measurable goals, benchmarks, and
timetables for achieving the U.S. water and sanitation objective; (2)
an assessment of the funding needed to achieve this objective; and (3)
designations of high-priority countries where there is the greatest
need for increased access to safe water and sanitation and where
assistance can be expected to make the greatest difference in
promoting several aspects of socioeconomic development.[Footnote 5] In
addition, the Act requires the Department of State (State) to submit
periodic reports to Congress on the implementation status of, or
changes to, the strategy; progress toward achieving the U.S. foreign
assistance policy objective; and amounts of USAID's obligations of
funds for water and sanitation activities.
Responding to your request that we review the efforts of State and
USAID in providing WASH assistance worldwide, this report:
* describes USAID water and sanitation activities and reported
accomplishments;
* describes USAID obligations for water and sanitation activities in
fiscal years 2006 through 2009, including obligations attributed to
meet minimum annual appropriations directives in fiscal years 2008 and
2009;[Footnote 6]
* assesses State's development of a U.S. water and sanitation strategy
as required by the Act; and:
* examines State's process for designating high-priority countries as
required by the Act.
* To address these objectives, we reviewed reports, documents, and
data from, and obtained the views of officials at, State, USAID, and
nongovernmental organizations (NGO) headquarters in Washington, D.C.
We also reviewed U.S.-funded water and sanitation activities and
interviewed State, USAID, and NGO officials during visits to six
countries--Ecuador, Ethiopia, Haiti, Jordan, Kenya, and Sudan--which
represent three of five USAID regions. In addition, we reviewed
country-or region-specific information on water and sanitation
provided by USAID missions in nine countries[Footnote 7]:
Afghanistan,[Footnote 8] the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt,
India, Indonesia, Kosovo, Lebanon, Pakistan, and the West Bank and
Gaza.[Footnote 9] We focused our review primarily on USAID funding and
activities for the WASH sector. We conducted this performance audit
from August 2009 through September 2010 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that
we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our work objectives. See appendix I for a
detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology.
Background:
Access to clean water and basic sanitation is essential for human
health and socioeconomic development; lack of clean water and basic
sanitation increases the prevalence of disease, malnutrition, and
gender disparities. Every day, millions of people around the world
consume drinking water from sources such as rivers and ponds and use
either no or unhygienic sanitation facilities.
In passing the Act and making access to safe water and sanitation for
developing countries a specific policy objective of U.S. foreign
assistance programs, Congress emphasized the importance, and raised
the profile, of the need for improving access in many countries. The
Act supports activities that (1) expand affordable and equitable
access to safe water and sanitation for underserved populations; (2)
support the design, construction, maintenance, upkeep, repair, and
operation of water delivery and sanitation systems; (3) improve the
safety and reliability of water supplies, such as through
environmental management; and (4) improve the capacity of recipient
governments and local communities, such as through capacity-building
programs for improved water resource management.
In addition, the importance of access to water was recognized in
September 2000 with the ratification of the United Nations (UN)
Millennium Declaration, whereby many countries and leading development
institutions agreed to work toward meeting the needs of the world's
poorest people. Among the declaration's eight Millennium Development
Goals is that of halving, by 2015, the proportion of people lacking
sustainable access to safe drinking water from 1990 levels. In 2002,
the UN recognized the importance of sanitation with a declaration that
included the goal of halving, by 2015, the proportion of people
without access to basic sanitation, also from 1990 levels.[Footnote
10] A recent African Development Bank study found that, at current
rates of progress, these targets for access to water and sanitation in
sub-Saharan Africa will not be met until 2040 and 2076, respectively.
[Footnote 11]
U.S. government water-and sanitation-related activities are funded
mainly through USAID and the Millennium Challenge
Corporation.[Footnote 12] USAID obligates funding for water and
sanitation activities primarily in three water sectors: WASH, water
resources management, and water productivity. While the majority of
USAID WASH activities are funded through accounts such as Development
Assistance, Economic Support Fund, and Global Health and Child
Survival, USAID also implements some water-and sanitation-related
activities under the International Disaster Assistance and Title II
Food for Peace accounts.[Footnote 13] USAID categorizes its WASH
activities into two broad types of interventions:
1. direct service delivery, such as providing community stand pipes
for household water and building latrines, and:
2. institutional, policy, and behavioral interventions, such as
improving operations of drinking-water service utilities and improving
household-and community-level hygiene.
USAID identifies accomplishments for its water and sanitation
activities as providing either access to an improved source or
improved access.
* Access to an improved source of safe water generally refers to first-
time access to a source of uncontaminated water, while access to
improved sanitation generally refers to first-time access to a simple
pit latrine, septic system, or similar type of improved sanitary
facility.
* Improved access to safe water generally refers to improvement of
existing access to safe water, resulting in access to an increased
amount or better quality of water. Improved access to sanitation
generally refers to improvement of an existing sanitation facility,
such as construction of a wastewater treatment plant for a public
sewer system that had no existing treatment plant.
In fiscal years 2008 and 2009, Congress directly linked the annual
appropriations directives to the Act, requiring USAID to obligate at
least $300 million for such activities, with the additional
requirement that no less than $125 million of the $300 million
appropriations directives be obligated in sub-Saharan Africa.[Footnote
14] USAID interprets the directives as allowing obligations for most
USAID WASH sector activities and for some water resources management
and water productivity sector activities to be attributed to meet the
directives' requirements.[Footnote 15] However, the language of the
directives, and USAID's interpretation of the directives, changed from
fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2009.
Fiscal year 2008. USAID interpreted the fiscal year 2008
appropriations directive as allowing attribution of an obligation for
an activity in the water resources management or water productivity
sector only if the activity had an explicit linkage to a WASH sector
outcome. USAID further interpreted the fiscal year 2008 directive as
allowing partial attribution in an amount proportional to an
activity's direct linkage to WASH outcomes. For example, if a USAID
mission made obligations to construct a school, including installing a
public water tap and latrines, the mission could reasonably argue that
the funding for the water tap and latrines was attributable to the
appropriations directive even if other aspects of the school's
construction were not.
* Fiscal year 2009. USAID interpreted the fiscal year 2009 directive
as allowing attribution of an obligation for an activity in the water
resources management or water productivity sector without a direct
linkage to WASH outcomes.
* Figure 1 illustrates the attribution of USAID funding for water and
sanitation activities to meet the annual appropriations directives for
fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
Figure 1: Attribution of USAID Obligations for Water and Sanitation
Assistance to Meet Annual Appropriations Directives for Fiscal Years
2008 and 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID):
Water supply, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH):
- Funding obligations attributable to meet appropriations
directives[C];
- Funding obligations not attributable to meet appropriations
directives[D].
* Water resources management[A]:
- Funding obligations attributable to meet appropriations
directives[C];
- Funding obligations not attributable to meet appropriations
directives[D].
* Water productivity[A]:
- Funding obligations attributable to meet appropriations
directives[C];
- Funding obligations not attributable to meet appropriations
directives[D].
* Disaster risk reduction[B]:
- Funding obligations attributable to meet appropriations
directives[C];
- Funding obligations not attributable to meet appropriations
directives[D].
Combined funding obligations attributable to meet appropriations
directives[C]:
Total USAID funding obligations attributable to meet the fiscal years
2008 and 2009 appropriations directives.
Source: GAO analysis of State and USAID data.
Note: More than a dozen U.S. departments and agencies implement U.S.
water and sanitation assistance abroad. Other than USAID, the
Millennium Challenge Corporation provides the largest proportion of
funding for water and sanitation, while the other departments and
agencies obligate relatively small amounts for such assistance.
[A] For fiscal year 2008, funding for water resources management and
water productivity activities was eligible for attribution to meet the
appropriations directive only if such activities were directly linked
to water supply, sanitation, and hygiene outcomes. For fiscal year
2009, funding for such activities was eligible for attribution without
being directly linked to those outcomes.
[B] Obligations for USAID disaster risk reduction activities are not
eligible for attribution to meet the appropriations directive.
Disaster risk reduction activities are intended to reduce
vulnerability to disasters; increase capacity to prepare for, respond
to, and recover from disaster shocks; and enhance the resiliency of
vulnerable groups and local communities.
[C] Some portion of funding obligated from the following accounts was
eligible for attribution to meet the appropriations directives:
Development Assistance, Global Health and Child Survival, Economic
Support Funds, Assistance for Eastern Europe and Central Asia Freedom
Support Act, and International Disaster Assistance.
[D] USAID obligations pursuant to P.L. 480 Title II cannot be
attributed to meet the appropriations directives. Obligations from the
International Disaster Assistance account can be attributed to meet
the appropriations directives only if done so retrospectively--not for
planning purposes.
[End of figure]
USAID Implements Wide Range of WASH Assistance, with Largest Numbers
of Beneficiaries in Middle East and North Africa Region:
USAID Implements Variety of Water and Sanitation Activities:
USAID's delivery of water and sanitation assistance includes a wide
range of WASH activities that vary across countries and regions. For
example, direct services delivered by some USAID missions in sub-
Saharan Africa include school-based activities as part of broad
community water and sanitation programs, emphasizing improvement of
sanitation and hygiene to create a healthy learning environment for
children. During our review, we visited the Mwingi district of rural
Kenya, where USAID activities included the construction of separate
latrines for girls and boys with illustrated hygiene instructions and
hand-washing stations at schools (see figure 2).
Figure 2: Latrine with Illustrated Hygiene Instructions and Hand-
Washing Station in Rural Mwingi District, Kenya:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs]
Source: GAO (photos).
[End of figure]
In the Middle East, USAID has supported programs that provided
training and building materials for household water catchment systems
and constructed large-scale water and wastewater treatment facilities
for urban populations. For example, during our review we visited sites
in Jordan, where USAID activities included rainwater collection
reservoirs to increase the amount of water available for urban
households and the provision of rain barrels and installation of
cisterns for rural households (see figure 3). Appendix II provides
additional details on specific activities undertaken in the six
countries we visited.
Figure 3: Rainwater Collection Barrel for Rural Household and
Rainwater Collection Reservoir for Urban Household in Jordan:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs]
Source: GAO (photos).
[End of figure]
Largest Numbers of Beneficiaries Were Reported in USAID's Middle East
and North Africa Region:
In fiscal years 2006 through 2009, about 45 percent of reported
beneficiaries of USAID water and sanitation assistance--almost 11
million of the more than 24 million beneficiaries worldwide--were in
the agency's Middle East and North Africa region (see figure 4).
