UGDP Final Evaluation Report

Urban Governance and Decentralization Program (UGDP)
Ministry of Urban Development, Housing and Construction (MUDHCo)

Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)
UGDP Final Evaluation Report
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

April, 2015
Urban Governance and Decentralization Program (UGDP)

Table of contents
List of abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 2
List of figures .................................................................................................................... 3
Overview on indicators and milestones ............................................................................. 4
M&E Framework............................................................................................................... 5
Implementation Agreement ............................................................................................ 13
Results and progress against indicators ........................................................................... 14
1 Urban planning capacity for service delivery ................................................................ 14
1.1 Overview and summary..................................................................................................... 14
1.2 City overview ..................................................................................................................... 17
1.3 City details ......................................................................................................................... 19
2 Participation in urban planning ..................................................................................... 27
2.2 City overview ..................................................................................................................... 32
2.3 City details ......................................................................................................................... 34
3 Financial Management .................................................................................................. 40
3.2 City Overview..................................................................................................................... 43
3.3 City details ......................................................................................................................... 49
4 Poverty-oriented urban development .......................................................................... 57
4.2 City overview and details .................................................................................................. 61
5 Knowledge management and scaling-up ...................................................................... 65
Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 73
General ................................................................................................................................. 73
City specific ........................................................................................................................... 74
Annexes.......................................................................................................................... 76
1 City Reform Profile (CRP) overview ............................................................................... 77
2 UGDP Infrastructure projects and their benefits .......................................................... 79
3 UGDP Skill development in labor intensive construction sector and service delivery . 81
4 UGDP Trainings in regions and cities (2009 – 2014) ..................................................... 83
5 UGDP BLS (2012) and ELS (2014) key indicators ........................................................... 94
6 UGDP CSS results (2007-2014) – compiled ................................................................... 97
7 Support by Regional Bureaus to cities – survey results ................................................ 98
1
List of abbreviations
AMP Asset Management Plan
BLS Baseline Study/Survey
BoIUD (Regional) Bureau of Industry and Urban Development
BoFED (Regional) Bureau of Finance and Economic Development
BUDC (Regional) Bureau of Urban Development and Construction
CA City Administration
CBM Community Based Monitoring
CI(P) Capital Investment (Plan)
CRP City Reform Profile
CS Cobblestone
CSS Citizen Satisfaction Survey
E.C. Ethiopian Calendar
ECA Ethiopian Cities Association
ECPI Ethiopian Cities Prosperity Initiative
ECSU Ethiopian Civil Service University
EFY Ethiopian Financial Year
ELS Endline Study/Survey
ETB Ethiopian Birr
GASB Gambella, Afar, Somali, Benishangul-Gumuz
GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Internationale Zusammenarbeit
GTP Growth and Transformation Plan
KfW Kreditanstalt fuer Wiederaufbau (German Development Bank)
LIC(S) Labor intensive construction (sector)
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
MSE Micro and Small Enterprise
MUDHCo (Ethiopian) Ministry of Urban Development, Housing and Construction
NGO Non-governmental Organization
OFED (City) Office of Finance and Economic Development
OSAT Oromia, SNNP, Amhara, Tigray
PLA Poverty and Livelihood Analysis
REP Revenue Enhancement Plan
RO (City) Revenue Office
RRA Regional Revenue Authority
SNNP Southern Nations, Nationalities and People
SWM Solid Waste Management
ToR Terms of References
ToT Training of Trainers
TVET Technical Vocational Education and Training
UG Urban Greenery
UGDP Urban Governance and Decentralization Program
UGI Urban Green Infrastructure
ULGDP Urban Local Government Development Project
2
List of figures
Figure 1: Households' satisfaction with changes in availability of public services in the last 5 years (all respondents) .......... 15
Figure 2: Households' satisfaction with changes in quality of public services in the last 5 years (all respondents) ................. 15
Figure 3: Households' satisfaction with changes in own access to public services in the last 5 years (all respondents) ......... 15
Figure 4: Businesses' satisfaction with changes in availability of public services in the last 5 years ........................................ 16
Figure 5: Businesses' satisfaction with changes in quality of public services in the last 5 years .............................................. 16
Figure 6: Businesses' satisfaction with changes in own access to public services in the last 5 years ....................................... 16
Figure 7: Households’ participation (all respondents).............................................................................................................. 27
Figure 8: Households' participation by city (average of 6 aspects; 2014; all respondents) ...................................................... 28
Figure 9: Change in households' participation (average of 6 aspects; 2012-2014; all respondents) ....................................... 28
Figure 10: Businesses' participation by city (average of 6 aspects; 2014) ................................................................................ 28
Figure 11: Change in businesses' participation (average of 6 aspects; 2012-2014) ................................................................. 28
Figure 12: Households' view on projects' consistency with people's priorities (2014; all respondents) .................................. 29
Figure 13: Changes in households' view on projects' consistency with people's priorities (2012-2014; all respondents)....... 29
Figure 14: Households' view on quality of meetings (all respondents) .................................................................................... 29
Figure 15: Poor and non-poor households' view on quality of meetings (2014) ...................................................................... 31
Figure 16: Households' view on quality of meetings (all respondents) .................................................................................... 31
Figure 17: Households' satisfaction with access to PDI (all respondents) ................................................................................ 41
Figure 18: Businesses' satisfaction with access to PDI ............................................................................................................. 42
Figure 19: CSOs' satisfaction with access to PDI, transparency and accountability ................................................................. 42
Figure 20: Changes in households' satisfaction with access to PDI (average of 4 aspects; 2012-2014; all respondents) ........ 42
Figure 21: Changes in businesses' satisfaction with access to PDI (average of 4 aspects; 2012-2014) .................................... 42
Figure 22: Changes in CSOs' satisfaction with access to PDI by city (average of 4 aspects; 2012-2014) .................................. 42
Figure 23: Households benefitted from CA projects (all respondents) .................................................................................... 58
Figure 24: Businesses benefitted from CA projects .................................................................................................................. 58
Figure 25: CSOs benefitted from CA projects ........................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 26: Households' livelihood improvement (all respondents) .......................................................................................... 59
Figure 27: Businesses' livelihood improvement ....................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 28: CSOs' livelihood improvement ................................................................................................................................ 59
3
Overview on indicators and milestones
Urban centers and cities provide better services to their citizens and apply principles of urban good governance.
60% of the citizens, NGOs and private At least eight non-partner cities apply
OUTCOME
All former and current UGDP partner cities (26) plus at least
Six out of eight partner cities prove the enterprises in all partner cities confirm selected core processes of local self-
eight non-partner cities state, that due to the utilization of offers
coherent application of urban planning continuous improvements in quality, administration with institutional
in the area of knowledge management their capacities for better
procedures. level of supply and increased technical support by the regional
service delivery has increased.
utilization of local services. bureaus.
Two partner cities within the emerging regions At least 2000 / 4000 urban poor have got Starting ‘12, twelve out of 26 current and former partner cities in the
The cities own revenues’ share for the
and all partner cities within the main regions the technical skills and the basic main regions (“OSAT”) confirm increasing satisfaction with the
financing of local services increased by
spent at least 65 % of their investment budget equipment necessary to take part in the technical support provided by the regional bureaus on investment
20 % (GASB) and 30 % (OSAT)
for 2005 EFY and 80 % of their investment implementation of labor-intensive planning, management of fixed assets and revenue enhancement
respectively, compared to 2004 EFY.
budget for 2006 as planned. infrastructure projects. plans.
In the budgets of all eight partner cities for 60 % of technical staff members within city administrations, who
2005 and 2006 EFYs the share for All partner cities annually conduct internal At least 6 partner cities started the participated in short-term trainings provided by ECSU and 60% of
maintenance of urban infrastructure as well as external audits and achieve at implementation of their strategy for graduates of the ECSU master program confirm the special benefit
OUTPUTS
installations increases by 20 % compared to least the remark “qualified”. poverty reduction. of the trainings for their day-to-day business as well as the relevance
the previous year. of the training contents for their current field of deployment.
All eight partner cities prove the application of
The majority of council members of all At least 3 innovative management models
institutionalized activities that enable selected
eight partner cities attended at least two within city administrations aiming at The ECA established its administrative structure with local experts
social groups to equally participate in urban
hearings on audit, budget, procurement including poor social groups are tested and submitted a cost-covering budget plan for 2007 EFY.
planning and in setting priorities for
and accounting between ’05 and ’06 EFY. and in at least 4 cities practically applied.
infrastructure measures.
The majority of (interviewed) citizens confirm Starting from 2005 EFY, all eight partner MUDHCo publishes municipal standards
The mayors of all 28 ECA member cities confirm that they applied at
that cities’ infrastructure investments are in line cities prove that they made relevant and performance measurement results in
least two ‘best practices’ in their local context which were
to the priorities which were set through information on budget, tenders and ’05 and ’06 EFYs, with special regard to
disseminated by the ECA.
consultation processes. accounting accessible to the public. pro-poor urban development.
In all eight partner cities majority of urban

MILESTONES
In at least four partner cities urban poor

poor confirm that they have been invited 50% of those benefitting from Research, document, create model
At least four of the eight partner cities organized in waste collection and
to public hearings on municipal economic opportunities generated by and disseminate best practices derived
apply local competitive bidding for recycling groups state that the
spending, that they could articulate their municipal spending state that their from IF and project implementation
labor intensive construction projects. economical benefit from waste
interests & their voice had been reflected livelihood has improved. through MUDHCo, ECA and ECSU.
collection and recycling has increased.
in cities investment planning.
4
M&E Framework
OUTCOME Urban centers and cities provide better services to their citizens and apply principles of urban good governance.
Indicators At least eight non-partner cities apply
All former and current UGDP partner cities
selected core processes of local self-
(26) plus at least eight non-partner cities
60% of the citizens, NGOs and private administration with institutional
Six out of eight partner cities prove the state, that due to the utilization of offers in
enterprises in all partner cities confirm technical support by the regional
coherent application of urban planning the area of knowledge management
continuous improvements in quality, level bureaus (participatory urban
procedures (urban planning, infrastructure (experience sharing through the ECA,
of supply and increased utilization of local development and investment
planning, budget planning). support from the bureaus, trainings provided
services. planning, plans on increase of income
by ECSU) their capacities for better service
and the management of urban fixed
delivery has increased.
assets).
Means of Means used for selection of survey

verification cities:
 Woreda-City Benchmarking Survey
 CAs’ plans (CIP, REP, AMP)
 ULGDP monitoring results
 CAs’ BPRs and staff ToRs with Survey among all former and current UGDP
 Applications for Regional Incentive
responsibilities for planning partner cities:
DATA
Citizen satisfaction survey in base-, mid- Fund (in SNNPR)

 (Interview statements by CA officials)  Interviews with CA staff
and end-line study  (Interviews with regional BUDC staff)
 ECA’s impact study’s results
Survey among selected cities:
 Data summarized in CRP with  ECSU’s impact study’s results
background on figures and other details
 CAs’ BPRs and staff ToRs with
responsibilities for planning
 Interviews with CA staff
Analysis to be Are the plans up-to-date? Are the planning

undertaken processes institutionalized? Which entities Differentiation between “poor” and “non- Select core processes; Where are
How satisfied are the CAs with the offers?
are responsible? Are the plans realistic? Are poor” households; use of 16 municipal they implemented?; define “technical
What offers have they used? What were the
own revenues used for infrastructure services; satisfaction with 16 municipal support” by bureaus in different
outcomes of the offers? What was
investments? Are projects of the CIP services; opinion about development of regions; define “institutionalized”
implemented? What has changed because
incorporated in the annual budgets? How service provision; aspects of participation support; What support has been used
of the offers? In what service did the
many CIP projects are incorporated in and voicing (e.g. frequency of use; by cities?; Opinion and satisfaction of
delivery improve and how?
annual budget? What is the budget of these satisfaction with offers for participation) CA staff with support
projects?
5
Who will collect the  UGDP M&E experts
information?  CRP: UGDP regional staff  Regional bureau staff with support of
Trained team in each partner city with Regional bureau staff with support of
 Joint Monitoring Mission: UGDP with UGDP staff
support of UGDP staff UGDP staff
federal and regional partner staff  ECA
PEOPLE
 ECSU
Who will use the Cities for information and intervention

data and the Partner ministry for monitoring and planning; Partner ministry (MUDHCo) for
planning; Partner ministry (MUDHCo) for ECA, ECSU, Bureaus, UGDP
UGDP publication; Bureaus; UGDP
analysis? publication; UGDP
Collection annually (’12, ’13, ‘14) annually (’12, ’13, ‘14)

frequency (CRP existing since 2008 for the changing (citizen satisfaction’s been measured 1 time, at end of project 1 time, at end of project
partner cities) since 2007 in the changing partner cities)
Analysis  CRP ’12: May 2012  15 January 2013

TIME
deadline(s)  CRP ’13: January 2013  15 January 2014 15 October 2014 15 October 2014
 CRP ’14: June 2014  15 October 2014
Dissemination
deadline(s) for 31 January 2013 (BMGF progress report) / 15 November 2013 (BMZ progress report) / 31 January 2014 (BMGF progress report) / 28 February 2015 (BMZ & BMGF final report)
reporting
6
Poverty-oriented urban
OUTPUTS Urban Planning & Service Delivery Urban Financial Management Knowledge Management
development
Indicators 1 Starting ‘12, twelve out of 26 current and
Two partner cities within the emerging
At least 2000 / 4000 urban poor have former partner cities in the main regions
regions and all partner cities within the main The cities own revenues’ share for the
got the technical skills and the basic (“OSAT”) confirm increasing satisfaction
regions spent at least 65 % of their financing of local services increased by
equipment necessary to take part in with the technical support provided by the
investment budget for 2005 EFY and 80 % 20 % (GASB) and 30 % (OSAT)
the implementation of labor-intensive regional bureaus on investment planning,
of their investment budget for 2006 as respectively, compared to 2005 EFY.
infrastructure projects. management of fixed assets and revenue
planned.
enhancement plans.
Means of CAs’ 2004, 2005 and 2006 actual Survey among all former and current UGDP
CAs’ budget proclamations, (financial) partner cities:
verification performance reports
performance reports and CIPs
UGDP training table
 Data summarized in CRP with  CAs’ BPRs and staff ToRs with
 Data summarized in CRP with
background on figures and other details responsibilities for planning
DATA
background figures and other details

and GOPA reports  Interviews with CA staff
Analysis to be What are the ten main sources of city

undertaken revenue? Which sources are new? Is
every actor (RO, RRA, OFED, BUDC,
How coherent are the CIP and budget
BOFED etc.) aware of his role and Where are processes implemented?; define
proclamation? (How much was spent
responsibilities in revenue collection? Do “technical support” by bureaus in different
according to CIP)?
they collaborate? Are costing structures What trainings were offered? How regions; define “institutionalized” support;
 How many ETB were allocated for
created? What is the increase in revenue? many trainees did participate? What support has been used by cities?;
'investments'?
What’s the share of own revenue? What Opinion and satisfaction of CA staff with
 How many ETB were spent for are the main problems in mobilizing support
'investments'?
municipal revenues?
Do cities revise their municipal tariff
regularly?
7
development
Indicators 2 60 % of technical staff members within city
administrations, who participated in short-
In the budgets of all eight partner cities for
term trainings provided by ECSU and 60%
2005 and 2006 EFYs the share for All partner cities annually conduct internal At least 6 partner cities started the
of graduates of the ECSU master program
maintenance of urban infrastructure as well as external audits and achieve at implementation of their strategy for
confirm the special benefit of the trainings
installations increases by 20 % compared to least the remark “qualified”. poverty reduction.
for their day-to-day business as well as the
the previous year.
relevance of the training contents for their
current field of deployment.
Means of CAs’ MoUs with TVETs; CA plans’

CAs’ budget proclamations, financial
verification Audit plans and reports connection with GTP; CAs’ LICS
performance reports and AMPs
Strategies
DATA
 Data summarized in CRP with ECSU impact studies

 Data summarized in CRP with
background on figures and other details  Data summarized in CRP with
background on figures and other details and
and GOPA reports background on figures and other
GOPA reports
details
Analysis to be Are all accounts closed? Did internal

undertaken audits take place since 2005 EFY? Are all What priority does “poverty reduction”
How many ETB were allocated for
accounts of the past 3 EFYs externally have in CAs’ plans? What are the
'maintenance' and how many were actually What is the special benefit of the trainings
audited? What opinion was given for 2005 results to be achieved according the
spent? Do all assets have PINs? Are all for day-to-day business? What did the
and 2006 audit reports? MoUs? What are the activities agreed
financial assets valued? Does the city annex trainings change and improve?
To whom does the internal audit unit upon in MoUs? Is there a special pro-
the asset report to the financial report?
report to? Do cities comply with the audit poor focus in CAs’ plans?
findings?
8
development
Indicators 3 All eight partner cities prove the application
of institutionalized activities that enable At least 3 innovative management
The majority of council members of all The ECA established its administrative
selected social groups (e.g. poor women models within city administrations
eight partner cities attended at least two structure with local (Ethiopian) experts and
and men, disabled persons, businessmen, aiming at including poor social groups
hearings on audit, budget, procurement submitted a cost-covering budget plan for
employees, unemployed etc.) to equally are tested and in at least 4 cities
and accounting between ’05 and ’06 EFY. 2015.
participate in urban planning and in setting practically applied.
priorities for infrastructure measures.
Means of Progress reports of “Community

verification CIP process documents; interview Based Monitoring” in Yirgalem and
statements by CA officials; CAs’ BPRs and Council meeting minutes and reports. Assosa and “Participatory Budgeting”
staff ToRs in Adwa and other Tigray cities ECA’s strategic document, org. chart and
 Data summarized in CRP with annual plans
 Data summarized in CRP with background on figures and other details  Data summarized in CRP with
DATA
background on figures and other details background on figures and other

details
Analysis to be How many public consultation meetings

undertaken were conducted for one CIP process (EFY
‘04 and/or EFY ‘05)? How is the process
organized? Who ensures the participation? Are audit reports (internal and external)
Where were the processes
Who participated in the city's CIP submitted to the council? If so, how often How many staff work in the ECA? What are
implemented? Who was involved?
consultative meetings? Did marginal groups since 2005 EFY? Is the annual city budget the positions? Since when are all positions
How were poor social groups
in the city participate? If yes, which ones? If approved by the council? Did members of staffed? What was implemented by ECA
integrated? How are the processes
yes, did they participate "directly"/"in the council participate in hearings/ without external advisory support? What is
institutionalized? Are they being
person" or were they represented by meetings on financial management since the annual budget? Are all costs covered?
repeated?
organized groups? What is the evidence for 2005 EFY? If so, how often?
their participation? What was the
percentage of women during the
meeting(s)?
9
development
Indicators 4 MUDHCo publishes municipal
The majority of (interviewed) citizens Starting from 2005 EFY, all eight partner The mayors of all 28 ECA member cities
standards and performance
confirm that cities’ infrastructure cities prove that they made relevant confirm, that they applied at least two “best
measurement results in ’05 and ’06
investments are in line to the priorities which information on budget, tenders and practices“ in their local context which were
EFYs, with special regard to pro-poor
were set through consultation processes. accounting accessible to the public. disseminated by the ECA.
urban development.
Means of
DATA
Citizen satisfaction survey in base-, mid- Interviews with CA's officials; CAs’ MUDHCo’s publications of
ECA impact study
verification and end-line study documentations; observations performance measurement results
Analysis to be Differentiation between “poor” and “non-

undertaken poor” households; use of 16 municipal Which documents does the city publish? Are the measurement
What are the best practices? Which cities
services; aspects of participation and Where and how are these systems/indicators pro-poor oriented?
participated in exchange workshops?
voicing (e.g. frequency of use; satisfaction documents/information published? Are the real results published?
with offers for participation)
10
development
Who will collect the Indicator 1 & 3: Indicator 1:
information? CRP / JMM: UGDP with federal and Regional bureau staff with support of UGDP
regional partner staff staff
Indicator 2: UGDP/GOPA staff UGDP staff Indicator 2:
UGDP/GOPA staff ECSU
Indicator 4: Indicator 3 & 4:
Trained team in each partner city ECA
PEOPLE
Who will use the Indicator 1:

data and the Partner ministry (MUDHCo) for publication
Indicator 1-3: Indicator 1 & 2:
analysis? Bureaus
Partner ministry for monitoring and planning; UGDP and partner cities
UGDP
UGDP
Partner ministry for monitoring and Indicator 2:
planning; UGDP Partner ministry (MUDHCo) for scaling-up
Cities for information and intervention Partner ministry (MUDHCo) for
ECSU for monitoring and planning
planning; Partner ministry (MUDHCo) for publication, planning, scaling-up,
UGDP
publication; UGDP resource allocation; UGDP
Indicator 3 & 4:
ECA
Collection Indicator 1-3:

Indicator 1: Indicator 1:
frequency annually (’12, ’13, ‘14)
quarterly update of training table 1 time, at end of project
Indicator 2:
annually for GOPA progress reports (each Indicator 2 & 3: Indicator 2:
annually for GOPA progress reports (each
July) annually (’12, ’13, ‘14) twice in 2014 (January & September)
July)
Indicator 4:
twice, 2013 and 2014 October ’13, twice in 2014
annually (’12, ’13, ‘14)
Analysis deadline Indicator 1-3:

TIME
Indicator 1:
 CRP ’12: May 2012
 15 October 2014
 CRP ’13: January 2013  CRP ’12: May 2012  CRP ’12: May 2012
 Indicator 2:
 CRP ’14: June 2014  CRP ’13: January 2013  CRP ’13: January 2013
 31 January ‘14 and 15 October ‘14
Indicator 4:  CRP ’14: June 2014  CRP ’14: June 2014
Indicator 3 & 4:
 15 January 2013 and 2014
 November ’13, March ’14, October ‘14
 15 October 2014
Dissemination
31 January 2013 (BMGF progress report) / 15 November 2013 (BMZ progress report) / 31 January 2014 (BMGF progress report) / 28 February 2015 (BMZ & BMGF final report)
deadline
11
LUSUP additional milestones (Poverty-oriented urban development)
Milestone In all eight partner cities majority of
In at least four partner cities Research, document, create
urban poor confirm that they have At least four of the eight 50% of those benefitting from
urban poor organized in waste model and disseminate best
been invited to public hearings on partner cities apply local economic opportunities
DATA
collection and recycling groups practices derived from IF and

municipal spending, that they could competitive bidding for labor generated by municipal
state that the economical benefit project implementation
articulate their interests & their voice intensive construction spending state that their
from waste collection and through MUDHCo, ECA and
had been reflected in cities investment projects. livelihood has improved.
recycling has increased. ECSU.
planning (by Dec. 2014).
Means of verification  MUDHCo publications

 ECA publications
Citizen satisfaction survey Bidding documents Focus group interviews Survey among laborers
 ECSU publication and
education material
Analysis to be Differentiation between “poor” and

Are UGDP products,
undertaken “non-poor” households; use of Are the contracts given Has the engagement in SWM Have the jobs taken by the
successes etc. being scaled-
aspects of participation and voicing directly or is there a bidding improved the situation of the urban poor improved their
up through local multipliers
(e.g. frequency of use; satisfaction process? people? situation?
like the ECA?
with offers for participation)
Who will collect the Trained team in each partner city with Trained team in each partner Trained team in each partner
UGDP M&E experts
information? support of UGDP staff city with support of UGDP staff city with support of UGDP staff
PEOPLE
Who will use the data and Cities for information and intervention
the analysis? MUDHCo, ECA, ECSU,
planning; Partner ministry (MUDHCo) UGDP UGDP UGDP
UGDP
for publication; UGDP
Collection frequency annually (’12, ’13, ‘14)

annually (’12, ’13, ‘14)
(citizen satisfaction’s been 1 time, at end of project 1 time, at end of project frequently
TIME
(CRP existing since 2008)

measured since 2007)
Analysis deadline(s)  CRP ’12: May 2012  15 January 2013

 CRP ’13: January 2013  15 January 2014 15 October 2014 15 October 2014 15 October 2014
 CRP ’14: June 2014  15 October 2014
Dissemination deadline(s)
for reporting 31 January 2013 (BMGF progress report) / 31 January 2014 (BMGF progress report) / 15 November 2014 (BMZ and BMGF final report)
12
Implementation Agreement
The overall objective of UGDP is: Progress reported
in document
Using self-administered funding, urban centers and towns will be able to
deliver public services efficiently and effectively, involve citizens in the making
and implementing of decisions.
The achievement of the overall objective of the Program will be measured

against the following indicators:
1. Six out of eight partner cities prove the coherent application of urban
planning procedures (urban planning, infrastructure planning, budget page 14
planning).
2. 60% of the citizens, NGOs and private enterprises in all partner cities
confirm continuous improvements in quality, level of supply and increased page 15
utilization of local services.
3. At least eight non-partner cities apply selected core processes of local self-
administration with institutional technical support by the regional bureaus
page 65
(participatory urban development and investment planning, plans on
increase of income and the management of urban fixed assets).
4. All former and current UGDP partner cities (26) plus at least eight non-
partner cities state, that due to the utilization of offers in the area of
knowledge management (experience sharing through the ECA, support from page 66
the bureaus, trainings provided by ECSU) their capacities for better service
delivery has increased.
The program’s activities shall include – among others – the following:
 Support MUDHCo in the development of Municipal Service Standardization,

pages 59 & 71
including Solid Waste Management and Urban Greenery;
 Certification of the municipal staff for occupational standards page 27

 Documentation & Promotion of MSE success, Urban land management
from page 57
improvement and housing etc.
 Support MUDHCo in the development of a performance measurement
page 71
system;
 Support the regional governments to develop and strengthen regional
from page 65
support mechanisms to City Administrations for capacity building;
 Capacity development of City Administrations in the provision of municipal