Figure 4: Total Beneficiaries of USAID Water Activities in Fiscal
Years 2006-2009, by USAID Region:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
USAID Region: Sub-Saharan Africa: 2.92 million;
USAID Region: Asia & the Pacific: 7.02 million;
USAID Region: Middle East & North Africa: 10.88 million;
USAID Region: Europe & Eurasia: 1.10 million;
USAID Region: Latin America & the Caribbean: 2.44 million.
Source: GAO analysis of USAID data.
[End of figure]
Most reported beneficiaries of USAID sanitation activities in this
period also were in the Middle East and North Africa region (see
figure 5). USAID reported nearly 6 million beneficiaries in this
region--about 53 percent of the more than 10 million total reported
beneficiaries of the agency's sanitation activities worldwide.
Figure 5: Total Beneficiaries of USAID Sanitation Activities in Fiscal
Years 2006-2009, by USAID Region:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
USAID Region: Sub-Saharan Africa: 1.08 million;
USAID Region: Asia & the Pacific: 3.28 million;
USAID Region: Middle East & North Africa: 5.59 million;
USAID Region: Europe & Eurasia: 0.14 million;
USAID Region: Latin America & the Caribbean: 0.52 million.
Source: GAO analysis of USAID data.
[End of figure]
Reported USAID Water and Sanitation Beneficiaries Fluctuated Annually
for Two Key Reasons:
The numbers of beneficiaries of USAID water and sanitation activities
reported for fiscal years 2006 through 2009 fluctuated widely (see
table 1).
Table 1: Reported Beneficiaries of USAID Water and Sanitation
Activities in Fiscal Years 2006-2009:
Fiscal year: 2006[A];
Reported beneficiaries of USAID water activities: 9.2 million;
Reported beneficiaries of USAID sanitation activities: 1.5 million.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Reported beneficiaries of USAID water activities: 2.2 million;
Reported beneficiaries of USAID sanitation activities: 1.6 million.
Fiscal year: 2008[B];
Reported beneficiaries of USAID water activities: 7.7 million;
Reported beneficiaries of USAID sanitation activities: 6.3 million.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Reported beneficiaries of USAID water activities: 5.2 million;
Reported beneficiaries of USAID sanitation activities: 1.2 million.
Sources: Department of State and USAID.
Note: The numbers of reported beneficiaries include nearly 7 million
for water activities in Egypt, Jordan, and the West Bank and Gaza in
fiscal year 2006; about 3 million for water activities in Jordan in
2008; and about 4 million for sanitation activities in Jordan in
fiscal year 2008.
[A] Data for fiscal year 2006 reflect the reported numbers of people
who received improved access to a source of drinking water and to a
sanitation facility, respectively, including both first-time access
and improvement to existing services. Beginning in fiscal year 2007,
data reflect only those beneficiaries who received first-time access
to an improved source.
[B] Data for fiscal year 2008 include the reported numbers of
beneficiaries in Jordan who received improved access to a source of
drinking water and a sanitation facility, respectively, including both
first-time access and improvement to existing services. Data reported
for all other countries for fiscal year 2008 reflect numbers of
beneficiaries who received first-time access to improved sources of
water and sanitation facilities.
[End of table]
USAID officials identified two key reasons for the yearly fluctuations
in the reported beneficiaries: a revision of the indicators used to
report results, and the approach used in reporting on projects with
multiyear time frames.
Revised indicators. A change in the indicators used to report
beneficiaries of USAID water and sanitation activities resulted in
substantial differences in the numbers of water beneficiaries reported
for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, according to State and USAID
officials. For fiscal year 2006, as for prior years, USAID reported
the numbers of people gaining first-time access, as defined in the UN
Millennium Development Goal, to an existing drinking water source or
sanitation facility as well as those gaining improved access. For
fiscal year 2007, USAID reported only the numbers of people gaining
first-time access to an improved source of drinking water, such as a
protected water well, and numbers of people gaining first-time access
to an improved sanitation facility, such as a latrine. According to
USAID and State officials, the indicator used for 2007 can be a more
challenging target to meet in generating numbers of beneficiaries.
[Footnote 16] According to USAID officials, the decrease in water
beneficiaries reported for fiscal year 2007 that resulted from the
change in the reporting indicator does not fully reflect the agency's
overall accomplishments.[Footnote 17]
Multiyear project time frames. Results for some major water and
sanitation project activities, such as water and wastewater treatment
facility construction, are reported only when the facilities become
operational--often several years after the projects are initiated--
causing sudden increases in reported beneficiaries. For example,
according to USAID officials, the Jordan mission reported
beneficiaries of a major water treatment plant after its completion in
2008, although planning and construction of the plant had begun
several years previously.
USAID Funding for Water and Sanitation Increased, Exceeding Minimum
Annual Congressional Requirements:
USAID Obligations for Water and Sanitation Activities Rose from 2006
to 2009, with Largest Increase in Middle East and North Africa Region:
USAID obligations for WASH activities rose from $265 million in fiscal
year 2006 to $482 million in fiscal year 2009--an increase of nearly
82 percent (see figure 6). According to State's June 2008 annual
report to Congress, the increased obligations for WASH activities
reflect the growing U.S. commitment to reduce water-related diseases
and to increase access to safe drinking water and sanitation in
countries with critical needs. State's June 2008 report also notes
that in some instances, the increased obligations for WASH activities
resulted in decreased emphasis on activities in other critical
development sectors, including water resources management and water
productivity.
Figure 6: USAID Obligations for WASH Sector Activities in Fiscal Years
2006-2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Fiscal year: 2006: $265.1 million;
Fiscal year: 2007: $212.7 million;
Fiscal year: 2008: $389.9 million;
Fiscal year: 2009: $481.9 million.
Source: GAO analysis of USAID data.
[End of figure]
In fiscal years 2006 through 2009, USAID obligated a combined total of
89 percent, on average, of annual WASH funding in three of its
regions--the Middle East and North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, and
Asia and the Pacific--and obligations for WASH activities in these
regions increased overall. In Europe and Eurasia and in Latin America
and the Caribbean, USAID's other two regions, the agency obligated a
combined total of 7 percent, on average, of its annual WASH funding,
and obligations decreased overall.
* Middle East and North Africa. Obligations increased by about 200
percent, from $59 million in fiscal year 2006 to $177 million in
fiscal year 2009. During the 4-year period, both total obligations and
the percentage of increase were higher than in USAID's other regions.
* Sub-Saharan Africa. Obligations increased by nearly 104 percent,
from $81 million in fiscal year 2006 to $165 million in fiscal year
2009.
* Asia and the Pacific. Obligations increased by about 197 percent,
from $36 million in fiscal year 2006 to $107 million in fiscal year
2009.
* Europe and Eurasia. Obligations decreased by approximately 71
percent, from about $7 million in fiscal year 2006 to about $2 million
in fiscal year 2009.
* Latin America and the Caribbean. Obligations decreased by
approximately 2 percent, from about $13.7 million in fiscal year 2006
to about $13.5 million in fiscal year 2009.
Figure 7 shows USAID obligations for WASH activities in the five USAID
regions in fiscal years 2006 through 2009. (appendix III provides
information on USAID water and sanitation obligations, as well as UN-
reported access to improved water and sanitation, by country.)
Figure 7: USAID Obligations for WASH Activities in Fiscal Years 2006-
2009, by USAID Region:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
USAID Region: Middle East and North Africa;
Fiscal year 2006: $59.2 million;
Fiscal Year 2007: $43.1 million;
Fiscal Year 2008: $95.7 million;
Fiscal Year 2009: $177.5 million.
USAID Region: Sub-Saharan Africa;
Fiscal year 2006: $81.2 million;
Fiscal Year 2007: $103.9 million;
Fiscal Year 2008: $173.8 million;
Fiscal Year 2009: $164.5 million.
USAID Region: Asia and the Pacific;
Fiscal year 2006: $36.2 million;
Fiscal Year 2007: $45.3 million;
Fiscal Year 2008: $69.3 million;
Fiscal Year 2009: $107.0 million.
USAID Region: Europe and Eurasia;
Fiscal year 2006: $6.7 million;
Fiscal Year 2007: $3.7 million;
Fiscal Year 2008: $7.0 million;
Fiscal Year 2009: $2.4 million.
USAID Region: Latin America and the Caribbean;
Fiscal year 2006: $13.7 million;
Fiscal Year 2007: $10.1 million;
Fiscal Year 2008: $24.4 million;
Fiscal Year 2009: $13.5 million.
Source: GAO analysis of USAID data.
[End of figure]
Attributed USAID Obligations Exceeded Appropriations Directives for
WASH Activities Worldwide and in Sub-Saharan Africa:
In fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the amounts of obligated funds that
USAID attributed to meet the annual appropriations directives for
water and sanitation activities pursuant to the Act exceeded the
minimum amounts required in the directives. To meet the annual
directive to obligate not less than $300 million for WASH activities
worldwide, USAID attributed about $337 million in fiscal year 2008 and
about $495 million in fiscal year 2009. Those amounts included about
$136 million in fiscal year 2008 and about $153 million in fiscal year
2009 for sub-Saharan Africa, which USAID attributed to meet the annual
directive to obligate not less than $125 million for projects in sub-
Saharan Africa.
Figure 8 shows amounts that USAID attributed in fiscal year 2009 to
meet the directive to obligate not less than $300 million for WASH
activities globally.
Figure 4: USAID Obligations Attributed to Meet $300 Million Minimum
Annual Appropriations Directive for Fiscal Year 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart and associated data]
Total: $599 million.
Water supply, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH): $482 million (80.5%):
* Funding obligations attributed to meet appropriations directive[C]:
$445 million;
* Funding obligations not attributed to meet appropriations
directive[B]: $36 million.
Water resources management: $30 million (5.0%):
* Funding obligations attributed to meet appropriations directive[C]:
$15 million;
* Funding obligations not attributed to meet appropriations
directive[B]: $16 million.
Water productivity: $45 million (7.5%):
* Funding obligations attributed to meet appropriations directive[C]:
$34 million;
* Funding obligations not attributed to meet appropriations
directive[B]: $11 million.
Disaster risk reduction[A]: $41 million (6.8%).