from page 15
services.
13
Results and progress against indicators
1 Urban planning capacity for service delivery
1.1 Overview and summary
Outcome 1:
Six out of eight partner cities prove the coherent application of urban planning
procedures (urban planning, infrastructure planning, budget planning).
Adwa Assosa D. Markos Gambella Jijiga Nekemte Semera – L. Yirgalem
In 2006 E.C., all eight partner cities updated their 3-year rolling Capital Investment Plan (CIP) and
Revenue Enhancement Plan (REP) on time for the subsequent Ethiopian Financial Years (EFYs) 2007
to 2009. In almost all cities the planning processes have improved and become more coherent. Own
revenues are increasing and are increasingly used for capital investment projects in the cities. The
connection between the 3-year CI planning and the annual budgeting is improving.
In Adwa, Debre Markos, Jijiga, Nekemte and Yirgalem all projects or almost all that are outlined in
the CIP are also incorporated in the annual budget. This speaks, on the one hand, for a more and
more realistic planning that takes into account the funds actually available when preparing the CIP.
Though in Assosa, Gambella and Semera this is still in the process and only few projects from the CIP
could actually be taken into the actual budget. The other reason is that most of the cities can and do
make use of increasing own revenues for financing local services and their capital budget. The share
of own revenues within the capital budget tripled in Assosa and Yirgalem. In Nekemte it doubled.
And in Jijiga and Adwa it increased by 72 % and 49 % respectively. This encouraging development
(refer also to ‘Output 2-1 on page 40) is mostly attributed to high increment rates in revenue
collection. In 2004 EFY, Assosa‘s own revenue was Birr 1,101,020 and in 2006 EFY Birr 5,883,420. This
results in an increment of 434 %. Debre Markos could increase its own revenue since 2004 EFY by
360 % to Birr 46,798,989 in 2006 EFY. The 2004 EFY revenue performance of Jijiga was at Birr
23,874,620 while the 2006 EFY actual revenue was at Birr 63,984,451. Therefore, the 2006 actual
revenue increased by 168 % compared to 2004 revenue performance. Yirgalem’s municipal revenue
increased by 60 % from Birr 2,783,008 in 2004 EFY to Birr 4,462,481.90 in 2006 EFY. Semera’s
municipal revenue increased by 49 % since 2004 EFY to Birr 1,550,018 in EFY 2006. Nekemte, Adwa
and Gambella show increment rates of around 40 % between EFYs 2004 and 2006 to Birr 23,410,881,
Birr 15,431,541 and Birr 15,136,339 respectively.
In terms of spending of the capital budget the cities made progress, too. Their capacity in project
implementation is improving. Adwa and Assosa spent 100 % of the allocated capital budget in
2006 EFY. Debre Markos and Yirgalem spent at last 75 % and 85 % respectively.
The participation processes and in most cities also their institutionalization within the administrative
structure are continuously improving. The actual set-up differs from city to city and region to region
respectively. But the responsibilities are clearly assigned, e.g. to the CA’s “infrastructure provision
and community participation core process”, the “infrastructure unit”, the “municipality” or the
“office of finance and economic development”. It is to be highlighted that in all cities the “mayor’s
office” / “mayor’s desk” play also a lead role in the process. The public is informed via the local
media, notice boards and announcements. The Kebele administrations ensure the participation of all
14
social groups. Besides business organizations, the Kebeles’ development committees, women and
youth associations, CSOs who represent specifically the urban poor like the traditional ‘Idirs’, mosque
and church groups, and organizations for people with physical disabilities participate. The percentage
of women participating in the meetings is around 40 %. In the final program year continued
improvements have been observed: the number of meetings at city and sub-city/Kebele level, the
number of participants and the number of groups they represent increase from year to year. In
addition, the participation of different city administration sector offices improve and the meetings
themselves are better organized and documented.
Outcome 2:
60 % of the citizens, NGOs and private enterprises in all partner cities confirm continuous
improvements in quality, level of supply and increased utilization of local services.
Adwa Assosa Debre M. Gambella Jijiga Nekemte Semera – L. Yirgalem
In the Endline Study (ELS) the program asked households and businesses about their opinion on the
changes they have observed in the past five years in the availability and the quality of public services
and their own access to them. Please refer also to the ELS Report 2007 E.C. in the Annex.
Households:
More than 50 % of all households are ‘highly satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with the changes in availability of
public services. 44 % of all households are ‘highly satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with the changes in the
quality of public services. And 43 % of all households are ‘highly satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with the
changes in their own access to public services. For all three questions the satisfaction rates are
highest in Adwa, Debre Markos, Jijiga and Yirgalem, and lowest in Assosa, Gambella and Semera.
Especially in Adwa, Jijiga and Yirgalem the rates are far above the average.
Figure 1: Households' satisfaction with Figure 2: Households' satisfaction with Figure 3: Households' satisfaction with
changes in availability of public services in changes in quality of public services in the changes in own access to public services in
the last 5 years (all respondents) last 5 years (all respondents) the last 5 years (all respondents)
Businesses:
64 % of businesses are ‘highly satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with the changes in availability of public
services. 49 % of businesses are ‘highly satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with the changes in the quality of
public services within the past five years. 51 % of businesses are ‘highly satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with
the changes in their own access to public services within the past five years. These figures show that
the levels of businesses’ satisfaction with changes in service delivery during the past five years are
15
considerably higher than the levels of satisfaction with the recent public service delivery (refer to ELS
Report 2007 E.C.).
Figure 4: Businesses' satisfaction with Figure 5: Businesses' satisfaction with Figure 6: Businesses' satisfaction with
changes in availability of public services in changes in quality of public services in the changes in own access to public services in
the last 5 years last 5 years the last 5 years
Output 1-1:
Two partner cities within the emerging regions (“GASB“) and all partner cities within the
main regions (“OSAT“) spent at least 65 % of their investment budget for 2005 E.C. and
80 % of their investment budget for 2006 E.C. as planned.
In terms of spending of the capital budget the cities made progress, too. Their capacity in project
implementation is improving. Adwa and Assosa spent 100 % of the allocated capital budget in
2006 EFY. Debre Markos and Yirgalem spent at last 75 % and 85 % respectively.
Output 1-2:
In the budgets of all eight partner cities for 2005 and 2006 E.C. the share for maintenance
of urban infrastructure installations increases by 20 % compared to the previous year.
– n.a. –
16
1.2 City overview
Adwa
• Plans are up-to-date.
• Processes are institutionalized / responsibilities defined in BPRs, proclamations and staff ToRs.
• All projects outlined in CIP are incorporated in budget proclamation.
• Satisfaction with improvements in service delivery in past five years:
- Availability of services: 71 %
- Quality of services: 64 %
- Access to services: 61 %
• In 2006, the city spent 100 % of investment budget as planned.
• The share for maintenance of urban infrastructure installations is increasing.
Assosa
• Processes are institutionalized / responsibilities defined in respective staff ToRs (OFED, City Service Office, Municipality
and Revenue Office).
• In 2006, the city spent 100% of investment budget as planned.
Debre Markos
• Processes are not fully institutionalized but entities (incl. newly established ULGDP II team) involved are fully aware of
responsibilities.
• In 2006, the city spent 75 % of investment budget as planned.
• The share for maintenance of urban infrastructure installations is not increasing but the total is.
Gambella
• Processes and responsibilities are not yet defined on paper but they are assigned in steering committee meetings.
• Half of the projects outlined in CIP are incorporated in budget proclamation.
Jijiga
• Responsibilities are specified in respective organizational frameworks.
• Most of the projects outlined in CIP are incorporated in budget proclamation.
• The share for maintenance of urban infrastructure installations is increasing.
17
Nekemte
• Processes are institutionalized / responsibilities defined (at least in staff ToRs and letters of assignment).
• The share for maintenance of urban infrastructure installations is more than 5%.
Semera
• Processes are not yet fully institutionalized / responsibilities defined ("Infrastructure core work process" and "Revenue core
process").
Yirgalem
• Processes are institutionalized / responsibilities defined ("Infrastructure provision and public participation core process" and
Development plan preparation and monitoring business process").
• In 2006, the city spent 85% of investment budget as planned.
• The share for maintenance of urban infrastructure installations stay small.
18
1.3 City details
Adwa
The city proves the coherent application of urban planning procedures (urban planning, infrastructure planning,
budget planning).
1.0) Budget proclamation which includes CIP Yes
projects is prepared.
1.1) The city has an up-to-date CIP. 2007-2009 E.C.
1.2) CIP process is institutionalized (e.g. Yes
through the establishment of an "Urban • Responsibilities and processes are incorporated in BPRs, proclamations
Infrastructure Unit". and respective staff ToRs. All documents are endorsed by the Mayor.
• Main responsibility lies within the Office of Plan and Finance (OPF):
'Development Planning Process'.
• The "Infrastructure Coordinator" leading a "technical committee".
• "Mobilization committees" at city and Kebele level organize the processes.
1.3) Projects from CIP are incorporated in the 2004: all 25 CIP projects were incorporated into budget proc. & implemented.
current budget proclamation. 2005: all 19 CIP projects were incorporated into budget proc. & implemented.
2006: all 23 CIP projects were incorporated into budget proc. & implemented.
2007: all 20 CIP projects were incorporated into budget proclamation.
1.4) The city has an up-to-date REP. 2007-2009 E.C.
1.5) REP process is institutionalized. Yes
• Responsibilities and processes are incorporated in BPRs, proclamations
and respective staff ToRs. All documents are endorsed by the Mayor.
• Main responsibility lies with the city's Revenue Agency.
1.6) The city has an up-to-date AMP. 2006-2008 E.C.
1.7) AMP process is institutionalized. Yes, but not fully
• Responsibilities within BPRs are still missing. But staff ToRs endorsed by
the Mayor specify responsibilities. Main responsibilities lie with the "Design
and Construction Office" and the "Land Management Process" within the
"Office of Urban Development, Trade and Industry".
1.8) Project management capacities of CA Yes
have enhanced by provision of training and by
organizing experience exchange visits.
The city spends 65 % of investment 2004: 100 %
budget for 2005 EFY and 80 % of their 2005: 100 %
investment budget for 2006 as planned. 2006: 100 %
In the city's budget for 2012/13 (2005 EFY) and 2013/14 (2006 EFY) the share for operation and maintenance cost for
infrastructure increases by 20 % compared to the previous years.
3.1.1) The share for operation and Yes
maintenance cost for infrastructure has 2004: 0.1 % / 2005: 2.1 % / 2006: 2.5 % / 2007: 5.1 % (plan)
increased compared to the previous years.
3.1.2) At least 5 % of the city's investment 2006: 2.5 %
budget is allocated for maintenance. 2007: 5.1 % (plan)
3.1.3) Projects from AMP are incorporated in Yes
the current budget proclamation.
3.2.1) City has recorded assets. 100 % of assets have PINs
3.2.2) City has valued (financial) assets > 90 % of financial assets are valued
3.2.3) City has produced asset report Not yet
annexed to the financial report.
3.2.4) City has disposed all non-functional All non-functional assets have been disposed during 2006.
and non-maintainable assets.
3.2.5) Fixed assets valuation guidelines are Yes
produced, disseminated and training given.
19
Assosa
budget planning).
through the establishment of an "Urban • Responsibilities are specified in respective staff ToRs of OFED, City
Infrastructure Unit". Service Office, Municipality and Revenue Office.
• The CIP is prepared by a technical team composed of experts from the
Municipality, OFED, & Revenue office.
1.3) Projects from CIP are incorporated in the 2004: 2 out of 6 projects were incorporated into budget proclamation and
current budget proclamation. implemented.
2005: 3 out of 8 projects were incorporated into budget proclamation. 2 out of
3 could be implemented.
2006: 3 out of 8 projects were incorporated into budget proclamation and
implemented.
2007: 3 out of 12 projects were incorporated into budget proclamation.
2007-2009 E.C. soon to be prepared
• Responsibilities and processes are incorporated in respective staff ToRs of
Revenue Office
1.6) The city has an up-to-date AMP. 2004 E.C. (2011/12)
1.7) AMP process is institutionalized. No, not fully
• Responsibilities are not defined.
• However, the Municipality and the Water and Sewerage Agency manage
the process.
3.1.1) The share for operation and
maintenance cost for infrastructure has n.a.
3.1.2) At least 5% of the city's investment
n.a.
budget is allocated for maintenance.
3.1.3) Projects from AMP are incorporated in Some
3.2.1) City has recorded assets. > 75 % of assets have PINs
3.2.4) City has disposed all non-functional Few are still not disposed
20
Debre Markos
budget planning).
1.2) CIP process is institutionalized (e.g. Yes, but not fully
through the establishment of an "Urban • Responsibilities within BPRs and staff ToRs are still missing.
Infrastructure Unit". • However, the process has worked well for 3 years, and the newly
established ULGDP II team in the city is now given the responsibility.
implemented.
2006: All 2 umbrella projects (road infrastructure & market shades) inlc sub-
categories were incorporated into budget proclamation and implemented
2007: detailed data missing
1.5) REP process is institutionalized. Yes, but not fully
• Responsibilities within BPRs and staff ToRs are still missing.
• However, the City Revenue Office (RO) has successfully taken the
responsibility
1.7) AMP process is institutionalized. Yes, but not fully
• However, the "Infrastructure Unit" within the municipality manages the
process and the newly established ULGDP II team has the coordination
responsibility.
3.1.1) The share for operation and Yes (the share has not increased but the total)
maintenance cost for infrastructure has 2004: 9.3 % / 2005: 5.8 % / 2006: 4.9 %
3.2.2) City has valued (financial) assets 80 % of financial assets valued
3.2.4) City has disposed all non-functional 15 % of the assets are not disposed
21
Gambella
budget planning).
1.2) CIP process is institutionalized (e.g. No, not fully
through the establishment of an "Urban • The responsibilities are not defined on paper. But they are assigned in
Infrastructure Unit". steering committee meetings.
• The CA Office of Economic Development and Finance (OFED) is
responsible for CIP preparation and management.
current budget proclamation. implemented. Detailed implementation report missing.
2005: data missing
implemented. Detailed implementation report missing.
1.5) REP process is institutionalized. Yes, but not fully
• However, they are assigned in steering committee meetings.
• The CA Office of Revenue is responsible for REP preparation and
management.
• Responsibilities are not defined.
• Only a "Municipality Task Force" is formed for the preparation.
The city spends 65 % of investment
budget for 2005 EFY and 80 % of their n.a.
investment budget for 2006 as planned.
3.1.2) At least 5% of the city's investment
n.a.
3.1.3) Projects from AMP are incorporated in No AMP documented.
the current budget proclamation. But process is currently being institutionalized and allocation will be
incorporated in the 2007 EFY budget proclamation.
3.2.3) City has produced asset report
Not yet
3.2.4) City has disposed all non-functional
No
22
Jijiga
budget planning).
through the establishment of an "Urban • Responsibilities are specified in respective org. frameworks (BPRs)•
Infrastructure Unit". • Plan is prepared by a committee consisting of experts of Infrastructure Unit,
OFED, Revenue Office & other pertinent offices.
• The process is overseen by the mayor.
1.3) Projects from CIP are incorporated in the 2004: 30 out of 36 projects were incorporated into budget proclamation. 29
current budget proclamation. could be implemented.
2005: All 43 projects were incorporated into budget proclamation. Detailed
implementation report missing.
2006: 17 out of 32 projects were incorporated into budget proclamation.
Detailed implementation report missing.
• Responsibilities are specified in respective org. frameworks (BPRs).
• Plan is prepared by a committee consisting of experts of OFED and RO.
• The process is overseen by the mayor.
1.7) AMP process is institutionalized. Yes
• Responsibilities are specified in respective org. frameworks (BPRs).
• Process is managed by the City Service Manager.
• "Infrastructure Unit" experts and other sector offices are involved.
budget for 2005 EFY and 80 % of their 2005: detailed data missing
investment budget for 2006 as planned. 2006: detailed data missing
3.1.1) The share for operation and 2004: 1.0 %
maintenance cost for infrastructure has 2005: 6.8 %
increased compared to the previous years. 2006: > 5%
3.1.2) At least 5 % of the city's investment 2006: >5%
3.2.2) City has valued (financial) assets Valuation not yet started.
3.2.4) City has disposed all non-functional No
23
Nekemte
budget planning).
through the establishment of an "Urban • The mayor's office is responsible.
Infrastructure Unit". • Specific staff ToRs, i.e. letters of assignment (one from EDFO and one from
Mayor's office), outline responsibilities.
1.3) Projects from CIP are incorporated in the 2004: all 8 CIP projects were incorporated into budget proclamation. 7 could
current budget proclamation. be implemented.
2005: 13 out of 16 CIP projects were incorporated into budget proclamation.
10 could be implemented.
2006: all 16 CIP projects were incorporated into budget proclamation.
Detailed implementation report missing.
• Responsibilities and processes are incorporated in BPRs.
• The revenue office is responsible.
• Specific staff ToRs, i.e. letters of assignment, outline responsibilities.
1.6) The city has an up-to-date AMP. 2007 E.C.
• Responsibilities and processes are incorporated in BPRs.
• The Municipality ("Infrastructure Core Process") is responsible.
• Specific staff ToRs, i.e. letters of assignment, outline responsibilities.
infrastructure increases by 20% compared to the previous years.
3.2.1) City has recorded assets. < 50 % of assets have PINs
3.2.2) City has valued (financial) assets n.a.
3.2.4) City has disposed all non-functional All non-functional assets have been disposed.
24
Semera
budget planning).
1.2) CIP process is institutionalized (e.g. No, not fully
through the establishment of an "Urban • BPR of "Infrastructure core work process" of city service office.
Infrastructure Unit".
1.3) Projects from CIP are incorporated in the 2004: 1 CIP project was incorporated into budget proclamation. 0 could be
2005: all 3 CIP projects were incorporated into budget proclamation. 2 could
be implemented.
2006: all 6 CIP projects were incorporated into budget proclamation. Detailed
implementation report missing.
1.5) REP process is institutionalized. No, not fully
• BPR of "Revenue core process" under OFED.
• BPR of "Infrastructure core work process" of city service office.
3.1.2) At least 5 % of the city's investment
n.a.
3.1.3) Projects from AMP are incorporated in No
3.2.1) City has recorded assets. Inventory of fixed assets taken but not recorded in the appropriate ledgers
and cards.
3.2.2) City has valued (financial) assets No
3.2.4) City has disposed all non-functional No
25
Yirgalem
budget planning).
2007-2009 E.C. waiting for council approval
through the establishment of an "Urban • A steering committee is established and the Municipality Manager
Infrastructure Unit". coordinates the process.
• Specific staff ToR are prepared for focal persons in each core business
process, i.e. "Infrastructure provision and public participation core process"
and "Development plan preparation and monitoring business process".
1.3) Projects from CIP are incorporated in the 2004: all 3 CIP projects were incorporated into budget proclamation and
2005: all 6 CIP projects were incorporated into budget proclamation and
implemented.
2006: all 8 CIP projects were incorporated into budget proclamation and
implemented.
• BPR and respective staff ToRs of CA Revenue Authority.
1.6) The city has an up-to-date AMP. 2006 E.C. (2013/14)
• BPR and respective staff ToRs of "Infrastructure provision and public
participation core process".
3.1.2) At least 5% of the city's investment 2006: 1.44 %
3.2.1) City has recorded assets. In the process, but not finalized. They have formed teams and have started
asset registration.
3.2.2) City has valued (financial) assets In progress
3.2.4) City has disposed all non-functional Few are still not disposed
26
2 Participation in urban planning
Output 1-3:
All eight partner cities prove the application of institutionalized activities that enable
selected social groups (e.g. poor women and men, disabled persons, businessmen,
employees, unemployed etc.) to equally participate in urban planning and in setting
priorities for infrastructure measures.
In their CIPs the cities report on and give evidences for their participatory processes. Representatives
of a great number of different groups in the cities took part in the consultations: religious institutions
(churches and mosques), civic society organizations and NGOs, businesses, MSEs, chamber of
commerce, youth (associations), women (associations), elders representatives, urban poor, disabled
individuals and other marginalized groups, 'Idirs' and ‘Jema’ managers, influential persons, Kebele
development committee members, teachers and students.
To consolidate these reports by the cities and measure the actual impact the program surveyed in
the ELS the households’, businesses’ and CSOs’ opinions on participation:
Households:
With 64 % of the households reporting in the ELS in 2007 E.C. (2014) to have participated in city
development activities either "always", "sometimes", or "rarely" during the reference period
(12 months prior to the survey), overall participation of residents in the development of their cities is
modest, but encouragingly increasing. In 2005 E.C. it was still only a little bit more than the half
(58 %). This is an increase by 6 % in absolute terms and 11 % in relative terms. Variations in
households' ratings with respect to various aspects of public participation stay still remarkable in the
study cities. While aspects such as making financial contributions to city development, being invited
to and participating in public meetings were higher, making in-kind contributions, seeing CA’s
projects in general consistent with citizens’ priorities, and lodging grievances were lower than the
overall average of 64 % for all cities. However, it is a promising development that especially the latter
two have the highest relative increase rates with 15 % and 19 % respectively compared to the BLS.
Figure 7: Households’ participation (all respondents)
Like in 2005 E.C. rates of participation vary widely from one city to the other. But in contrast to 2012,
in 2014 (2007 E.C.) there are only two cities whose rates are below the average of 64 %: Gambella
27
and Semera. The gaps in between the six other cities have become considerably smaller. Especially
the cities of Jijiga, Assosa and Adwa could improve their participation tremendously. In 2012
(2005 E.C.), all three cities still had rates below the then average of 58 %.
Figure 8: Households' participation by city (average of 6 aspects; Figure 9: Change in households' participation (average of 6
2014; all respondents) aspects; 2012-2014; all respondents)
Businesses:
Trends and patterns of public participation among businesses are closely similar to those of the
households. For instance, overall public participation rate in 2007 E.C. – which is 64 % for households
– is 73 % for business enterprises and has increased by 7 % in absolute terms and 11 % in relative
terms compared to 66 % in 2005 E.C. Like among the households, rates of participation of businesses
for the more formal or procedural aspects such as cash contribution, invitation to and participation in
public meetings are higher than for those less procedural aspects such lodging complaints. The
participation rates among businesses are lower in Debre Markos, Jijiga, Gambella and Semera and
higher in Yirgalem, Adwa, Assosa and Nekemte. Like among the households, the four cities of
Yirgalem, Adwa, Assosa and Jijiga could increase their rates since 2012 (2005 E.C). But among the
businesses, in Gambella and Semera the rates have increased, too.
Figure 10: Businesses' participation by city (average of 6 Figure 11: Change in businesses' participation (average of 6
aspects; 2014) aspects; 2012-2014)
28
CSOs:
The average rate of participation of CSOs has increased from 56 % in 2012 to 64 % in 2014. This is an
increase by 8 % in absolute terms and 16 % in relative terms. Rates vary across cities. Rates are
higher than the average for Jijiga, Adwa, Yirgalem and Nekemte and lowest for Semera. In all cities
the rates have increased considerably except in Debre Markos, Gambella and Semera. Especially in
Assosa and Yirgalem the relative increase rates are very high with 170 and 75 % respectively.
Output 1-4:
The majority of (interviewed) citizens confirm that cities’ infrastructure investments are
in line to the priorities which were set through consultation processes.
The ELS results show that in average 61 % of household respondents (average of all cities) confirm
that the city administrations’ projects are consistent with the citizens’ priorities. In all cities except
Semera and Debre Markos this rate has increased since 2012 (2005 E.C.).
Figure 12: Households' view on projects' consistency with people's Figure 13: Changes in households' view on projects' consistency
priorities (2014; all respondents) with people's priorities (2012-2014; all respondents)
In order to assess the quality of the public meetings, the citizens who actually had participated in
meetings (70 %) were asked about the opportunity given to express views, if they provided
comments and if they see these comments in the end reflected in the respective plans. In all aspects
there’s an increase compared to 2005 E.C. 90 % of participants confirm that they had the opportunity
to express their views. Almost three quarter of who provided comments see their comments
reflected in the plans. This is an absolute increase by almost 25 % or 50 % in relative terms.
Figure 14: Households' view on quality of meetings (all respondents)
29
Output 3-3:
At least 3 innovative management models within city administrations aiming at including
poor social groups are tested and in at least 4 cities practically applied.
Beside the support to the cities’ CIP processes and participation mechanisms, the project introduced
the approach of “Community Based Monitoring” (CBM) in Yirgalem and Assosa in 2013. In 2014, this
approach was introduced to and also implemented in Debre-Markos and Nekemte. Together with
the Regional Bureaus the project organized experience-exchange visits between these cities. The
CBM approach uses community scoring cards to give feedback on the quality of cobblestone and
drainage construction and service delivery such as solid waste management in the four cities. A
manual was produced in local language and distributed to regions and cities through MUDHCo. The
experience in Ethiopia was taken up by GIZ HQ as good practice and the GIZ sector program on urban
development provided additional funding to spread the approach in Ethiopia.
In addition, the program worked with the CA of Adwa on introducing “Participatory Budgeting”,
which promotes the participation of residents including the urban poor in not only the CIP process
but in all steps of an infrastructure project, i.e. the prioritization and selection, the procurement
process, and the monitoring and evaluation. There is a strong commitment from both sides, from the
Adwa CA as well as from the regional government to further promote, institutionalize and scale-up
this mechanism.
The self-help group approach was followed-up in Adwa, Debre Markos and Nekemte. In Adwa female
household heads were organized into three self-help groups to benefit from supply of sand for
construction. Training on business development was provided to 81 attendees in collaboration with
UGDP, TVET, MSE Agency and Women’s Affairs Office and Women’s Association. The program
provided tools and equipment such as overalls, gloves, goggles, shovels and wheelbarrows.
Story:
Debre Markos: A marketing self-help group has nearly 1,700 registered small business
operators of which about 80 % are women. GIZ-UGDP has cooperated closely with the
municipality, MSE Office, Women, Youth & Children Affairs Office, TVET College and the
Amhara Credit and Saving Institute to train those small scale businesses. The project
trained them on self-help group concepts, life skills, saving, entrepreneurship, costing and
pricing, financial management and conflict resolution. Currently, this group is forming a
shared company to construct a two-story business centre building.
LUSUP Milestone:
In all eight partner cities majority of urban poor confirm that they have been invited to
public hearings on municipal spending, that they could articulate their interests & their
voice had been reflected in cities investment planning.
The ELS results show that the milestone’s targets were achieved and quite considerable
improvements compared to the Baseline (the numbers in brackets show the BLS results) are seen:
30
 71 % (63 %) of the urban poor households state that they were invited to public meetings.
 69 % (66 %) participated according to their statement.
 89 % (81 %) of the actual participants of these meetings state that they could express their views.
74 % (60 %) state that they did so. And 71 % (50 %) of participants see their suggestions
incorporated in city plans.
Figure 15: Poor and non-poor households' view on quality of meetings (2014)
Figure 16: Households' view on quality of meetings (all respondents)
31
2.2 City overview
Adwa
• Public consultation meetings for CIP are held at least annually. Participants represent all social groups.
• City has developed a plan for community participation in urban service provision in cooperation with their citizens.
Consistency with people's priorities (all respondents): 64 %
• City applies “Participatory Budgeting” and a “Self-help-group Approach”.
Invited to public meetings (‘poor’ respondents): 63 %
Could articulate their interests (‘poor’ respondents): 93 %
Voice reflected in planning (‘poor’ respondents): 86 %
Assosa
• City applies “Community Based Monitoring” and holds regular coffee ceremonies.
Debre Markos
• City applies “Community Based Monitoring” and a “Self-help-group Approach”.
Gambella
• City holds regular coffee ceremonies.
Jijiga
Nekemte
• City applies “Community Based Monitoring” and a “Self-help-group Approach”.
32
Semera
• There's no plan yet for community participation developed in cooperation with their citizens.
Yirgalem
• City applies “Community Based Monitoring”.
33
2.3 City details
Adwa
The city proves the application of institutionalized activities that enable selected social groups to equally participate
in planning instruments and in the setting of priorities of infrastructure measures.
4.1) Public consultation meetings are improving. Number of participants has increased.
4.2) Public consultation meetings for CIP are held at least Yes
annually.
4.3) Participants of public consultation meetings for CIP are Yes
representatives of all social groups. • citizens groups
• religious institutions
• civic organizations
• business organizations
• chamber of commerce
• private companies
4.4) At least 30% of participants of public consultation 40%
meetings for CIP are women.
4.5) City opened other possibilities for public participation • Participatory budgeting
(others than public hearings). It tested and applies an • Self-help group approach
innovative management model aiming at including poor
social groups. (3 models in 4 cities)
4.6) Ability of the CA to conduct participatory planning Yes
methods has increased.
The majority of (interviewed) citizens confirm that cities’ Yes
infrastructure investments are in line to the priorities Consistency with people's priorities: 64%
which were set through consultation processes (ELS ‘07)
The majority of urban poor confirm (1) that they have Invited to public meetings: 63%
been invited to public hearings on municipal spending, Could articulate their interests: 93%
(2) that they could articulate their interests, and (3) that Voice reflected in plans: 86%
their voice had been reflected in cities investment
planning (refer to ELS ‘07).
Assosa
4.1) Public consultation meetings are improving. • Number of participants has increased.
• More projects are started which corresponds to the priority
of the participants.
annually.
representatives of all social groups. • church
• mosque
• business
• youth
• women
• elders representatives
• urban poor
4.5) City opened other possibilities for public participation • Community Based Monitoring
(others than public hearings). It tested and applies an • Coffee ceremony
innovative management model aiming at including poor social
groups. (3 models in 4 cities)
34

Debre Markos
4.1) Public consultation meetings are improving. • Reasonable size of public representatives attended the
meeting
• The sector office managers were part of the meeting
• The meeting and the discussion was well documented
• Every participant had a saying in the prioritization projects
annually.
representatives of all social groups. • women associations
• youth associations
• professional associations
• marginalized groups
• 'Idirs'
• Chamber of Commerce
• influential persons
• faith groups
• Kebele development committees
• micro enterprises,
• private sector
• other community based groups
• NGOs
(others than public hearings). It tested and applies an • Self-help group
35
Gambella
annually.
representatives of all social groups. • community representative from each village
• Kebele council & development committee members
• religious leader
• ‘Idir’ leaders
• business communities
• NGOs
• elders
• teachers
• disabled individuals
• renowned persons
• youth
• women
4.4) At least 30% of participants of public consultation 30 %
4.5) City opened other possibilities for public participation • Coffee ceremony
(others than public hearings). It tested and applies an
The majority of (interviewed) citizens confirm that cities’ No
infrastructure investments are in line to the priorities Consistency with people's priorities: 31 %
The majority of urban poor confirm (1) that they have Invited to public meetings: 46 %
been invited to public hearings on municipal spending, Could articulate their interests: 95 %
(2) that they could articulate their interests, and (3) that Voice reflected in plans: 64 %
Jijiga
annually.
representatives of all social groups. • community development groups
• influential persons
• youth
• women
• women associations
• disabled people
• students
• teachers
• community elders
• ‘Idir’ leaders and ‘Jema’ managers
36
4.4) At least 30 % of participants of public consultation 40 %
4.5) City opened other possibilities for public participation No