Total USAID funding obligations attributed to meet the fiscal year
2009 appropriations directive: $495 million.
Source: GAO analysis of State and USAID data.
Note: Obligations shown reflect data reported by State and USAID and
do not include obligations for Iraq. Because of rounding, obligations
may not sum to total shown.
[A] Obligations for disaster risk reduction were not eligible for
attribution to meet the appropriations directive.
[B] Obligations not eligible for attribution to meet the
appropriations directive included obligations pursuant to P.L. 480
Title II as well as obligations from the International Disaster
Assistance account, unless attributed retrospectively and not used for
planning purposes.
[C] Some portion of funding obligated from the following accounts was
eligible for attribution to meet the appropriations directive:
Development Assistance, Global Health and Child Survival , Economic
Support Funds, Assistance for Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and
Freedom Support Act accounts, and International Disaster Assistance.
[End of figure]
Most USAID Obligations Attributed to Meet Fiscal Year 2009
Appropriations Directive Were for High-Priority Countries:
Of the approximately $495 million of fiscal year 2009 obligations that
USAID attributed to meet the overall annual appropriations directive
for WASH activities, about $397 million (80 percent) was obligated in
the 31 countries designated as high priority. About $36 million (7
percent) was obligated in 26 countries not designated as high
priority, and another $61 million (12 percent) was obligated for USAID
regional activities and other programs. Five high-priority countries--
the West Bank and Gaza, Jordan, Pakistan, Sudan, and Afghanistan--
received obligations totaling about $269 million (54 percent). (See
figure 9.) According to State and USAID officials, USAID obligated
substantial amounts for water and sanitation activities in these five
countries because of the countries' strategic importance in relation
to U.S. foreign policy and because of the relatively high amounts of
overall foreign assistance funding allocated to these countries.
Figure 9: USAID Obligations in Fiscal Year 2009 Attributed to Meet
Minimum Required Appropriations Directive, by Percentage and Country:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph associated with pie-chart]
Total funding obligations attributed to meet the fiscal year 2009
appropriations directive $495 million:
All high-priority countries (HPC), $397 million (80.3%);
All others,[A] $97 million (19.7%).
Attributions to meet fiscal year 2009 appropriations directive, by
USAID operating unit:
West Bank and Gaza: $102.2 million;
Jordan: $62.3 million;
Pakistan: $45.5 million;
Sudan: $36.9 million;
Afghanistan: $22.6 million;
Iraq: $13.0 million;
Ethiopia: $10.8 million;
Liberia: $9.2 million;
Haiti: $9 million;
Indonesia: $8.8 million;
21 remaining HPCs: $77.1 million;
All others[A]: $97.4 million.
Source: GAO analysis of State and USAID data.
[A] "All others" includes 26 non-high-priority countries and 12 USAID
regional missions and programs that attributed obligations to meet the
fiscal year 2009 appropriations directive.
Note: Because of rounding, obligations may not sum to total shown.
[End of figure]
Some USAID Missions Altered Activities or Reporting after Passage of
the Act:
About half of the USAID missions that we contacted reported
implementing different types of WASH activities following the passage
of the Act and related annual appropriations directives. In our
structured interviews with officials at 15 missions in countries where
USAID made obligations for WASH activities in fiscal year 2009, 7
missions reported having changed the types of activities they
implemented. For example:
* USAID mission officials in Sudan reported that they began
implementing new WASH activities after being directed by USAID
headquarters, soon after the Act was passed, to increase obligations
for WASH activities. According to these officials, beginning in fiscal
year 2008, the mission began activities such as installing community
water taps and providing hygiene and water purification training
within their long-term development portfolio while concurrently
decreasing obligations for shorter-term water and sanitation
activities supported by disaster-and emergency-related funding.
* USAID mission officials in Kenya reported that after the passage of
the Act, USAID headquarters directed the mission to obligate
approximately $4 million for activities that could be attributed to
meet the appropriations directive in fiscal year 2006.[Footnote 18]
The officials said that although the mission had not previously
implemented such activities, it quickly developed and began
implementing activities such as constructing public water taps and
latrines in urban areas and building sand dams to improve water access
in rural areas. USAID Kenya officials also noted that some obligations
that are currently attributed to meet the minimum amounts required by
Congress in the appropriations directive were previously used for
other mission activities, such as promoting economic growth.
The other seven missions that responded to our structured interviews
reported that the passage of the Act and related annual appropriations
directives had had little or no effect on the types or numbers of
their activities but had affected the way they reported the results of
their activities.[Footnote 19] For example:
* USAID officials in Jordan reported that the mission began
categorizing the results of long-standing activities differently, so
that obligations could be attributed to meet the annual appropriations
directives. According to the officials, the mission has continued
implementing the same general types and numbers of activities--such as
the construction of large-scale water-treatment facilities for urban
populations in Amman and Aqaba--that it implemented prior to passage
of the Act.
* USAID officials in Ecuador reported that the mission recategorized
existing activities so that obligations for these activities could be
attributed to the appropriations directives. According to the
officials, the mission recategorized municipal development activities--
including constructing potable water systems in small cities and
building household sanitation facilities in rural areas--that the
mission had been implementing for more than a decade as part of a
program to assist local governments in improving infrastructure.
[Footnote 20]
State's Current Water and Sanitation Strategy Lacks Required Elements
Needed to Measure Progress:
State Has Broad Strategy to Provide Affordable and Equitable Access to
Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries:
In a strategic framework developed jointly with USAID,[Footnote 21]
and in its annual reports to Congress on U.S. water and sanitation
assistance,[Footnote 22] State has presented a broad strategy for
furthering the U.S. foreign assistance objective of providing
affordable and equitable access to safe water and sanitation in
developing countries, as required by the Act.
In June 2008, State announced a joint State-USAID strategic framework
for water and sanitation that, according to State and USAID officials,
represents the current U.S. water and sanitation strategy. Among other
things, the framework highlighted five WASH activity areas for
focusing U.S. investments:
* strengthening capacity and sustainability of small-scale service
providers;
* improving the operating environment, operations and financial
sustainability of certain utilities;
* mobilizing capital for infrastructure development;
* improving household-and community-level hygiene and sanitation; and:
* integrating water supply and sanitation with humanitarian and
disaster-related assistance.
In announcing the strategic framework, State noted that the U.S.
strategy fully embraced the priorities and guiding initiatives of the
Act, represented the overarching strategic framework for U.S. water
sector efforts, and included the guiding principles for strategic
action in the water sector. The framework also includes discussions of
other strategy-related issues. For example, the framework describes
the need to balance U.S. country-level water-sector programs within
the context of the overall U.S. assistance portfolio in the country
and notes the importance of having good information for monitoring and
evaluation of strategic plans.[Footnote 23]
Before and after the issuance of the joint strategic framework in
2008, State's annual reports to Congress presented various water-and
sanitation-related goals and objectives but noted that the development
of a U.S. water and sanitation strategy is ongoing. For example, the
June 2006 report outlined three objectives for overall U.S. water and
sanitation assistance:
* increase access to, and effective use of, safe water and sanitation;
* improve water resources management and water productivity; and:
* improve water security by strengthening cooperation on shared waters.
However, State noted in the report that the information did not
represent a final statement of the U.S. water and sanitation strategy
but, instead, represented the beginning of a long-term process to
develop and implement a strategy. Since 2006, State's annual reports
to Congress have regularly described various modifications to the
stated objectives for water and sanitation, noting that the
modifications were intended to build on the existing strategy.
[Footnote 24] For example, in issuing the joint strategic framework in
2008, State noted that the framework was to be considered a work in
progress rather than a final strategy and, in its 2009 report, State
acknowledged that it was continuing to build on the existing strategy.
[Footnote 25]
State's Strategy Lacks Key Elements Needed to Assess Progress in
Meeting U.S. Foreign Assistance Objective for Water and Sanitation
Assistance:
State has not developed specific and measurable goals, benchmarks, and
timetables to assess its progress. Moreover, State has not developed
an estimate of funding needed for the United States to achieve its
overall foreign assistance policy objective.[Footnote 26]
State's annual reports to Congress in fiscal years 2006 through 2009
do not include performance measures, and the reports acknowledge that
the development of performance measures for U.S. water and sanitation
assistance is still in progress.[Footnote 27] For example:
* Fiscal year 2006. In June 2006, State reported that it planned to
begin developing metrics for measuring progress and establishing time
lines for completing programs and projects.
* Fiscal year 2007. State's June 2007 report does not include metrics,
time lines, or other performance measures. In the report, State notes
that developing measurements for monitoring and assessing progress is
particularly challenging in the water sector due to, among other
things, questionable data quality and reliability as well as
difficulty in correlating the outputs of specific activities with the
results achieved at the local, regional, or national levels.
* Fiscal years 2008 and 2009. State's reports in June 2008 and 2009
include descriptive information for some high-priority countries and
geographic regions, and the 2009 report includes some quantitative
performance measures for some countries. However, neither report
contains comprehensive metrics, timelines, or other performance
measures needed to assess overall progress.[Footnote 28]
In addition, State has not developed an assessment of funding needed
to achieve the U.S. water and sanitation objective, as required by the
Act. Such an assessment would involve developing metrics (i.e.,
specific and measurable goals to be met within certain time frames)
from which estimated funding levels could be determined. According to
State officials, such country-level specific and measurable goals,
timetables, and benchmarks for water and sanitation have been
developed by USAID missions in some countries since 2009 and are
currently being developed in other countries. State officials also
noted that WASH obligations have exceeded the minimum required amounts
in the annual appropriations directives for fiscal years 2008 and 2009
and that USAID water and sanitation activities implemented with these
funds have continued to generate additional beneficiaries. However,
State and USAID officials acknowledged that a comprehensive assessment
of funding needed to achieve the U.S. objective cannot be developed
without a quantifiable overall U.S. goal for WASH activities. As of
September 2010, such a goal had not been specified.[Footnote 29]
State Began Designating High-Priority Countries in 2008, but Basis of
Designations Is Unclear:
State's Annual Reports to Congress Identify High-Priority Countries:
State's annual reports to Congress in fiscal years 2008 and 2009
identify countries designated as high priority for water and
sanitation assistance, as required by the Act.[Footnote 30] The 2008
report lists 36 countries designated as high priority for fiscal year
2008, and the 2009 report lists 31 countries designated as high
priority for fiscal year 2009 (see figure 10).[Footnote 31] In both
years, nearly half of the countries identified as high priority were
in USAID's sub-Saharan Africa region; more than a quarter were in the
Asia and the Pacific region; and one country, Haiti, was in the Latin
America and the Caribbean region.