Nekemte
4.1) Public consultation meetings are improving. Yes, there are improvements regarding participation. Starting
from the community to leaders the awareness and
recognition of CIP methodology and process is enhanced.
annually.
representatives of all social groups. • community
• private sector
• Kebele leaders
• NGOs
• youth and women associations
• religious leaders and representatives
• CBO’s like 'Idirs'
(others than public hearings). It tested and applies an • Self-help group
37
Semera
annually.
representatives of all social groups. • experts
• urban poor
• religious leaders
• different social associations
• business people
• representatives of residents in general
4.5) City opened other possibilities for public participation No
The majority of (interviewed) citizens confirm that cities’ Partly
Yirgalem
4.1) Public consultation meetings are improving. • The number of people participated is increasing. For
instance in 2005, around 235 community members
participated in CIP consultation. But in 2006 this number
increased to 312 and in 2007 around 400 community
members attended the consultation.
• Different community groups (e.g. poorest communities’
representatives) have been included in the groups for 2007
CIP consultation.
annually.
representatives of all social groups. • 'Idir' leaders
• religious leader
• CSOs
• women associations
• disabled groups
• elders
• business men
• Kebele development committees
• street children
38
4.5) City opened other possibilities for public participation Community Based Monitoring (CBM)
39
3 Financial Management
Output 2-1:
The cities own revenues’ share for the financing of local services increased by 20 %
(GASB) and 30 % (OSAT) respectively, compared to the Ethiopian fiscal year 2004.
Most of the cities can and do make increasing use of own revenues for financing local services and
their capital budget. The share tripled in Assosa and Yirgalem. In Nekemte it doubled. And in Jijiga
and Adwa it increased by 72 % and 49 % respectively.
This encouraging development is mostly attributed to high increment rates in revenue collection. In
2004 EFY, Assosa‘s own revenue was Birr 1,101,020 and in 2006 EFY Birr 5,883,420. This results in an
increment of 434 %. Debre Markos could increase its own revenue since 2004 EFY by 360 % to Birr
46,798,989 in 2006 EFY. The 2004 EFY revenue performance of Jijiga was at Birr 23,874,620 while the
2006 EFY actual revenue was at Birr 63,984,451. Therefore, the 2006 actual revenue increased by
168 % compared to 2004 revenue performance. Yirgalem’s municipal revenue increased by 60 %
from Birr 2,783,008 in 2004 EFY to Birr 4,462,481.90 in 2006 EFY. Semera’s municipal revenue
increased by 49 % since 2004 EFY to Birr 1,550,018 in EFY 2006. Nekemte, Adwa and Gambella show
increment rates of around 40 % between EFYs 2004 and 2006 to Birr 23,410,881, Birr 15,431,541 and
Birr 15,136,339 respectively.
Municipal % increase
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
revenue 2002-2006
Adwa 4,190,000 6,420,669 10,832,141 15,450,556 15,431,541 268 %
Assosa 588,000 650,000 1,101,008 3,006,056 5,883,420 900 %
Debre M. 6,980,000 6,900,000 10,196,351 11,081,200 46,798,989 570 %
Gambella 3,600,000 5,800,000 6,516,496 5,401,822 5,811,207 61 %
Jigjiga 11,285,744 17,500,000 23,874,619 51,274,870 63,984,451 467 %
Nekemte 8,975,000 14,577,000 16,137,072 17,922,290 23,410,881 160 %
Semera-Logia 47,578 70,600 1,040,106 4,786,784 1,550,018 3,157 %
Yirgalem 2,059,500 2,783,008 3,380,842 4,462,481 116 %
Output 2-2:
All partner cities annually conduct internal as well as external audits and achieve at least
the remark “qualified”.
In EFY 2005, all eight partner cities achieved the remark ‘qualified’ by the external auditors. In
EFY 2004, Adwa, Debre Markos, Jijiga and Semera still got only ‘adverse’. Most of the EFY 2006 audits
are still in the process.
40
External audit opinion for External audit opinion for General level of compliance with
City administration
2004 EFY 2005 EFY audit findings for 2005 EFY
Adwa Adverse Qualified 100 %
Assosa Audit not available Qualified ~ 75 %
Debre Markos Adverse Qualified ~ 75 %
Gambella Qualified Qualified ~ 50 %
Jijiga Adverse Qualified ~ 75 %
Nekemte Unqualified Qualified 100 %
Semera-Logia Adverse Qualified ~ 50 %
Yirgalem Qualified Qualified ~ 75 %
Output 2-3:
The majority of council members of all eight partner cities attended at least two hearings
on audit, budget, procurement and accounting between 2012 and 2014.
In all cities except Yirgalem (two hearings) councilors have attended more than two hearings
between EFYs 2005 and 2006.
Output 2-4:
Starting from 2012, all eight partner cities prove that they made relevant information on
budget, tenders and accounting accessible to the public.
All cities disclose relevant information on budget and accounting. CIPs, the annual revenue plan, the
annual budget, physical and financial performance of the budget, audit reports and measures taken
on the findings as well as quarterly council meeting minutes related to financial issues are publicly
available. Whereas five cities also inform the public on tenders, Gambella, Jijiga and Semera still lack
the disclosure of tender and bidding documents.
In order to prove the reports, the ELS surveyed the satisfaction of people with access to public-
domain information. The rates among households have increased tremendously, from 7 % in
2005 E.C. to 20 % in 2007 E.C. They have increased in all cities except Debre Markos.
Figure 17: Households' satisfaction with access to PDI (all respondents)
41
The satisfaction rates among businesses with access to public-domain information have increased
considerably, from 14 % in 2012 to 20 % in 2014. They have increased in all cities except Semera and
Yirgalem.
Figure 18: Businesses' satisfaction with access to PDI
And also the satisfaction rates among CSOs with access to public-domain information have increased
considerably, from 17 % in 2012 to 27 % in 2014. They have increased in all cities except Semera and
Debre Markos.
Figure 19: CSOs' satisfaction with access to PDI, transparency and accountability
Figure 20: Changes in households' Figure 21: Changes in businesses' Figure 22: Changes in CSOs' satisfaction
satisfaction with access to PDI (average of satisfaction with access to PDI (average of with access to PDI by city (average of 4
4 aspects; 2012-2014; all respondents) 4 aspects; 2012-2014) aspects; 2012-2014)
42
3.2 City Overview
Adwa
In 2006 EFY, the own revenue share of the city for the 49 %
financing of local services increased by 20 % (GASB)
and 30 % (OSAT) respectively, compared to 2004 EFY.
The city annually conducts internal as well as external 2004: "adverse"
audits and achieves at least the remark “qualified”. 2005: "qualified"
2006: in progress
Majority of council members of the city attended at least More than two hearings
two hearings on audit, budget, procurement and
accounting between 2005 and 2006.
The city proves that it made relevant information on • CIP;
budget, tenders and accounting accessible to the public. • Annual Budget;
• Physical and financial performance of the budget;
• Audit reports and measures taken on the findings;
• Procurement results;
• Annual revenue plan;
• Newsletter by OFED.
Own revenue share
Adwa’s own contribution to finance the capital budget was at Birr 8,298,226 in 2004 EFY and reached
Birr 12,390,060 in 2006 EFY which shows an increment of 49 %. This is due to the increase of the
revenue collected. In general, the city’s own revenue to finance the total capital budget has reached
19 % in 2006 EFY and the plan for 2007 EFY is a coverage of 23 %.
Auditing
The city administration accounts are audited both by the internal auditors of the city and the general
auditors of the Tigray region regularly. The internal audit section has produced 4 quarter reports and
submitted them to the mayor, to head of OFED and the standing committee of the city council. The
external audit is conducted twice a year i.e. interim and annual audit. Based on these, the 2005 EFY
audit opinion was “qualified” and the 2006 EFY audit is “unqualified”. This proves that a strong
financial management system as well as strong internal auditing system is in place.
Involvement of council members
Two workshops were conducted to remind the responsibilities of the city council members and city
council budgeting and finance standing committee members. As a result, the mayor regularly
submits quarterly finance and revenue performance reports. To mention only few, the seventh city
council regular meeting minutes, the eighth quarterly city council regular meeting minutes and the
city council second term meeting minutes show the involvement of the city council in financial
management issues.
Assosa
The city annually conducts internal as well as external 2004: still remaining
2006: in progress
43
The city proves that it made relevant information on • Annual budget
budget, tenders and accounting accessible to the public. • Quarterly Expenditure Summary;
• Tender Documents and Bid Result;
• Quarterly Council meeting minutes related to financial
issues;
• External audit report.
Own revenue share
If we compare the 2004 EFY capital expenditure of Birr 3,051,743 with 2006 EFY capital expenditure
Birr 9,819,565, the increment is by 222 %. When comparing the 2004 EFY own revenue performance
of Birr 1,101,021 with that of 2006 EFY with Birr 5,883,420, the revenue increment between 2004
and 2006 is 434 %. Thus, the 2004 EFY city’s own revenue contribution to capital expenditure of the
same year was 36 % (1,101,021 / 3,051,743) while for 2006 EFY it was 60 % (5,883,420 / 9,819,565).
Auditing
As a result of technical staff limitation, the Benishangul-Gumuz Regional OAG has limited itself to
audit mainly the poverty related sectors and rural woredas. However, after the program’s continuous
effort, OAG audited Assosa’s 2003 EFY and 2005 EFY accounts. In order to cover other woredas with
its limited auditors, OAG decided to skip the audit of 2004 EFY accounts. A positive development is
that OAG has agreed to routinely audit the accounts starting from 2006 EFY onwards. The city council
had wide discussions on the 2003 and 2005 EFY external audit reports and passed some important
decisions such as measures to be taken on long outstanding receivables and accounts to be
consecutively audited. In both years the city deserved “qualified” opinions. The internal audit unit
prepares regularly annual audit plans and quarterly work reports.
The majority of council members attended one hearing on the audit results of 2005 EFY, and four
hearings in 2005 and 2006 EFY on budget, accounting and procurement. The standing committee of
finance and budget attended two hearings on audit as well as four hearings on the whole budget
performance of 2005 EFY and three quarters of the 2006 EFY.
Debre Markos
2006: in progress
issues;
Own revenue share
When comparing Debre Markos city’s own revenue of 2012 with that of 2014, the increment is by
316 % (Birr 46,795,939/11,234,860). Even though the main reason is the lease income, the city is still
able to lift its own revenue by 30 % when excluding lease income. According to the data collected
44
from the Amhara BOFED, the city was able to finance 56 %, 48 % and 99 % of its 2004, 2005,
2006 EFY capital expenditure respectively.
Auditing
The internal audit unit routinely prepares annual plans and quarterly performance reports. The
external audit opinion for 2004 is “adverse”. Following the comments given, the city has corrected all
its errors and is now expecting at least a “qualified” opinion for the 2005 EFY audit. At present,
auditing is carried out on a regular basis. Proper actions on the audit findings are taken and the city
council discusses the external audit report.
Quarterly reports on financial utilization and revenue performance are presented to the quarterly
meeting of city council by the mayor. External audit reports, annual budget and three year rolling
revenue plans are routinely tabled in the council meeting. The council’s involvement in over sighting
the financial management is more than satisfactory.
Gambella
In 2006 EFY, the own revenue share of the city for the
financing of local services increased by 20 % (GASB) 0%
The city annually conducts internal as well as external 2004: "qualified"
2006: in progress
The city proves that it made relevant information on • CIP
budget, tenders and accounting accessible to the public. • Annual budget proclamation;
• Quarterly budget performance;
• Annual financial report;
• REP;
Own revenue share
Even if the revenue of Gambella city administration had increased steadily, own revenues and
regional subsidies were not sufficient to cover salaries and small recurrent expenditure of the city
administration. Therefore there was no capital budget allocated in the reporting year.
Auditing
The city administration’s 2004 and 2005 EFY accounts were audited by the regional OAG and
achieved “qualified” opinion.
Council members had 6 hearings on budget, accounting, procurement, revenue and audit between
2012 and 2014.
45
Jijiga
The city annually conducts internal as well as external 2004: adverse
2006: in progress
budget, tenders and accounting accessible to the public. • REP;
• Annual budget proclamation for capital and recurrent
budgets (Budget handbook);
• Quarter budget performance;
• Audit report.
Own revenue share
Jijiga city administration’s own contribution to the financing of capital budget has increased by 72 %
in 2006 EFY compared to 2004 EFY. 76 % of the city’s own revenue in 2006 EFY was allocated for
capital budget. This amount was effectively utilized for capital projects during the year.
Auditing
The city administration’s 2005 EFY account was audited by the regional OAG and achieved “qualified”
opinion. The 2006 EFY account is currently under audit; the exit audit conference was conducted
with the city administration officials and the final report is expected shortly. Annual internal audit
reports were produced for 2005 and 2006 EFY.
City council members attended quarterly meetings to evaluate financial and physical performances.
Budget, accounting, procurement, revenue and audit were discussed in these meetings.
Nekemte
The city annually conducts internal as well as external 2004: "unqualified"
2006: in progress
The city proves that it made relevant information on • Annual city budget including CIP;
budget, tenders and accounting accessible to the public. • Annual revenue target including REP;
• Quarterly total expenditure of salary;
• Quarterly total expenditure of operating cost;
• Quarterly total expenditure of CIP;
• Internal audit results;
• External audit results;
• Invitation to bidders and tender result.
Own revenue share
The city administration’s own contribution to the financing of capital budget has increased by 101 %,
46
as the capital budget coverage by own source revenue in 2004 EFY was at Birr 6,897,800 and has
increased in 2006 EFY to Birr 13,856,199.55.
Auditing
The Oromia OAG already considered the audit of ULGDP cities as a regular work and the West Region
Branch yearly includes the Nekemte city administration audit in its annual plan. Starting from
2003 EFY, the external audit report produced by the OAG is yearly presented to and approved by the
city administration council. Afterwards, it is publicized to the citizens. The 2004 EFY audit achieved a
“qualified” remark. The 2005 EFY is currently with the city administration council for its approval.
Three hearings took place on budget approval, expenditure report, as well as external and internal
audit reports.
Semera
financing of local services increased by 20 % (GASB) n.a.
2006: in progress
Majority of council members of the city attended at least
two hearings on audit, budget, procurement and n.a.
budget, tenders and accounting accessible to the public. • Annual budget;
• Annual financial performance;
Own revenue share
Even though the revenue of Semera-Logia showed a dramatically increase in 2005 EFY, its own
revenue was exclusively allocated to finance the 20 % matching fund for KfW funded projects. There
was no capital budget in 2006 EFY due to the authorization of not using own funds that had been
secured in a blocked account for further capital budget (around Birr 7,000,000). Therefore, one can
say its own revenue to finance upcoming projects has increased by 235 %.
Auditing
The accounts of Semera-Logia city administrations have been audited by the general auditor of the
Afar Regional State for the last two years, i.e. 2004 and 2005 EFY. The result of the audit was
“adverse” for 2004 EFY and “qualified” for 2005 EFY. The city administration first tried to comply
against the 2004 EFY audit findings but took then measures in 2006 EFY for both findings of 2004 and
2005. This shows that there is an improvement from year to year. Unlike the other Ethiopian cities,
the internal audit is accountable to the mayor. Although there was a high staff turnover, the audit
unit established annual plans and reported twice until present.
Since there is no city council established in Semera-Logia no hearings have taken place so far.
47
Yirgalem
2006: in progress
Majority of council members of the city attended at least Two hearings
Own revenue share
The city administration’s s own contribution to the financing of capital budget has increased by
206 %, as the capital budget of own source revenue in 2004 EFY was at Birr 562,267 which increased
in 2006 EFY to Birr 1,718,161.
Auditing
The external audit report of 2002-2005 EFY achieved “qualified” remarks. The internal audit unit has
been strengthened and audits the financial management of the city administration on a monthly
basis. The audit backlog of 1995-2001 EFY has been awarded to a private audit firm and it is currently
under preparation.
Two hearings took place on budget approvals.
48
3.3 City details
Adwa
5.1) City's own revenue (municipal revenue) is increasing. 2002 - 2006: + 268 %
5.2) The city has diversified its revenue sources. Yes
(new: permit for street use for weddings, tax revenue from
rental of houses)
5.3) Citizens' tax awareness has improved since 2004 (refer Yes (+26 %)
to CSS 2005 and 2007: % of households believing paying
taxes is important to improve public service delivery").
5.4) Citizens' tax literacy has improved (refer to CSS 2007: 2004: 51 %
"% of households received tax awareness raising 2006: 87 %
information").
5.5) Tax literacy trainings have been organized. 1,230 citizens have participated in 6 training rounds and tax
payers conference.
5.6) Actors involved in revenue collection (RO, RRA, OFED, Yes
BUDC, BOFED, Office of trade and transport/industry, Office
of justice, City service office, Chamber of commerce, City
Council and Mayor Office) are sensitized and clear about
tasks and responsibilities of each actor.
5.7) The city has coherent expenditure plans. Yes
The city prepares quarterly cash plans and there is no cash
shortage or excessive overage.
5.8) Cities can adequately price their services and generate Not yet; revising strucures; regional government did not
related revenues. revised the tariffs.
5.9) Training on service costing conducted. Yes
5.10) Service costing manual produced and disseminated. Yes
5.11) RO staff is trained on various tax administration issues. Yes
2006: in progress
6.1) All backlogs are cleared and accounts are closed. Yes
6.2) Internal auditing has become a routine work since 2005. Yes
6.3) Accounts of the last 3 years (2004-2006) are audited 2004: yes
externally. 2005: yes
2006: in progress
6.4) At least 1 qualified opinion is given by external auditors Yes (2005)
for 2005 or 2006.
budget, tenders and accounting accessible to the public. • Annual Budget;
• Physical and financial performance of the budget;
• Audit reports and measures taken on the findings;
• Procurement results;
• Annual revenue plan;
• Newsletter by OFED.
49
Assosa
(new: loading and unloading fees, trade signals for promotion
business)
"% of households received tax awareness raising 2006: 72 %
information").
5.5) Tax literacy trainings have been organized. 993 citizens have participated in 65 training rounds.
BUDC, BOFED, Office of trade and transport/industry, Office - Staff show significant work efficiency.
of justice, City service office, Chamber of commerce, City - Higher officials including city councilors contribute to
Council and Mayor Office) are sensitized and clear about strengthening the system.
5.7) The city has coherent expenditure plans. City does not prepare quarterly cash plans. But there is no
cash shortage or excessive overage.
5.8) Cities can adequately price their services and generate Not yet
related revenues.
The city annually conducts internal as well as external 2004: still remaining
2006: in progress
6.3) Accounts of the last 3 years (2004-2006) are audited 2004: remaining
2006: in progress
6.4) At least 1 qualified opinion is given by external auditors yes (2005)
for 2005 or 2006.
issues;
50
Debre Markos
5.3) Citizens' tax awareness has improved since 2004 (refer No (-14 %)
"% of households received tax awareness raising info"). 2006: 50 %
5.5) Tax literacy trainings have been organized. 1,223 citizens have participated in 35 training rounds.
BUDC, BOFED, Office of trade and transport/industry, Office - BoIUD and BoFED are more aware
of justice, City service office, Chamber of commerce, City - All actors including politicians are involved
5.7) The city has coherent expenditure plans. Partially
related revenues.
2006: in progress
2006: in progress
for 2005 or 2006.
issues;
Gambella
(new: e.g. 2 % house rent payment, loading and unloading
fees)
51
5.5) Tax literacy trainings have been organized. 1,180 citizens have participated in trainings.
5.7) The city has coherent expenditure plans. No
…and there is chronic cash shortage
5.8) Cities can adequately price their services and generate No…but ad-hoc assignments for officers; training provided;
related revenues. services not yet costed.
2006: in progress
2006: in progress
for 2005 or 2006.
budget, tenders and accounting accessible to the public. • Annual budget proclamation;
• Quarterly budget performance;
• REP;
Jijiga
(new: e.g. 2 % house rent payment, signals for promotion
business)
5.5) Tax literacy trainings have been organized. 137 citizens have participated trainings.
52
5.7) The city has coherent expenditure plans. Quarterly cash plans are prepared.
There's no cash shortage.
The city annually conducts internal as well as external 2004: adverse
2006: in progress
6.2) Internal auditing has become a routine work since 2005. Yes….since 2006
2006: in progress
for 2005 or 2006.
budget, tenders and accounting accessible to the public. • REP;
• Annual budget proclamation for capital and recurrent
budgets
(Budget handbook);
• Quarter budget performance;
• Audit report.
Nekemte
5.2) The city has diversified its revenue sources. yes
(new: service charge from banks during giving loan)
53
The city annually conducts internal as well as external 2004: "unqualified"
2006: in progress
2006: in progress
for 2005 or 2006.
• Internal audit results;
• External audit results;
Semera
5.1) City's own revenue (municipal revenue) is increasing. 2002 - 2006: + 3,157 %
…all are new for the city: Municipal taxes, rents, service
charges, subsidies and grants
"% of households received tax awareness raising info."). 2006: 62 %
5.5) Tax literacy trainings have been organized. More than 150 citizens have participated in trainings.
5.6) Actors involved in revenue collection (RO, RRA, OFED, Yes, but not fully
BUDC, BOFED, Office of trade and transport/industry, Office - They are aware and cooperation has started.
5.7) The city has coherent expenditure plans. Partially
related revenues.
54
2006: in progress
2006: in progress
for 2005 or 2006.
budget, tenders and accounting accessible to the public. • Annual budget;
• Annual financial performance;
Majority of council members of the city attended at least
two hearings on audit, budget, procurement and n.a.
Yirgalem
5.2) The city has diversified its revenue sources. yes
(new: service charge from market places)
related revenues.
2006: in progress
55
2006: in progress
6.4) At least 1 qualified opinion is given by external auditors
Yes (2005)
for 2005 or 2006.
Majority of council members of the city attended at least Two hearings
56
4 Poverty-oriented urban development
Output 3-1:
At least 4000 urban poor have got the technical skills and the basic equipment necessary
to take part in the implementation of labor-intensive infrastructure projects.
Output 3-2:
At least 6 partner cities started the implementation of their strategy for poverty
reduction.
LUSUP Milestone:
50 % of those benefitting from economic opportunities generated by municipal spending
state that their livelihood has improved.
Since 2012, close to 5,000 urban poor have been trained in cobblestone chiseling and paving skills,
masonry drainage construction skills, and solid waste management and urban greenery activities.
Annex 3 gives an overview. Women account for about 40 % of the trainees. This offers the trained
women, youth and other vulnerable groups a different future by getting them involved in tackling the
city’s infrastructure challenges while earning a living.
To help ensure these changes last long into the future, the project provided the urban poor with
tools, new business skills and other trainings and mentoring by the participation and livelihood
advisors on the ground. As part of strengthening the MSEs, the program trained them in attitudinal
change and life skills, savings and basic financial management and contract management.
Additionally, the program has capacitated the local partners (city officials, the city councilors, the
TVET Colleges, the Municipalities, MSE Offices, micro-finance institutions (MFIs), the Regional
Bureaus etc.) to provide the necessary support for the MSEs. In total, 241 MSEs (204 in LICS, 31 in
SWM and 6 in Urban Greenery) have been formed and most of them have been able to access
contracts not only from program-financed projects but also contracts from labor-intensive
infrastructure and service delivery projects financed by the Regional Incentive Funds (RIFs), local
universities and some private businesses. Labor-intensive construction (LIC) projects benefitting the
urban poor continue ranking among the top priorities of citizens and are being incorporated in the
plans of the cities. Annex 2 gives an overview on all the implemented projects during the overall
project period, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as well as BMZ with matching funds
by the cities, regions and federal government.
Local officials are required to comply with the existing procurement procedures while bidders need
to have proper understanding of the bidding requirements. Therefore, the project developed a
contract management training course and has trained relevant trainers (ToT) from the Regional
Bureaus, the TVET Colleges and the MSE Agencies. They in turn have trained 272 city administration
officials and MSE leaders in all partner cities in competitive bidding, the government’s procurement
procedures, and in how to deal with and comply with them. To support the knowledge management
57
in the city administrations, UGDP has produced a contract management manual and has provided
mentoring and backstopping for the cities in their contracting processes. As a result, all the partner
cities have applied local competitive bidding for their labor-intensive construction projects.
The commitment and ability of some labor-intensive construction MSEs to successfully compete have
increased tremendously over the past three years. They were able to register as Value Added Tax-
payers to participate in higher competitive bidding threshold construction works under e.g. ULGDP II
and other projects in and around their cities.
Stories:
Adwa: Ex-street boys were among the first group who attended the project’s cobblestone
training in Adwa. Almost all of the street boys trained and engaged in cobblestone have
improved their livelihood and none of them returned to street life. Teshale Berhe is one of
them who managed to save 25,000 ETB and opened a furniture shop using his savings as
seed money. Currently, he is contemplating to take credit from an MFI and to expand his
business. Other examples of MSE members who started sustainable businesses using the
seed money from the cobblestone work in Adwa include: Fisseha Gebreyesus (butchery),
Samson Tesfaye and Mewcha Abera (dairy farming), and Kibrom Tadesse (retail shop).
Yirgalem: Drainage construction MSEs in Yirgalem are another example of business