Figure 10: Countries Designated as High Priority for Fiscal Years 2008
and 2009, by USAID Region:
[Refer to PDF for image: world map]
Sub-Saharan Africa:
DR Congo;
Ethiopia;
Ghana;
Kenya;
Liberia;
Madagascar;
Mali;
Mozambique;
Niger;
Nigeria;
Senegal;
Somalia;
Sudan;
Tanzania;
Uganda;
Zambia.
Asia and the Pacific:
Afghanistan;
Bangladesh;
Cambodia;
India;
Indonesia;
Laos;
Pakistan;
Philippines;
Sri Lanka;
Tajikistan;
Timor-Leste;
Vietnam.
Europe and Eurasia:
Armenia;
Georgia;
Kosovo.
Middle East and North Africa:
Egypt;
Iraq;
Jordan;
Lebanon;
West Bank and Gaza.
Latin America and the Caribbean:
Haiti.
Source: Map Resources (map).
Note: State's June 2008 and June 2009 reports to Congress listed,
respectively, 36 high-priority countries designated for fiscal year
2008 and 31 high-priority countries designated for fiscal year 2009.
The countries designated for 2009 include one country--Afghanistan--
that was not designated as high priority for 2008 and do not include
six countries--Egypt, Niger, Laos, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, and Vietnam--
that were designated as high priority for 2008.
[End of figure]
State Identified Factors That Influence High-Priority Designations:
The joint State-USAID strategic framework and State's annual reports
to Congress identify a number of factors, including the two criteria
specified in the Act, that influenced the designations of high-
priority countries for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
* A country's level and type of need for water and sanitation
(specified in the Act):
* Conditions in the country that would support long-term sustainable
results (specified in the Act):
* The U.S. comparative advantage, such as level of expertise, relative
to that of other donors:
* Opportunities to leverage U.S. foreign assistance through
partnerships and similar mechanisms with other donors and partners:
* Consistency with U.S. foreign policy priorities:
* Compliance with statutory directives that affect foreign assistance
allocations:
According to the joint strategic framework and State's annual reports,
USAID missions generally consider all of these factors, in
consultation with host governments, in planning for water and
sanitation activities as part of the missions' overall development
portfolios. In turn, as noted in the framework and annual reports, and
according to a key State official, State considers USAID missions'
water and sanitation plans in designating high-priority countries.
State's Basis for Designating High-Priority Countries and
Designations' Relation to USAID Mission Allocations Are Unclear:
The extent to which State considers USAID missions' water and
sanitation plans in designating high-priority countries is unclear. In
addition, State's designations are not clearly linked to verifiable
analysis.
Role of mission plans in State's designation process is unclear. State
officials said that they considered USAID mission plans in making high-
priority designations. However, in our structured interviews with
senior USAID officials at missions in 15 countries as well as our
review of USAID mission plans, we found several missions where State's
designations did not reflect USAID mission planning for water and
sanitation activities. For example, in Kosovo, which was designated as
high-priority for fiscal year 2009, the mission's plans did not
include water and sanitation activities. In contrast, the missions'
plans in Ecuador and Egypt, which were not designated as high
priority, included a significant number and range of such activities.
For example, the Ecuador mission's fiscal year 2009 plans included
construction of drinking water supply and sanitation systems,
protection of watersheds, and management of water resources.
Similarly, for fiscal year 2009, the Egypt mission planned to invest
in technology to supply water for Bedouin communities and to provide
technical assistance to increase water use efficiency and
productivity, among other things.
High-priority designations are not clearly linked to verifiable
analysis. The strategic framework and the annual reports do not
include evidence of systematic or verifiable analysis that State
conducted in examining underlying USAID missions' plans for water and
sanitation activities. In addition, the framework and reports do not
specify the basis for State's designations of high-priority countries.
Although the strategic framework and annual reports emphasize that
missions may consider a number of factors in planning and allocating
resources for water and sanitation activities, the documents do not
identify USAID missions' processes for recording and quantifying the
specific factors considered or the relative weights given these
factors and do not identify State's consideration of the factors. A
State official acknowledged that State's review of missions' water and
sanitation plans and activities generally are not based on systematic
analysis.
In addition, we found that average percentages of USAID mission
budgets allocated for WASH activities did not reflect countries'
designations as high priority and that missions were often unaware of
the designations.
USAID missions' allocations for WASH activities do not reflect high-
priority designations. Among countries where funding attributable to
the annual appropriations directives was obligated for water and
sanitation assistance in fiscal year 2009, the average percentage of
USAID mission budgets allocated for WASH activities in high-priority
countries did not differ significantly from the average percentage
allocated in non-high-priority countries. USAID missions in high-
priority countries allocated an average of about 3.2 percent for WASH
activities, while USAID missions in non-high-priority countries
allocated an average of about 3.1 percent of their budgets for such
activities.
USAID missions are often unaware of high-priority designations. At
missions in 11 of 13 high-priority countries where we conducted
structured interviews, senior USAID officials were unaware of, and had
not been consulted about, the country's designation. Officials at
USAID headquarters acknowledged that, although State coordinates and
consults with USAID on a wide range of water-and sanitation-related
issues at the headquarters levels, USAID missions may not be aware of
the designation process.
High-Priority Designations Are Not Consistently Associated with
Countries' Need for Water and Sanitation:
The designations of high-priority countries in State's 2008 report are
not consistently associated with data on need for water and
sanitation. State's 2008 and 2009 annual reports both note that to
identify a country's level of need for water and sanitation, among the
other factors it considered in prioritizing water and sanitation
assistance, USAID referred to 2008 data published jointly by the World
Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children's Fund
(UNICEF).[Footnote 32] However, the countries designated as high
priority for fiscal year 2009 exclude 4 of the 10 countries that UN
data show with greatest need for access to improved water sources, as
well as 7 of the 10 countries that UN data show with greatest need for
access to improved sanitation. Figure 11 shows the 10 countries that
the UN ranked as having the greatest need for improved water and
sanitation, respectively, including those countries designated as high
priority in State's 2008 report.
Figure 11: State-Designated High-Priority and Non-High-Priority
Countries Ranked by UN as Having Greatest Need for Improved Water and
Sanitation:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 maps of Africa and associated data]
Countries with Greatest Need for Improved Water:
Population using an improved drinking water source:
High-priority countries:
Somalia: 30%;
Ethiopia: 38%;
Madagascar: 41%;
DR Congo: 46%;
Mozambique: 47%;
Afghanistan: 48%.
Non-high-priority countries:
Papua New Guinea: 40%;
Niger: 48%;
Mauritania: 49%;
Sierra Leone: 49%.
Countries with Greatest Need for Improved Sanitation:
Population using an improved sanitation facility:
High-priority countries:
Madagascar: 11%;
Ethiopia: 12%;
Ghana: 13%.
Non-high-priority countries:
Niger: 9%;
Chad: 9%;
Burkina Faso: 11%;
Togo: 12%;
Benin: 12%;
Sierra Leone: 13%;
Eritrea: 14%.
Sources: GAO analysis based on State and UN data; Map Resources (map).
Note: The 10 countries shown in the top and bottom maps have the
greatest need for, respectively, improved water sources and improved
sanitation facilities, according to 2008 data from the World Health
Organization and the UN Children's Fund (WHO/UNICEF) Joint Monitoring
Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation.
[End of figure]
Moreover, as shown in figure 12, a number of the 31 countries that
State designated as high priority for fiscal year 2009 are not among
those that 2008 UN data show as having the greatest need for water or
sanitation.[Footnote 33] For example:
* In 5 of the 31 countries designated as high priority--Lebanon,
Georgia, Armenia, Jordan, and the West Bank and Gaza--at least 89
percent of the population had access to both improved water and
sanitation.
* In 12 of the 31 countries designated as high priority, at least 75
percent of the population had access to improved water, and in 24 of
the countries, more than half of the population had such access.
* In 6 of the 31 high-priority countries, at least 75 percent of the
population had access to improved sanitation, and in 11 of the
countries, at least half the population had such access.
Figure 12: Population Access to Water and Sanitation in Countries
Designated High Priority for Fiscal Year 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 lists]
Percentage of population using Improved Drinking Water Sources:
Lebanon: 100%;
Georgia: 98%;
Armenia: 96%;
Jordan: 96%;
West Bank and Gaza: 91%;
The Philippines: 91%.
The above listed are countries with the greatest access.
Pakistan: 90%;
India: 88%;
Ghana: 82%;
Bangladesh: 80%;
Indonesia: 80%;
Iraq: 79%;
Senegal: 69%;
Timor-Leste: 69%;
Liberia: 68%;
Uganda: 67%;
Haiti: 63%;
Cambodia: 61%;
Zambia: 60%;
Kenya: 59%;
Nigeria: 58%;
Sudan: 57%;
Mali: 56%;
Tanzania: 54%;
Afghanistan: 48%;
Mozambique: 47%;
Democratic Republic of the Congo: 46%;
Madagascar: 41%;
Ethiopia: 38%;
Somalia: 30%;
Kosovo[A]: [Empty].
Percentage of population using Improved Sanitation Facility:
Jordan: 98%;
Lebanon: 98%;
Georgia: 95%;
Armenia: 90%;
West Bank and Gaza: 89%;
The Philippines: 76%.
The above listed are countries with the greatest access.
Iraq: 73%;
Bangladesh: 53v
Indonesia: 52%;
Senegal: 51%;
Timor-Leste: 50%;
Zambia: 49%;
Uganda: 48%;
Pakistan: 45%;
Afghanistan: 37%;
Mali: 36%;
Sudan: 34%;
Nigeria: 32%;
India: 31%;
Kenya: 31%;
Cambodia: 29%;
Tanzania: 24%;
Democratic Republic of the Congo: 23%;
Somalia: 23%;
Haiti: 17%;
Liberia: 17%;
Mozambique: 17%;
Ghana: 13%;
Ethiopia: 12%;
Madagascar: 11%;
Kosovo[A]: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis based on State and UN data.
Note: The percentages shown for population access to improved drinking
water sources and improved sanitation facilities are according to 2008
data from the UN World Health Organization and the UN Children's Fund
(WHO/UNICEF) Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and
Sanitation.
As illustrated, the same six countries had the highest percentages of
population with access to improved sources of drinking water and
improved sanitation facilities, according to the 2008 UN data.
[A] Data not available.
[End of figure]
In response to these observations, State officials said that a variety
of issues are involved in considering level of need. For example, the
officials stated that in Jordan, although a relatively high percentage
of the population have access to safe water and improved sanitation,
the use of surface and ground water for vital economic development,
including agricultural purposes, has made water increasingly scarce--
resulting in low per capita water availability. Likewise, in India,
although a relatively large percentage of the population have access
to safe water and improved sanitation, more than 100 million people
lack such access.
Conclusions:
The Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005 established the
U.S. foreign assistance policy objective of providing access to safe
water and sanitation in developing countries. Since fiscal year 2006,
State has annually reported to Congress, as required by the Act, on
USAID's provision of water and sanitation assistance that has
benefited millions in developing countries. Reflecting growing U.S.
government attention to global water and sanitation needs, USAID
obligations for WASH activities--totaling more than $1 billion in
fiscal years 2006 through 2009--increased substantially, with the
greatest increases in the agency's North Africa and the Middle East,
sub-Saharan Africa, and Asia and the Pacific regions. In addition,
USAID obligations for certain water and sanitation activities exceeded
the annual appropriations directive in fiscal year 2009 by a
significant amount.
However, although State has taken steps to develop the water and
sanitation strategy required by the Act, the documents comprising the
strategy--State's annual reports to Congress and the 2008 joint State-
USAID strategic framework--do not include specific and measurable
goals, benchmarks, and timetables for U.S. water and sanitation
assistance or an assessment of needed funding. As a result, it is
difficult to assess the extent to which USAID's reported
accomplishments and funding levels further the U.S. foreign assistance
policy objective.
Additionally, because State's fiscal year 2008 and 2009 reports to
Congress on water and sanitation activities do not clearly identify
the basis for its designations of high-priority countries, it is not
possible to determine the extent to which the designations meet the
criteria put forward in the Act. In particular, the reports do not
clearly show the relation of State's high-priority designations to
USAID's planned activities and reported funding. In addition, although
the reports list factors such as a country's level of need--one of the
criteria specified in the Act--that may influence State's high-
priority designations, the reports do not identify the specific
factors that influenced the designations for fiscal years 2008 and
2009 or identify an objective and verifiable process for weighing
these factors.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To enable State to fulfill requirements in the Senator Paul Simon
Water for the Poor Act of 2005, we recommend that the Secretary of
State, in consultation with the Administrator of USAID, take the
following two actions:
* Ensure that the U.S. water and sanitation strategy addresses all
components required by the Act, including specific and measurable
goals, benchmarks, and timetables for achieving the U.S. foreign
assistance objective of providing affordable and equitable access to
safe water and sanitation in developing countries.
* Explain, in the mandated annual reports to Congress, the basis for
designations of countries as high priority for water and sanitation
assistance, including specific factors considered--in particular, the
two criteria established by the Act--as well as any process used to
weigh such factors.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We sent a draft of this report to State and USAID for their review.
Both provided written comments, which we reproduced in appendixes IV
and V, respectively. State and USAID also provided technical comments
that we incorporated as appropriate.
In their written comments, State and USAID accepted our findings and
State accepted our recommendations. Both State and USAID noted that
they had begun to review their current efforts and to address the
issues raised in our report. State observed that it and USAID
designate as "priority" those countries where water or sanitation is a
key component of the U.S. development strategy. State also noted that
the designations are driven primarily by the significance of water or
sanitation challenges to the country's socioeconomic development and
the likelihood that U.S. assistance can make a meaningful difference.
Our report acknowledges that a number of factors are considered in the
designations of high-priority countries. However, we maintain that the
precise basis for such designations should be more transparent.
As we agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the
contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it
until 6 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send
copies of this report to the Secretary of State; the Administrator,
USAID; and interested congressional committees. In addition, the
report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3149 or gootnickd@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Individuals who made key
contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI.
Signed by:
David Gootnick, Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
We were asked to review efforts of the Department of State (State) and
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to respond to
requirements in the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005
(the Act). This report:
1. describes USAID's water and sanitation activities and reported
accomplishments;
2. describes USAID obligations for water and sanitation activities in
fiscal years 2006 through 2009, including obligations attributed to
meet annual appropriations directives in fiscal years 2008 and 2009;
[Footnote 34]
3. assesses State's development of a U.S. water and sanitation
strategy as required by the Act; and:
4. examines State's process for designating high-priority countries as
required by the Act.
As agreed with our congressional requesters, we focused our review on
USAID funding and activities in the water supply, sanitation, and
hygiene (WASH) sector and excluded assistance provided through the
Millennium Challenge Corporation from the scope of our work.
In addressing these objectives, we reviewed the Act and related
appropriations directives, as well as State, USAID, and
nongovernmental organization (NGO) reports (including State and USAID
annual reports), documents, and data, and interviewed officials of
these organizations in Washington, D.C. We met several times with
officials at State and USAID to discuss their responsibilities,
activities, progress, and challenges in implementing the Act. We also
reviewed reports from the Congressional Research Service and the
United Nations' (UN) annual progress reports on the UN Millennium
Development Goals. We reviewed reports from several NGOs and interest
groups in Washington, D.C., including CARE USA, Center for Strategic
and International Studies Global Strategy Institute, International
Housing Coalition, Water Advocates, Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, and World Wildlife Fund, among others. In
addition, we reviewed and analyzed the authorizing legislation for the
Act and congressional committee reports, as well as various USAID
policy documents and implementing guidance.
We selected 15 countries for our review, as part of a judgmental
sample of countries where USAID had obligated funding for assistance
associated with the Act. To objectively select the sample of
countries, we analyzed various criteria and concluded that the
following were most relevant: (1) levels of funding for WASH
activities; (2) geographic dispersion among USAID's five regions; and
(3) magnitude of water-and sanitation-related needs according to UN
Millennium Development Goal indicators.
From September 2009 to February 2010, we visited 6 of the 15
countries--Ecuador, Ethiopia, Haiti, Jordan, Kenya, and Sudan--which
represent three of USAID's five regions. In each country we reviewed
U.S.-funded water and sanitation project activities and priorities and
interviewed USAID officials. Additionally, in Jordan, we met with
government officials from the Ministry of Water and Irrigation, and in
Sudan, we met with officials from the Ministry of Water Resources and
Irrigation and the Southern Sudan Urban Water Corporation. We also
interviewed USAID implementing partners in the 6 countries, including
the International Organization for Migration and the Fund for the
Protection of Water in Ecuador; Development Alternatives, Inc., Mercy
Corps, and ECODIT, Inc., in Jordan; Winrock International and Louis
Berger Group in Sudan; Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor, the
Aga Khan Foundation East Africa, the Adventist Development and Relief
Agency, and CARE USA in Kenya; and CARE USA, the International Rescue
Committee, Save the Children United States, and the Relief Society of
Tigray in Ethiopia. We met briefly with officials of CHF International
and the International Organization for Migration in Haiti but were
unable to obtain detailed information owing to an earthquake on
January 12, 2010, which coincided with our visit.
In addition, we reviewed country-or region-specific information on
water and sanitation activities for USAID missions in 9 of the 15
countries: Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt,
India, Indonesia, Kosovo, Lebanon, Pakistan, and the West Bank and
Gaza. We collected comparable information for these countries by
conducting structured interviews with mission officials in each
country via telephone or e-mail.[Footnote 35] However, because we
judgmentally selected the sample of USAID missions for the structured
interviews, our findings from these interviews cannot be generalized
to all USAID missions.
To describe funding obligations and reported beneficiaries, we
reviewed numerous data sources. To review funding obligations for
water and sanitation and compare these data with country statistics,
we collected and examined data on obligations from State's annual
reports to Congress and from data provided by USAID. We collected and
examined USAID mission budget data published in annual State Foreign
Operations Congressional Budget Justifications to determine the
percentage of each mission's budget that was allocated to WASH
activities. We also collected country-specific World Bank population
data, to calculate the amount of WASH obligations in each country on a
per-capita basis. To review and describe reported beneficiaries, we
analyzed country-specific data published by the UN World Health
Organization and the UN Children's Fund (WHO/UNICEF) Joint Monitoring
Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation on (1) the proportion of the
population with access to an improved source of drinking water and (2)
the proportion of the population with access to an improved sanitation
facility. We did not conduct an independent data reliability
assessment of the data published in the UN report. However, because
both State and USAID use these UN-published data and, according to
State and USAID officials, these data are sufficiently reliable for
use in their reports, we determined the data from these sources to be
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2009 through September
2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our work objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Observations from Visits to USAID Missions and Activities
in Six Countries:
During our visits to six countries in three of USAID's five regions,
we observed USAID water and sanitation activities such as hygiene
education for children and construction of latrines for individual
households, community water supply systems, and urban wastewater
treatment systems.
Figure 13 shows the six countries we visited.[Footnote 36]
Figure 13: Countries Visited by GAO, September 2009-February 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated map]
Ecuador;
Ethiopia;
Haiti;
Jordan;
Kenya;
Sudan.
Source: Map Resources (map).
[End of figure]
Figures 14 through 19 present observations from our site visits.
Figure 14: Observations from GAO Visit to Ecuador, September 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: map, 2 photographs and associated data]
Ecuador:
We visited two regions in Ecuador where USAID was engaged in diverse
activities. In northern Ecuador, USAID‘s efforts resulted in the
construction of potable water systems, installation of wash basins and
toilets, and agricultural irrigation facilities in towns and rural
areas. During our visit to this region, we met with municipal
government officials and beneficiaries in several communities who told
us that the health of the town‘s residents and agricultural production
had improved noticeably since these facilities had become operational.
USAID/Ecuador officials confirmed that improvements had been achieved.
USAID activities in southern Ecuador focused on water resources
management. The goals of these activities include safeguarding
community water supplies, reducing forest fires, and protecting
threatened plants and wildlife. During our visit to this region, we
met with local and municipal officials and residents who told us they
had benefited from training and technical assistance that has been
provided through USAID funding. USAID/Ecuador officials confirmed that
improvements had been achieved. We also visited protected watersheds
where officials told us that USAID activities had resulted in several
improvements in the overall environmental condition of the region.