success. The MSE’s savings in Omo Micro Finance range from 2,000 to 80,000 ETB.
Individual members also have their own savings. Ms. Genet Shewarega for example has
saved 6,000 ETB from her daily wage. Similarly there are other MSE members who
managed to save from 1,000 to 6,000 ETB in separate accounts. In terms of purchasing
productive assets and resources, at least three individuals have leased land for house
construction and small farming. One of them has already started building a house. Mr.
Samuel is another member who managed to buy chickens and to start poultry in his own
home while Mr. Belay opened his own fruit and vegetable shop near the bus station. Some
others still use their improved skills in masonry work and are hired by private persons for
support at a good daily wage.
In the ELS, 31 % of 1,170 households (= 358 households), 58% of 249 businesses (= 144 businesses)
and 66% of 197 CSOs (= 130 CSOs) and stated that at least one member has benefitted from
municipal projects by getting economic opportunities.
Figure 23: Households benefitted from CA Figure 24: Businesses benefitted from CA Figure 25: CSOs benefitted from CA
projects (all respondents) projects projects
58
Out of these total 632 respondents, 81 % of the households, 94 % of businesses and 85 % of CSOs
stated that they were able to improve their livelihoods through this opportunity.
Figure 26: Households' livelihood Figure 27: Businesses' livelihood Figure 28: CSOs' livelihood improvement
improvement (all respondents) improvement
LUSUP Milestone:
In at least four partner cities urban poor organized in waste collection and recycling
groups state that the economical benefit from waste collection and recycling has
increased.
Engaging MSEs in solid waste management and urban greenery was initiated to increase both the
service delivery standards and the income of the urban poor. By the end of the program, seven out
of the eight partner cities (except Semera) are engaged in SWM activities while Adwa, Debre Markos
and Nekemte are also engaged in urban greenery activities. UGDP has supported these efforts by
raising public awareness on SWM issues incl. fee systems, by supporting the establishment of new
enterprises, formalizing existing informal service providers and providing them with equipment and
training.
The SWM trainings involve technical (including waste collection, sorting, transportation, disposal,
composting, re-cycling and reuse), life skills and savings, basic business and cash management skills,
and customer handling. In Debre Markos, the solid waste collectors were also trained in the
production of charcoal briquette from the solid waste with the aim of reducing waste transportation
to the landfill site and complementing the solid waste collectors’ income. Similarly the urban
greenery training involves technical (including species selection, seed collection, soil selection and
bed preparation, pot placing, filling and watering, transplanting and shading, planting trees,
application of chemicals and its environmental effects, etc), life and business skills. So far, a total of
636 urban poor and other vulnerable people have been engaged in SWM and urban greenery
activities.
Testimonies demonstrating how service delivery and job creation through solid waste
management is growing in the partner cities and improve the MSE members’ livelihood:
Nekemte: A member of SWM enterprise said: “As we all know most of our members were
without job and sitting idle. But now we have a lot of change in our lives. We have
59
developed a good working culture. We are able to send our children to school. Even though
we are at the beginning, we are in a better position compared to before.”
Debre Markos: A member of a SWM enterprise expressed that, “what impresses me the
most is the determination of the enterprise members to overcome all the challenges and
unfriendly responses from the people during door-to-door collection at the beginning. It
was not an easy task because the people did not consider waste collection as respectable
job. But our enterprise members including me persevered and raised their awareness both
patiently and politely. And over time, we have witnessed a significant change and
eventually people realized the importance of waste collection. At the beginning we
experienced a big challenge. But now the community has started to call us to pick the
waste from their house.”
Assosa: “Thanks to UGDP, the City Administration and Assosa University for their technical,
material and financial support to Serten Endeg (Amharic word, meaning: let’s work hard to
transform our lives) SWM enterprise. You have laid the blue print for the development of
the city. On the one hand, the enterprise members will benefit and can meet their needs,
they can send their children to school, and they can get medical treatment using the
income they are earning. On the other hand, Assosa is getting cleaner and more beautiful
than it used to be.”
Additionally the program has developed national solid waste management and urban greenery
standards. The pro-poor approach is anchored in the standards and MUDHCo is spreading the
standards through capacity building and trainings in many cities.
60
4.2 City overview and details
Adwa
50 % of those benefitting from economic opportunities Households: 93 %
generated by municipal spending state that their Businesses: 100 %
livelihood has improved (refer to CSS 2007). CSOs: 87 %
Urban poor organized in waste collection and recycling Yes
groups state that the economical benefit from waste
A considerable number urban poor (4000 in total) have 1,317
got the technical skills and the basic equipment
necessary to take part in the implementation of labor-
intensive infrastructure projects.
City started the implementation of its strategy for poverty Yes
reduction. - Coop. mechanisms between CA, TVET and MSE Office
are in place
- City invests in LIC projects
9.1) Cooperation mechanism between CA and TVET is in Yes
place for LICS.
9.2) City invests in LIC projects. Yes
9.3) Cooperation between MSE Office and TVET is in place. Yes
9.4) Poverty and Livelihood Analysis (PLA) is conducted. Yes
9.5) Assessment on local stakeholders is conducted. Yes
Assosa
A considerable number urban poor (4000 in total) have 582
are in place
place for LICS.
Debre Markos
61
are in place
place for LICS.
Gambella
reduction. - Coop. mechanisms between CA and TVET are in place
- Coop. with MSE Office is to be installed / improved
place for LICS.
9.3) Cooperation between MSE Office and TVET is in place. Partly
Jijiga
50 % of those benefitting from economic opportunities Households: missing
62
are in place
place for LICS.
Nekemte
A considerable number urban poor (4000 in total) have 1,013
are in place
place for LICS.
Semera
livelihood has improved (refer to CSS 2007). CSOs: n.a.
Urban poor organized in waste collection and recycling Not yet
reduction. - Coop. mechanisms between CA and TVET are in place
- Coop. with MSE Office is to be installed / improved
place for LICS.
63
9.3) Cooperation between MSE Office and TVET is in place. Partly
Yirgalem
are in place
place for LICS.
64
5 Knowledge management and scaling-up
Outcome 3:
At least eight non-partner cities apply selected core processes of local self-administration
with institutional technical support by the regional bureaus (participatory urban
development and investment planning, plans on increase of income and the management
of urban fixed assets).
All ten interviewed non-partner cities in Amhara, Oromia, SNNP and Tigray Regional States report
having prepared Capital Investment -, Revenue Enhancement – and Asset Management Plans. They
also all report having been supported by their respective Regional Bureaus: “Previously the support
by the regional bureau was focusing on the four ULGDP cities, but nowadays we other cities are
receiving support, too” (Representative from a non-partner city in Tigray).
The support given was mostly through training and refresher training in CIP, REP and AMP
(8 mentions each), through review of plans and constructive feedback by the Bureaus (4 mentions
each for the different plans), through monitoring and follow-up (3 mentions each for the different
plans) but also through “communicating the experiences of other cities and presenting ‘leading plans’
during regional meetings and the necessary manuals and documents from the regional bureau”. All
interviewees agree that the support has improved over time, and as one representative states,
“enhanced [the cities’] implementation effectiveness and efficiency”. The support has improved in the
areas of monitoring and evaluation, capacity building, technical issues as well as funding (2 mentions
each). Four of the cities are ‘very satisfied’ with the support and the other six are ‘rather satisfied’.
Some testimonies demonstrating how non-partner cities see the technical support by the
Regional Bureaus and the city’s application of core processes of local self-administration:
Non-partner city representative from Amhara Regional State: “We are now conducting
continuous community participation.”
Non-partner city representative from Amhara Regional State: “[The support from the
regional bureaus has improved over time] in aspects of planning, monitoring and
evaluation of plans and capacity building that enhanced our implementation effectiveness
and efficiency.”
Non-partner city representative from Amhara Regional State: “Capacity building training
for experts and support mechanisms conducted were very supportive and because of that
the administration had the capacity to prepare different plans for service delivery.”
Non-partner city representative from Oromia Regional State: “Plans’ quality and
implementation are enhanced in the CA. There is a wide problem of drainage system.
However, the continuous support from the region has enabled us to solve the problem.”
Non-partner city representative from SNNP Regional State: “In different times, money
and capacity building was provided. Especially in our city, big changes are observed on job
creation and road construction.”
Non-partner city representative from SNNP Regional State: “Before within the city there
was a lot unemployed youth. But after the introduction of CS works, the youth could
65
engage in the sector and now started to save money, even opened small jobs and a few
bought motorbikes and started their own business.”
Non-partner city representative from SNNP Regional State: “[Support from the Bureau] is
good. Leading plans were given. Trainings on CIP, REP and AMP were provided. Different
documents for plan preparation were provided.”
Non-partner city representative from Tigray Regional State: “The revenue office of the city
is responsible for the preparation and implementation of the REP. Trainings were given by
the region: how to prepare the budget for own revenue and resource mobilization were the
focus areas. We shared other city’s experience.”
Non-partner city representative from Tigray Regional State: “Trainings were given to
capacitate the staff, and experiences of other cities were communicated in regional
meetings. We received the necessary manuals and documents from the regional bureau to
prepare different plans.”
Having said all that, there are still areas the non-partner cities demand more support for from the
Bureaus: the quantity of refresher trainings and the quality of these are to be improved (7 mentions)
and further financial support is demanded (3 mentions). In addition, more accompaniment in
different technical and engineering issues such as drainage and cobblestone work and solid waste
management is mentioned.
Outcome 4:
All former and current UGDP partner cities (26 (23 without Addis Abeba, Dire Dawa and
Harar) plus at least eight non-partner cities state, that due to the utilization of offers in
the area of knowledge management (experience sharing through the ECA, support from
the bureaus, trainings provided by ECSU) their capacities for better service delivery has
increased.
All 33 interviewed former and current partner cities and non-partner cities report having received
support by the Regional Bureaus and substantiate this with examples. 31 (all 23 partner cities and
eight non-partner cities) out of 33 interviewed cities state that their capacities for better service
delivery has increased due to the support by the Regional Bureaus.
The support given was mostly through training and refresher training in various aspects
(24 mentions), the review of plans and constructive feedback by the Bureaus (23 mentions), through
documents, manuals, guidelines and standards (17 mentions) and through a continuous supportive
monitoring in implementation issues (15 mentions). Five cities in Oromia Regional State for example
that “(quarterly) monitoring, follow up, supervision, feedback and evaluation of plan versus
achievement” was helpful. The support in aligning city plans with the regional GTP targets is also seen
as important (seven mentions). Seven cities see also enough technical support through the Bureaus
given – partly on request – and state that “problems faced in implementation [of projects] were
tackled and solutions were provided.” In less numbers the support given in community awareness
creation and in how sectors and the citizens should participate in the approval phase of plans was
mentioned (four times) as well as exposure visits to other cities, experience and best-practice
66
sharing (three mentions). Though it’s not a mean of knowledge management, financial support by
the Bureaus for project implementation was reported by one third of the interviewed cities.
In terms of direct impact on the cities’ capacity the increase of the CAs’ revenue (eleven mentions)
and the improvements of the plans’ quality and realistic approaches (eight mentions) are mentioned
most frequently. Seven cities see as improvements the “enhanced capacity with regard to human
resources for implementation of the plans” and “enhanced capacity and awareness of leaders and
experts”. Other cities for example state that “capacity building trainings [showed] how to use money
wisely.”
In terms of indirect impact, i.e. in terms of improvement of the cities’ service delivery itself, eleven
cities report improvements in public participation. Also eleven cities mention improvements in their
development works specifying drainages, roads and bridges, and five cities see the quality of projects
in general being improved. Especially in the SNNP Regional State, interviewed cities also see the
introduction of means for job creation as a big success.
Some testimonies by city representatives demonstrating how the cities’ capacity for
better service delivery has increased and the service delivery itself has improved:
Amhara Regional State: “The support we got every quarter of the year supported us in
advancing the plan implementation. The city funds raised by 10-% in revenues. And in
addition there were other development works done on different cities like water
infrastructure in a very remote Kebele.”
Oromia Regional State: “As a result of the knowledge transfer the city’s plan and its
implementation was enhanced and quality of projects have improved.”
Oromia Regional State: “Refresher training was delivered on CIP manual. This has helped
the CA to solve the problem of low staff awareness as a result of high turnover.”
SNNP Regional State: “Capacity Building on implementation was provided. Development
works and job creation are being introduced.”
Tigray Regional State: “The capacity of planning has increased and our implementation
capacity has shown a change. Our plan and performance are almost the same. Revenue of
the city is increasing year to year. Infrastructure services are increasing year to year. The
participation of the citizens in the planning process and implementation period is improving
year to year and hence the citizens’ satisfaction is improved from year to year.”
Output 4-1:
Starting 2012, twelve out of 26 current and former partner cities in the main regions
(“OSAT”) confirm increasing satisfaction with the technical support provided by the
regional bureaus on investment planning, management of fixed assets and revenue
enhancement plans.
Out of the 33 interviewed cities, 17 are ‘very satisfied’, 15 are ‘rather satisfied’ and only one is ‘rather
dissatisfied’ with the support by the Regional Bureaus. 32 cities state that the support has improved
in the past years.
67
The support given was mostly through training and refresher training in CIP, REP and AMP (16 to
17 mentions each), through review of plans and constructive feedback by the Bureaus (ten to five
mentions each of the different plans), and through monitoring and follow-up (three to four mentions
each of the different plans). The provision of documents, manuals, guidelines and standards were
mentioned less frequently in regard to the specific plans (one to three mentions each of the different
plans) than in regard to support from the bureaus in general (see above: 17 mentions). Exposure
visits and sharing of other cities’ experiences are additional mechanisms appreciated and seen as
helpful by the cities as is a personal, direct support when Bureaus “send experts to the city to give
technical support.” However, these approaches are reported less frequently by the cities.
Some testimonies by city representatives demonstrating how the cities’ satisfaction with
the technical support provided by the Regional Bureaus has increased:
Amhara Regional State: “Every quarter of the year a technical team is sent to give support
and progress assessment and support was given by conducting city by city computation
and ranking.”
Amhara Regional State: “We got a major input in the preparation of the city plan.”
Oromia Regional State: “More reasonable attention was given by the Bureau than before.”
Oromia Regional State: “When we had lack of experts we received support.”
Tigray Regional State: “We received an adequate training with a very interesting training
manual and we were satisfied by the training given. And we also receive standards of some
works to be included and guidelines for participation of the citizens during the
preparation.”
Tigray Regional State: “There was a continuous training during the past years to our office
and to the Revenue Office which is responsible for the planning and implementation of the
REP. The region has made it clear that the revenue office is responsible for the REP. We
have been supported from identifying the different sources to the analysis of the revenue.”
Tigray Regional State: “Before the approval of the CIP, the region takes the responsibility to
comment and give a timely correction. Experts are coming to the city and give on-the-job
training and support in adjusting the plan before it is approved by the city council. And they
also forced us to adhere to the timetable of approval.”
Having said all that, there are still areas the cities demand more support for from the Bureaus: more
refresher trainings because of the high staff-turnover (twelve and eleven mentions each of the
different plans), more experience and best-practice sharing (six to eleven mentions) and “continuous
supportive supervision” (five to seven mentions). Though cities report on personal, direct support by
the Bureaus, especially in the area of asset management more help in technical and engineering
issues are asked for (6 mentions) and for “being present in person, checking the results of the training
and the trained experts and providing information.” Specifically to REP some cities miss the update of
tariffs.
68
Output 4-2:
60 % of technical staff members within city administrations, who participated in short-
term trainings provided by ECSU and 60 % of graduates of the ECSU master program
confirm the special benefit of the trainings for their day-to-day business as well as the
relevance of the training contents for their current field of deployment.
72 % of the respondents identified the contents of the CIP and REP E-learning training courses as
either extremely relevant (17 % or very relevant 55 %). 24 % rated the contents as somewhat
relevant, and only 4 % as slightly relevant. Nobody identified the contents as not at all relevant. It can
be concluded that the contents of the training have been very relevant for the daily work of the
participants.
The program provided support to the ECSU through the Centre for International Migration (CIM) with
two integrated experts who supported the organizational development of the university and offered
training and capacity building to teaching staff. The support aimed at modernizing the ECSU’s
teaching program in order to provide state-of-the-art education to future administration staff.
By creating this in-country capacity to train urban management professionals – with both pre-service
and in-service offerings – the program has made an important contribution to the long-term,
sustainable development of a skilled cadre of urban development professionals in Ethiopia.
Capacity Building for Modern Curricula
One integrated CIM-expert supported the ECSU in reviewing the curricula for the Master and
Bachelor programs. Seventeen Master programs and eight bachelor programs have been
modularized in accordance with the Bologna process. The ECSU education programs are now
internationally compatible with a strong emphasis on solution orientation and tuned to the needs
and requirements of the clients. In addition, a Didactic Design Handbook has been developed with
training portfolios and numerous resources for teaching staff. The ESCU modules now include
modern didactic design, with learning materials as integral part of it and they are regarded as good
practice among Ethiopian universities.
As a result of the close cooperation between the university and UGDP, the integrated expert
coordinated and facilitated the mainstreaming of UGDP tools and approaches in appropriate ECSU
modules. Several UGDP reform approaches, manuals and products were brought up to ECSU’s
didactic standards by the ECSU curricula teams and subsequently integrated into the teaching
modules. The UGDP experience in regions and cities is now enriching ECSU educational programs.
Other UGDP material is still under consideration to be included in various ECSU modules.
Short-term Courses and E-learning Development