USAID/Ecuador officials confirmed that improvements had been achieved.
The photos below show a water treatment facility constructed and a
residential wash basin and toilet installed with USAID funding in
Ecuador.
Sources: GAO (photos); Map Resources (map).
[End of figure]
Figure 15: Observations from GAO Visit to Ethiopia, February 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: map, 2 photographs and associated data]
Ethiopia:
We visited the Tigray region in northern Ethiopia where USAID‘s
activities included constructing borehole wells and water taps and
teaching basic hand-washing and hygiene techniques in rural
communities. Residents of several communities in this region told us
that, in addition to improving the quantity and quality of water
supplies, the wells and taps had improved the lives of women and
girls, who are typically responsible for obtaining water for their
families. The residents noted that, because women and girls no longer
have to walk for several hours each day”sometimes as far as 4 or 5
miles each way”to obtain water, they are less susceptible to injury
from carrying water over rugged terrain, are less vulnerable to
attacks in insecure areas, and have more time and energy to attend
school. The photos below show a community water tap and a woman
demonstrating hand-washing techniques taught by an Ethiopian
nongovernmental organization that had received USAID funding.
Sources: GAO (photos); Map Resources (map).
[End of figure]
Figure 16: Observations from GAO Visit to Haiti, January 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: map, 2 photographs and associated data]
Haiti:
We visited water supply and conservation activities in a rural area
about 35 miles west of Port-au-Prince. At the water supply location,
USAID funds had been used to construct a community water system”
consisting of a borehole, electric pump, storage tank, and community
water tap”from which poor rural residents could obtain clean water for
household use. At a water conservation site”which was part of a
broader school-construction activity funded by USAID”a rainwater
catchment system was implemented to provide water that was otherwise
not available to flush the school‘s toilets. The photos below show an
electric pump with enclosure for a community water system and part of
a rainwater catchment system at a school near Petite Goave, Haiti.
Sources: GAO (photos); Map Resources (map).
[End of figure]
Figure 17: Observations from GAO Visit to Jordan, January-February
2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: map, 2 photographs and associated data]
Jordan:
We visited a wastewater treatment facility under construction in
northern Jordan and sites with household water cisterns on the
outskirts of Amman. According to USAID officials, the recycled
wastewater from the treatment facility in northern Jordan would be
used for agricultural irrigation, thus increasing the availability of
potable water for household needs. This project highlights USAID‘s
focus on water conservation in an arid region. At another site, a
municipality had installed water meters to track usage and improve
water use collection fees. In addition, we visited other sites where
homeowners had received water cisterns as part of rainwater catchment
systems for household use. The beneficiaries told us that, because local
aquifers are being depleted rapidly due to population increases, the
water cisterns have become increasingly important for providing
household water. The photos below show a water meter for an urban
household and a family‘s water cistern funded by USAID.
Sources: GAO (photos); Map Resources (map).
[End of figure]
Figure 18: Observations from GAO Visit to Kenya, February 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: map, 2 photographs and associated data]
Kenya:
We visited several sites in Kenya where USAID is conducting a wide
variety of water and sanitation activities. In Kibera, an urban slum
near Nairobi”the second largest slum in Africa”USAID funds have been
used to install community water taps and public shower and latrine
facilities. In contrast, we visited a sparsely populated area in the
arid Mwingi District, east of the capital Nairobi, where USAID funds
have been used to construct basic sand dams in river beds. The sand
dam captures rainwater and reduces the rate at which rainfall runs
off, thereby raising the water table and increasing water availability
for households and livestock during several months of the dry season.
The photos below show a water tap in Kibera and a sand dam in Mwingi
District, Kenya.
Sources: GAO (photos); Map Resources (map).
[End of figure]
Figure 19: Observations from GAO Visit to Sudan, February 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: map, 2 photographs and associated data]
Sudan:
In southern Sudan, we visited several types of water and sanitation
activities in the city of Juba. At one of the sites, a facility for
loading treated water onto tanker trucks was under construction.
According to USAID officials, when this facility becomes operational,
tanker trucks will deliver clean water to residents instead of the
raw, contaminated river water that tanker trucks currently deliver. At
another site, we observed a staff member of a USAID-funded NGO
demonstrate proper hygiene and water-purification techniques to women
and children at a neighborhood meeting. Several of the women who live
in the neighborhood told us that their health and the health of their
children had significantly improved since they began applying the
techniques that were demonstrated. USAID/Sudan officials confirmed
that improvements had been achieved. The photos below show a water-
loading station under construction and an instructor demonstrating
water purification techniques.
Sources: GAO (photos); Map Resources (map).
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: USAID Obligations for Water and Sanitation in Fiscal
Year 2009, with Countries' UN-Reported Access:
Dollars in millions, except WASH obligations per capita:
Country[A]: West Bank and Gaza;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $102.200;
Obligations for water resources management: $0;
Obligations for water productivity: $0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $102.200;
WASH obligations per capita: $25.96;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 9.9;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 91;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
89.
Country[A]: Jordan;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $53.500;
Obligations for water resources management: $5.000;
Obligations for water productivity: $3.796;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $62.296;
WASH obligations per capita: $9.06;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 6.1;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 96;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
98.
Country[A]: Pakistan;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $47.978;
Obligations for water resources management: v5.500;
Obligations for water productivity: $3.000;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $45.458;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.29;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 2.1;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 90;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
45.
Country[A]: Sudan;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $38.920;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $36.870;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.94;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 4.2;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 57;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
34.
Country[A]: Afghanistan;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $22.574;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $22.574;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.78;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 0.8;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 48;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
37.
Country[A]: Ethiopia;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $14.818;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $10.766;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.18;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 1.7;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 38;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
12.
Country[A]: Zimbabwe;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $13.636;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $4.371;
WASH obligations per capita: $1.09;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 4.7;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 82;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
44.
Country[A]: Democratic Republic of the Congo;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $13.373;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $7.613;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.21;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 4.5;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 46;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
23.
Country[A]: Iraq;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $13.010;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $13.010;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.42;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 2.2;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 79;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
73.
Country[A]: Indonesia;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $8.823;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $8.823;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.04;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 3.4;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 80;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
52.
Country[A]: Kenya;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $8.324;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $7.971;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.21;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 1.0;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 59;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
31.
Country[A]: Lebanon;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $6.500;
Obligations for water resources management: $1.200;
Obligations for water productivity: $0.300;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $8.000;
WASH obligations per capita: $1.55;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 2.7;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 100;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
98.
Country[A]: Uganda;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $5.250;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $5.250;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.17;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 1.3;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 67;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
48.
Country[A]: Madagascar;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $5.200;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $5.478;
WASH obligations per capita: v0.27;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 7.3;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 41;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
11.
Country[A]: Timor-Leste;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $5.000;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $5.000;
WASH obligations per capita: $4.55;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 20.6;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 69;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
50.
Country[A]: Bangladesh;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $4.659;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $1.659;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.03;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 2.8;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 80;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
53.
Country[A]: Chad;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $4.324;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $1.949;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.40;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 2.8;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 50;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
9.
Country[A]: Haiti;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $4.100;
Obligations for water resources management: $0.900;
Obligations for water productivity: $4.000;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $9.000;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.42;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 1.2;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 63;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
17.
Country[A]: Zambia;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $4.100;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $4.827;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.32;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 1.3;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 60;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
49.
Country[A]: Senegal;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $4.050;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: $2.000;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $4.600;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.33;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 4.3;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 69;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
51.
Country[A]: India;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $4.003;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $3.000;
WASH obligations per capita: 0;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 3.9;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 88;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
31.
Country[A]: Tanzania;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $3.600;
Obligations for water resources management: $0.400;
Obligations for water productivity: $1.000;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $5.000;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.08;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 0.8;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 54;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
24.
Country[A]: Angola;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $3.000;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $3.000;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.17;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 5.4;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 50;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
57.
Country[A]: Ecuador;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $3.000;
Obligations for water resources management: $0.900;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $3.000;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.22;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 8.6;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 94;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
92.
Country[A]: Ghana;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $3.000;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $3.000;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.13;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 2.0;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 82;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
13.
Country[A]: Bolivia;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $2.800;
Obligations for water resources management: $0.400;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $3.200;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.29;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 3.3;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 86;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
25.
Country[A]: Somalia;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $2.760;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $1.500;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.31;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 0.7;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 30;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
23.
Country[A]: Liberia;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $2.399;
Obligations for water resources management: $0.500;
Obligations for water productivity: $6.301;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $9.150;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.63;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 1.1;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 68;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
17.
Country[A]: Philippines;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $2.358;
Obligations for water resources management: $3.264;
Obligations for water productivity: $3.973;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $2.269;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.03;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 1.9;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 91;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
76.
Country[A]: Sri Lanka;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $2.239;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: 0;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.11;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 4.6;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 90;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
91.
Country[A]: Nigeria;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $2.150;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $2.150;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.01;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 0.4;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 58;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
32.
Country[A]: Rwanda;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $1.950;
Obligations for water resources management: $0.650;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $1.950;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.20;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 1.0;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 65;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
54.
Country[A]: Egypt;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $1.700;
Obligations for water resources management: $1.000;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $1.700;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.02;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 0.1;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 99;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
94.
Country[A]: Mali;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $1.500;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $1.500;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.12;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 1.5;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 56;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
36.
Country[A]: Nicaragua;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $1.353;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: $1.000;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $2.353;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.24;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 5.1;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 85;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
52.
Country[A]: Cambodia;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $1.350;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $1.350;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.09;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 2.1;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 61;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
29.
Country[A]: Peru;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $1.270;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $1.270;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.04;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 1.0;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 82;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
68.
Country[A]: Mozambique;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $1.250;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: $0.750;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $4.768;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.06;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 0.4;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 47;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
17.
Country[A]: Armenia;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $1.207;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $1.207;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.39;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 2.3;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 96;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
90.
Country[A]: Burkina Faso;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $1.119;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: 0;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.07;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 5.7;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 76;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
11.
Country[A]: Georgia;
Designated as priority country: Yes;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $0.956;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $0.956;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.22;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 0.3;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 98;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
95.
Country[A]: Burma;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $0.810;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $0.810;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.02;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 2.3;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 71;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
81.
Country[A]: Benin;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $0.800;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $0.800;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.09;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 2.6;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 75;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
12.
Country[A]: Colombia;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $0.700;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $0.700;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.02;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 0.1;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 92;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
74.
Country[A]: Yemen;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $0.550;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $0.300;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.02;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 1.3;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 62;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
52.
Country[A]: Namibia;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $0.350;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $0.350;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.16;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 0.3;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 92;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
33.
Country[A]: Malawi;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $0.300;
Obligations for water resources management: $0.200;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $0.300;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.02;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 0.3;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 80;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
56.
Country[A]: Guatemala;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $0.291;
Obligations for water resources management: $0.650;
Obligations for water productivity: $0.100;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $1.000;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.02;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 0.4;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 94;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
81.
Country[A]: Burundi;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $0.250;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $0.250;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.03;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 0.6;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 72;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
46.
Country[A]: Laos;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $0.250;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: 0;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.04;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 5.0;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 57;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
53.
Country[A]: Nepal;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $0.194;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: 0;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.01;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 0.4;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 88;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
31.
Country[A]: Russia;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $0.150;
Obligations for water resources management: $0.135;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $0.150;
WASH obligations per capita: 0;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 0.2;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 96;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
87.
Country[A]: Comoros;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $0.050;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $0.050;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.08;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 27.2;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 95;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
36.
Country[A]: Niger;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $0.050;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: 0;
WASH obligations per capita: 0;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 0.3;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 48;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
9.
Country[A]: Tajikistan;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $0.031;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: $1.821;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $1.851;
WASH obligations per capita: 0;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 0.1;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 70;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
94.
Country[A]: Mauritania;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $0.025;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: 0;
WASH obligations per capita: $0.01;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 0.4;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 49;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
26.
Country[A]: Azerbaijan;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $0.010;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $0.010;
WASH obligations per capita: 0;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 0;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 80;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
45.
Country[A]: Dominican Republic;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $0;
Obligations for water resources management: $0;
Obligations for water productivity: $2.400;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $2.400;
WASH obligations per capita: $0;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 0;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 86;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
83.
Country[A]: Kyrgyz Republic;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: 0;
Obligations for water resources management: $0.340;
Obligations for water productivity: $1.290;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $1.630;
WASH obligations per capita: 0;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 0;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 90;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
93.
Country[A]: Morocco;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: 0;
Obligations for water resources management: $0.600;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $0.600;
WASH obligations per capita: 0;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 0;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 81;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
69.
Country[A]: Panama;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: 0;
Obligations for water resources management: $1.700;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: 0;
WASH obligations per capita: 0;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 0;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 93;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
69.
Country[A]: Swaziland;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: 0;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $2.247;
WASH obligations per capita: 0;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 0;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 69;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
55.
Country[A]: Uzbekistan;
Designated as priority country: No;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: 0;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: $0.200;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $0.200;
WASH obligations per capita: 0;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: 0;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: 87;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
100.
Country[A]: USAID regional bureaus[B];
Designated as priority country: N/A;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $34.736;
Obligations for water resources management: $3.880;
Obligations for water productivity: $5.780;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $37.900;
WASH obligations per capita: N/A;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: N/A;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: N/A;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
N/A.
Country[A]: Other USAID programs[C];
Designated as priority country: N/A;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $16.450;
Obligations for water resources management: $3.045;
Obligations for water productivity: $7.590;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $22.540;
WASH obligations per capita: N/A;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: N/A;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: N/A;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
N/A.
Country[A]: State OES;
Designated as priority country: N/A;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $0.550;
Obligations for water resources management: 0;
Obligations for water productivity: 0;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $0.550;
WASH obligations per capita: N/A;
WASH obligations as percentage of USAID mission budget: N/A;
Proportion of population with access to improved source of drinking
water: N/A;
Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation facility:
N/A.
Country[A]: Total;
Obligations for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene: $481.850;
Obligations for water resources management: $30.264;
Obligations for water productivity: $45.301;
Obligations attributed to annual appropriations directive: $494.675.
Source: GAO synthesis of State, USAID, and UN data.
Notes:
Percentages of countries' populations with access to an improved
source of drinking water and improved sanitation facilities are
according to 2008 data from the UN World Health Organization and the
UN Children's Fund (WHO/UNICEF) Joint Monitoring Programme for Water
Supply and Sanitation.
N/A = not applicable:
OES = Bureau of Oceans, Environment, and Science, Department of State:
Because of rounding, small amounts of WASH obligations per capita in
some countries appear as $0.00. These countries are Tajikistan
($0.005); India ($0.004); Niger ($0.003); Azerbaijan ($0.001); and
Russia ($0.001)because (1) it is the only State-designated high-
priority country where USAID made no obligations in any of the three
water sectors and (2) UN data on access to water and sanitation for
Kosovo were not available.
Although designated as high priority for fiscal years 2008 and 2009,
Kosovo is not shown because USAID obligated no funds for water or
sanitation assistance in Kosovo in those years.
[A] Countries are listed in descending order according to the amount
of USAID obligations for WASH activities.
[B] Includes the following USAID bureaus and missions: Asia Middle
East Regional Bureau, Regional Development Mission-Asia, Africa
Regional Bureau, East Africa Regional Bureau, Southern Africa Regional
Bureau, West Africa Regional Bureau, Africa Office of Development
Partners, Caribbean Regional Bureau, Middle East Regional Bureau.
[C] Includes Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian
Assistance; Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade; Bureau
for Global Health; and Office of Development Partners.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State:
Chief Financial Officer:
Washington, D.C. 20520:
September 8, 2010:
Ms. Jacquelyn Williams Bridgers:
Managing Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "U.S. Water
And Sanitation Aid: Millions of Beneficiaries Reported in Developing
Countries, but Department of State Needs to Strengthen Strategic
Approach," GAO Job Code 320707.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact
Daniel Garrett, Foreign Service Officer, Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs at (202) 647-6849.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
James L. Millette:
cc: GAO ” David Gootnick:
OES ” Kerri-Ann Jones:
State/OIG ” Tracy Burnett:
[End of letter]
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report:
U.S. Water And Sanitation Aid: Millions of Beneficiaries Reported in
Developing Countries, but Department of State Needs to Strengthen
Strategic Approach (GAO-10-957, GAO Code 320707):
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft report entitled
"U.S. Water And Sanitation Aid: Millions of Beneficiaries Reported in
Developing Countries, but Department of State Needs to Strengthen
Strategic Approach." We take these issues seriously. As Secretary
Clinton said in her March 22, 2010 World Water Day speech: "... water
represents one of the great diplomatic and development opportunities
of our time. It's not every day you find an issue where effective
diplomacy and development will allow you to save millions of lives,
feed the hungry, empower women, advance our national security
interests, protect the environment, and demonstrate to billions of
people that the United States cares, cares about you and your welfare.
Water is that issue."
The Department of State accepts the main findings and recommendations
of the GAO report with one observation. The term "priority country" is
a label that the Department of State and USAID apply to a country
where water and/or sanitation will be a key part of the United States
development strategy in that country. This determination (of whether
water/sanitation will be a key component of our development strategy
in a country) is based on a number of factors (as described in the
Reports to Congress ” www.state.gov/g/oes/water) but is primarily
driven by whether water and/or sanitation challenges are a significant
barrier to socio-economic development compared to other development
needs in that country and whether the U.S can make a meaningful
difference ” not whether the specific needs in one country are greater
than those in another.
That said, we agree that the United States can do more. For that
reason, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has asked Under Secretary
of Global Affairs Maria Otero and USAID Administrator Rajhiv Shah to
review current efforts and to identify specific steps the Department
of State and USAID can take to strengthen our response to these issues
and demonstrate global leadership. This process is currently underway.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International
Development:
USAID:
From The American People:
September 13 2010:
David Gootnick:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Gootnick,
I am pleased to provide the U.S. Agency for International
Development's (USAID) formal response to the GAO draft report entitled
U.S. Water and Sanitation Aid: "Millions of Beneficiaries Reported in
Developing Counties, but Department of State Needs to Strengthen
Strategic Approach (GAO-10-957)".
The enclosed USAID comments are provided for incorporation with this
letter as an appendix to the final report.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the GAO draft report and
for the courtesies extended by your staff in the conduct of this audit
review.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Drew W. Luten:
Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator:
Bureau for Management:
Enclosure: a/s:
[End of letter]
USAID Comments on GAO Report on U.S. Water and Sanitation Aid:
"Millions of Beneficiaries Reported in Developing Countries, but
Department of State Needs to Strengthen Strategic Approach (GA0-10-
957)".
USAID has reported its funding obligations and actual results under
its water supply and sanitation programs, and other water sector
programs associated with implementing the Senator Paul Simon Water for
the Poor Act (WFP), each year within the State Department's annual
Reports to Congress since the passage of the WFP Act in December 2005.
We greatly value the analysis undertaken by the GAO. We are
undertaking a review of our water program and will factor the GAO's
findings and recommendations into our efforts to strengthen the
Agency's capacity to implement the Senator Paul Simon Water for the
Poor Act.
USAID accepts GAO's findings.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
David Gootnick, (202) 512-3149 or gootnickd@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Leslie Holen (Assistant
Director), Reid Lowe, Justin Mausel, and George Taylor made key
contributions to this report. Elizabeth Curda, Mark Dowling, Etana
Finkler, Joel Grossman, Jacqueline Nowicki, and Jena Sinkfield
provided technical support.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. 109-121.
[2] In this report, an obligation is--consistent with the term's
generally accepted meaning--a definite commitment that creates a legal
liability of the U.S. government for the payment of goods and services
ordered or received [see GAO, Principles of Federal Appropriations
Law, 3rd ed, vol. II, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-382SP] (Washington, D.C.: Jan.
2004): 7-3]. USAID uses the term "obligations" for the bilateral
agreements it makes with other countries to deliver assistance. Also,
in this report, USAID obligations are amounts of orders placed,
contracts awarded, services received, and similar transactions during
a given period that will require payments during the same or future
period; USAID labels these actions "subobligations."