The implementation of short-term courses and e-learning was an important step to make education
materials, including those developed through UGDP, broadly available to municipal civil servants all
across Ethiopia. Especially for those government employees that cannot take two years away from
their duties to study at the ECSU in Addis Ababa, the e-learning courses offer civil servants the
opportunity to learn new skills while remaining in their home city and continuing to perform their
professional duties.
69
With German support through UGDP and an integrated CIM-expert the university developed a state-
of-the art short-term teaching approach, an e-learning strategy, and an implementation concept for
a comprehensive suite of e-learning services that civil servants can engage with according to their
own schedules.
The ECSU management identified e-learning as an important approach to improve education for the
civil servants for achieving the following priorities: (a) accessibility, (b) scalability, (c) manageability,
(d) transparency, and (e) quality. For the implementation of e-learning, the ECSU developed a
strategic plan that included the following milestones:
 All module materials are available online through an e-learning system and all ECSU students have
access to these resources
 Important common modules are delivered through an innovative techniques using video-lectures
to all master students (500 - 700 students per semester)
 A number of e-learning-based trainings for government employees are piloted
 Advanced e-learning systems are put in place and new e-learning modules are developed
 E-learning policy documents are developed
 Trainings on e-learning for teachers are conducted every year
 A competence centre is established and equipped for e-learning with human resources, work
stations, cameras, and servers
In 2012, two e-learning-based trainings in the areas of Capital Investment Planning (CIP) and Revenue
Enhancement Planning (REP) were developed in cooperation with UGDP. From 2012 to 2014, the
trainings were implemented and rolled out as pilots in the eight UGDP partner cities. Altogether,
245 certificates were issued for the participants of the training, 121 for REP and 124 for CIP. The
training is now available as a standing offer by the ECSU for all interested organizations and can be
booked on an as-needed basis. The ECSU is also making the training available as a certified self-study
course for any interested individual.
Output 4-3:
The ECA established its administrative structure with local (Ethiopian) experts and
submitted a cost-covering budget plan for 2015.
Output 4-4:
The mayors of all 28 ECA member cities confirm, that they applied at least two “best
practices“ in their local context which were disseminated by the ECA.
ECA was officially registered in 2011. In 2012 the posts of the Director and Accountant were filled. In
2013 three more posts were created and filled for administration, knowledge management and
communication. All posts are financed from own resources, i.e. from the member cities’ fees.
End of 2013 and end of 2014, ECA organized surveys among the member cities in order to evaluate
the relevance of the ECA products, mainly experience exchanges, and the use of the best practices
shared. From the 28 member cities, 19 mayors and city managers took part in the survey. 80 %
70
confirmed that they introduced at least two best practices and approaches in their local context.
These are, above all, new procurement processes with competitive bidding among local MSEs for
cobblestone construction and improved environmental standards for quarry site management. The
revenue has enhanced in all cities through more efficient and effective municipal tax and fee
management. Seven cities state that their solid waste management has improved through
outsourcing and public-private partnerships. Additional successful approaches are implemented in
urban greenery, participation in infrastructure development and poverty reduction.
Output 3-4:
MUDHCo publishes municipal standards and performance measurement results in 2013
und 2014, with special regard to pro-poor urban development.
Standards for Solid Waste Management (SWM) and Urban Green Infrastructure (UGI) were
developed including pro-poor/job-creation recommendations. In addition, an extensive mapping
exercise on the existing performance measurement systems was conducted. There are nine different
systems in place, run by different departments/authorities and for different purposes. In workshops
it was agreed to work towards harmonizing the various systems and adopting a more pro-poor
orientation including a demand-side perspective. The program’s baseline and endline surveys on
citizens’ satisfaction were much appreciated. The baseline has already been published and the
endline results will probably be as well.
In addition, MUDHCo also further developed the Municipal Service Standardization and Performance
Measurement System (MSSPMS) with guidelines, procedure manuals and standards for five
municipal services (Solid Waste Management and Liquid Waste Management, Land Management,
Building Permits, and Street Lighting). The program handed over recommendations for more pro-
poor indicators for the pilot services and other recommendations.
Milestone:
Research, document, create model and disseminate best practices derived from IF and
project implementation through MUDHCo, ECA and ECSU.
Through 4 experience exchange workshops organized by ECA, best practices in “Community