[3] Pub.L. 110-161 and Pub.L. 111-8. "Specific activities authorized
by the Act" primarily refers to activities in USAID's WASH, water
resources management, and water productivity sectors. USAID interprets
the fiscal year 2008 directive as permitting attribution of an
obligation for an activity in the water resources management or water
productivity sector only if all or part of the activity were
explicitly linked to a WASH outcome. USAID interprets the fiscal year
2009 directive as permitting attribution of an obligation of a USAID
activity in the water resources management or water productivity
sector without direct linkage to a WASH outcome.
[4] The Secretary of State also is to consult with the heads of other
appropriate federal departments and agencies, international
organizations, international financial institutions, recipient
governments, U.S. and international nongovernmental organizations,
indigenous civil society, and other appropriate entities.
[5] The purposes of assistance authorized by the Act include promoting
good health, economic development, poverty reduction, women's
empowerment, conflict prevention, and environmental sustainability.
[6] Since the Act was passed, annual appropriations directives have
required that USAID obligate minimum levels of funding for water
supply and sanitation activities. However, only since fiscal year 2008
have the appropriations directives been directly linked to the Act.
Prior to fiscal year 2008, USAID was required to meet annual
appropriations directives for water supply and sanitation activities;
however, these appropriations directives were not directly linked to
the Act and did not specifically cite it.
[7] In this report, "countries" includes all countries and other
areas, such as the West Bank and Gaza, where USAID provides assistance
in accordance with the terminology that State employs in referring to
such areas in its reports to Congress.
[8] A forthcoming GAO report will review U.S. water-related assistance
in Afghanistan.
[9] We selected these nine countries, as well as the six countries we
visited, as part of a judgmental sample of countries where USAID had
obligated funding for water and sanitation assistance. In selecting
the sample, we considered the following criteria: (1) level of funding
for WASH activities; (2) geographic dispersion among USAID-defined
regions; and (3) water-and sanitation-related needs as ranked by the
United Nations (UN).
[10] UN, Report of the World Summit of Sustainable Development:
Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August - 4 September, 2002 (New York:
2002).
[11] Marco Stampini, Adeleke Salami, and Caroline Sullivan,
Development Aid and Access to Water and Sanitation in Sub-Saharan
Africa, Development Research Brief No. 9 (Tunisia: African Development
Bank, 2009.
[12] More than a dozen other U.S. departments and agencies also
implement other water and sanitation activities. According to a State
official, U.S. departments and agencies other than USAID and the
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) provide very small amounts of
funding for international water and sanitation activities. MCC,
created by Congress in 2004, is to provide aid to developing countries
that have demonstrated a commitment to ruling justly, encouraging
economic freedom, and investing in people.
[13] Often cited as PL-480, Title II of the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (Pub. L. 480, ch. 469, 68 Stat.
454 (1954), codified as amended at 7 U.S.C. § 1691a, provides U.S.
food assistance in response to emergencies and disasters around the
world, and provides development-oriented resources to help improve
long-term food security. Title II funding is appropriated to the
Department of Agriculture and administered by USAID.
[14] The annual appropriations directive for fiscal year 2010 requires
that USAID obligate at least $315 million worldwide for specific
activities; the directive does not include a minimum amount that USAID
is required to obligate in sub-Saharan Africa.
[15] Obligations to meet these annual appropriations directives must
be from accounts funded by Foreign Operations appropriations measures
and must adhere to the various statutory requirements imposed on those
accounts by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Pub. L. 87-195). Funds
attributed to meet the directives have been obligated primarily from
the Development Assistance account, which funds programs in water and
sanitation, democracy and governance, among others, and which USAID
manages, and the Economic Support Fund (ESF), which provides economic
assistance to advance U.S. strategic goals in countries of special
importance to U.S. foreign policy; State makes ESF funding decisions,
and both State and USAID manage ESF-funded programs. USAID guidance
regarding the appropriations directives for water and sanitation
specifies that fiscal year 2009 funds that support or may be
attributed to meet the appropriations directives may come from the
Development Assistance, Global Health and Child Survival, Economic
Support Funds, Assistance for Eastern Europe and Central Asia Freedom
Support Act, and International Disaster Assistance accounts. Funds
from the International Disaster Assistance account are attributable to
meet the directives only retrospectively. Obligations pursuant to P.L.
480 Title II (Food for Peace), which receives its appropriation from
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies appropriations measures and supplementary
appropriations funds, cannot be attributed to meet the appropriations
directives.
[16] In fiscal year 2008, USAID reported numbers of people gaining
first-time access to improved sources of water and sanitation
facilities in all countries except Jordan, where USAID reported
numbers gaining both first-time access and improved access.
[17] According to USAID, State's reports include data drawn from the
indicators contained in the Foreign Assistance Coordination and
Tracking System (FACTS) information system developed by State's Office
of the Director of Foreign Assistance in 2006. These indicators
generally include beneficiaries of access to services, such as an
improved sanitation facility, but do not include some WASH
beneficiaries or outcomes that are not directly related to delivery of
such services.
[18] Although fiscal year 2008 was the first year that the
appropriations directives were directly linked to the Act, there have
been appropriations directives for water and sanitation activities
each fiscal year since the passage of the Act.
[19] One USAID mission reported that it was unknown if the mission's
activities have changed, because the reporting officials have not been
posted at the mission the entire period since passage of the Act.
[20] The program, known as the Alternative Development Program, is
intended to increase trust in local government among citizens, since
these areas have been plagued by poverty, lack of economic
opportunity, and threats of spillover from illegal drug trafficking
from Colombia and Peru for decades.
[21] Department of State, Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act
2005 (P.L. 109-121): Report to Congress, June 2008 (Washington, D.C.:
2008). The strategic framework document was a joint State-USAID
publication, included as Annex A to this report.
[22] Department of State, Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act
2005 (P.L. 109-121): Reports to Congress, June 2006 through 2009.
[23] In 2006, State's newly-announced Director of U.S. Foreign
Assistance noted that new standardized common indicators and reporting
systems to be used to track progress of numerous USAID development
programs, including water and sanitation, would be established.
[24] According to a State official, the Secretary of State's remarks
on March 22, 2010, at the National Geographic Society in Washington,
D.C., also include several courses of action relating to the U.S.
strategy for water and sanitation. These courses of action include
developing capacity in recipient countries, mobilizing financial
support, and using science and technology to improve current
conditions, among other things.
[25] State's fiscal year 2010 report to Congress, issued in mid August
2010, also acknowledges that State continues to build on the existing
strategy. However, because State's report was issued as we were
preparing this report for publication, we did not analyze the content
of State's 2010 report with respect to the U.S. water and sanitation
strategy.
[26] We have previously reported on the importance of U.S.
departments' and agencies' establishing performance measures. For
example, in July 2010, we reported that USAID's required performance
management and evaluation procedures included, among other things, (1)
defining goals and objectives, (2) identifying performance indicators
to meet goals and objectives, (3) establishing baselines and targets
for meeting performance indicators, (4) collecting and analyzing
performance data, and (5) using the data to inform higher-level
decision making and resource allocation. See GAO, Afghanistan
Development: Enhancements to Performance Management and Evaluation
Efforts Could Improve USAID's Agricultural Programs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-368] (Washington, D.C.: July 14,
2010).
[27] State's fiscal year 2010 report also lacks performance measures
for U.S. water and sanitation assistance and notes that such measures
are under development.
[28] During our review, State noted that it had requested that USAID
missions develop and implement performance indicators, report results
for 2008 and 2009, and establish mission targets for 2010. However,
according to a State official, USAID had not provided this information
as of August 2010.
[29] Although neither State nor USAID has developed an overall cost
estimate for achieving U.S. water and sanitation goals, the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently developed a cost estimate
for the Paul Simon Water for the World Act (S. 624) which as of
September 2010 had been introduced in Congress but had not been
enacted. The proposed legislation sets a target of providing first-
time access to improved water and sanitation to 100 million people
within 6 years of the law's enactment. CBO reported in May 2010 that
the estimated cost for the U.S. government to provide 100 million
people with first-time access to improved water and sanitation within
6 years of enactment of the proposed Water for the World Act would be
about $8 billion--or approximately $1.3 billion of U.S. assistance per
year. (Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate, S. 624 Senator Paul
Simon Water for the World Act of 2009, May 4, 2010).
[30] State's annual reports designate countries as "priority" rather
than "high priority," the phrase used in the Act. State's reports in
fiscal years 2006 and 2007 identify some priority countries organized
by geographic regions and programmatic areas, such as urban water
supply and hygiene education.
[31] The countries listed in State's June 2008 and June 2009 are
designated as priority for fiscal years 2008 and 2009, respectively.
State's August 2010 report lists the same 31 high-priority countries
as were listed in the June 2009 report and identifies the countries as
priority for fiscal year 2009.
[32] According to State's annual report for fiscal year 2007, USAID
identifies level of need using data from the UNICEF-WHO Joint
Monitoring Plan, which publishes country-level estimates of access to
safe water and sanitation. USAID also refers to technical reports
published by the World Bank and other international finance banks,
academic analyses, research from NGOs, and other local experience.
[33] The State-USAID joint strategic framework notes that
internationally accepted measures of access to safe drinking water do
not take into account water quality and reliability. For example, WHO
and UNICEF estimate that 87 percent of the population in Georgia had
access to piped water; however, water quality in many of Georgia's mid-
sized cities is so poor that water-borne diseases are often contracted
even by those receiving public water supplies. In Armenia, WHO and
UNICEF estimate that 97 percent of the population have access to
water, but in cities outside the capital, water is usually available
less than half of the day and, in problem areas, as little as 2 to 4
hours each day.
[34] Since the passage of the Act, annual appropriations directives
have required that USAID obligate minimum levels of funding for water
supply and sanitation activities. However, only since fiscal year 2008
have the appropriations directives been directly linked to the Act.
Prior to fiscal year 2008, USAID was required to meet annual
appropriations directives for water supply and sanitation activities,
but these appropriations directives were not directly linked to the
Act and did not specifically cite it.
[35] In this report, we refer to all countries and other areas in
which USAID provides assistance, such as West Bank and Gaza, as
"countries" in accordance with the terminology State employs in
referring to such areas in its reports to Congress.
[36] We visited Ecuador and Haiti in the Latin America and the
Caribbean region; Jordan in the Middle East and North Africa region;
and Ethiopia, Kenya, and Sudan in the sub-Saharan Africa region. We
chose these 6 countries, among the 15 selected for our review, because
they met our criteria (see appendix I) and represented three of five--
that is, the majority--of USAID-defined regions.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