participation in local infrastructure development”, “Employment creation and the role of TVETs in
MSE Development”, “Urban greenery” and “Local development planning” were shared among
member cities. Job creation and MSE development approaches were of high interest by all
participants.
The project also further supported the inter-regional experience sharing visits facilitated through the
Regional Bureaus. In 2013, the areas of pro-poor planning and coordination between TVET colleges,
municipality, MSE office and MFIs for skill-development and MSE development were covered. This
year, the cities of Nekemte and Debre-Markos visited Assosa and Yirgalem respectively to learn
about the Community-Based Monitoring approach. The city of Semera and the Afar Regional Bureau
visited Mekelle City Administration in Tigray to get an insight into their pro-poor urban development
strategies. These experience exchange visits are one of the most successful knowledge management
71
tools. They are highly appreciated and effective. This was shown in a survey done by the project
among 30 partner and non-partner cities on their satisfaction with regional support mechanisms.
The Ethiopian Civil Service University (ECSU) incorporated in its new Bachelor and Master curricula
modules the project’s Poverty and Livelihood Analyses (PLAs) from the eight partner cities as case
studies for an improved pro-poor focused urban management approach. The CIP manual with its
participation tools was included, too.
At the 7th World Urban Forum in Medellin, Colombia, in April 2014, Ethiopia, represented by the
Minister (MUDHCo), received the “UN-Habitat Scroll of Honor Award” for its “Cobblestone – Youth
Job Creation Initiative”. UN-Habitat honored how Ethiopia targets with this approach “unemployed
women and youth, disabled people, TVET graduates and other vulnerable citizens, [and how] the
market oriented focus of cobblestone emphasizes on MSE’s creation, provides opportunities for
entrepreneurs and [also enables workers] to transfer to other sectors and/or other small and medium
businesses“ (MUDHCo Scroll of Honor Award 2014 Proposal).
263 proposals for the IF have been submitted from which 40 applicants were invited to present their
projects to the jury. 10 winning projects have been selected. The winning projects consisted of start-
up businesses a.o. in the recycling sector and small businesses producing technical innovations that
could be used by MSEs to create their own business: e.g. pedal powered washing machine, weaving
machine, rocket stove or improved Injera baking plates.
Even though the set-up of the IF was much slower than expected and only one round of competition
could be realized, the response to the call for ideas (with more than 260 applicants) has been
overwhelming. The original expectations had been to generate innovative ideas for urban pro-poor
infrastructure projects. However, during the preparation of the first round, the focus was laid on
improved living conditions and economic opportunities for urban poor through the support for local
MSEs. Accordingly, the award originally foreseen to implement one bigger innovative infrastructure
project per round has been reduced to 10 smaller awards for this pilot competition. Thus the first
round of the IF competition attained a high participation of innovative entrepreneurs and local MSEs.
The winning proposals aim at creating new business opportunities for MSEs and provide solutions to
some of the pressing urban waste management issues.
Beyond the support to the scaling-up of 10 specific innovative businesses, according to participants,
the IF has created an important new platform for knowledge transfer and connecting people and
even served as a model for similar United Nations Development Program (UNDP) competitions.
72
Recommendations
General
Staff turn-over
Documentation and handing-over practices should be further improved to cope better with the
frequent staff and officials turn-over.
Asset management
In most of the cities asset management is very weak. Be it the financial or infrastructural assets, they
are not properly recorded, identified and numbered. It is very important for the cities to know what
types of assets they own and what their value is. The higher management of city administrations
should give attention to recording, valuating, and reporting of assets. Equal attention should be given
to disposing the malfunctioning or ideal assets.
Records management and data base
Almost in all cities, there are no clearly defined procedures for safeguarding the records (land, tax,
accounting, etc.) from fire, water, other environmental risks, theft and from unauthorized access.
The back-up procedures particularly with respect to computerized records is inadequate. The need of
adequate resources and strong control system in records management i.e. training, equipment,
system, storage facilities are out of question.
Outsourcing
In all the cities, outsourcing seems to be the future mechanism in managing some of the services. In
fact, some cities have outsourced parking, cattle marketing, garbage collection etc, to the youth who
are organized in MSEs. The issue of outsourcing whether limited to management contract or
complete privatization needs to be streamlined and defined. It also needs to consider the safety
measures to prevent undesirable social consequences.
Unification
Knowingly and unknowingly, some people are trying to disintegrate the treasury pool by which cash,
budget, payments, procurement and asset management are processed by OFED on behalf of all
sector offices. BOFED and cities should safe guard the unification. Otherwise, cities will have
difficulties in managing their resources and produce finance reports on time.
Municipality Revenue strategy

Urban local governments derive their revenues from two principal sources, namely funds transferred
to them from a higher level of government, and funds collected and retained in the locality itself. It is
typical that the own revenues are a small (or very small) portion of a local government’s total
revenue. This can be due to a variety of factors, including: restrictions imposed from higher levels of
government on the types of revenue sources available to the local government and the rates that can
be charged; a history or culture of dependency in the relationship of local government to higher
levels; local politics that oppose local revenue collection; poor revenue collection technology or
effort at the local level; and corruption. Whatever the combination of causes is, the result is that
73
local government is usually over dependent on transfer payments and less able to exercise
decentralized leadership for development. The very solution to the above challenges is to have a
national municipality revenue strategy whereby current problems facing cities are deeply analyzed
and remedial policies, legal frameworks, implementation techniques and the like are applied.
Establishing municipal services cost accounting system
Another key issue is the lack of adequate cost accounting. Current charges and fees of municipal
services are not set systematically to recover their expenses. Charges and fees are not reflecting the
market value or the exact cost of providing the service. In this context, it is essential to set a clear
policy whether and to what extent citizens should carry the cost or whether it will be fully subsidized.
Borrowing
The financial proclamations and regulations, already passed, allow all the cities to borrow short and
long term funding from domestic and external sources, subject to authorization from their regional
governments and the inter-governmental finance boards. Until present, borrowing is not among the
sources of finance of cities. Neither cities nor BOFED or BOIUD have given attention to cities to
borrow. On top of this, cities at their current position are not credit worthy. Only Debre Markos as a
pilot was given 25 million ETB to establish road construction enterprises four years ago, the regional
government being collateral. Thus, attention should be given to borrowing by the regional
governments, as cities at present could not attract large investment due to lack of infrastructure.
Participatory budgeting
Participatory budgeting is a process in which city residents decide how to allocate part of the public
budget. Participatory budgeting gives citizens the opportunity to identify, discuss, and prioritize
public projects, and gives them power to make real decisions about how money is spent. When
participatory budgeting is taken seriously and is based on mutual trust, city government and citizen
can benefit equally. Therefore, cities should strive to implement participatory budgeting in the very
near future in order to mobilize big amounts of fund from the community and utilize its resources
effectively and efficiently.
City specific
Adwa
In labor-intensive construction:
 better balance the objectives of “creating seed money” and “ensuring quality construction”;
 better balance the focuses on university graduates and on the poor and marginalized groups.
Assosa
 Make the CIP process more realistic to ensure that prioritized projects can eventually be
incorporated into the annual budget and be implemented.
 Follow up on (financial) asset valuation.
 Enhance support from the Regional Revenue Agency to the City’s Revenue Office.
 Enhance budget subsidies from the Regional Government.
74
Debre Markos
 Improve the citizens’ tax awareness.
Gambella
 Institutionalize the CIP process. Clearly define responsibilities.
 Institutionalize the AMP process. Clearly define responsibilities.
 Improve the participation and consultation processes with the public.
 Improve transparency and make adequate information accessible to the public.
 Tackle the recurrent budget constraints.
Jijiga
 Extend the labor-intensive cobblestone road construction approach.
Nekemte
Semera
 Follow up on forming city council.
 Institutionalize the CIP, REP and AMP process. Clearly define responsibilities.
 Improve transparency and make adequate information accessible to the public.
 Extend the labor-intensive cobblestone road construction approach.
Yirgalem
75
Annexes
76
1 City Reform Profile (CRP) overview
Indicators Adwa Assosa D. Markos Gambella Jijiga Nekemte Semera Yirgalem
1a The city proves the coherent application of urban planning procedures (infrastructure planning,
++ ++ ++ + ++ ++ + ++
budget planning).
1.0) Budget proclamation which includes CIP projects is prepared. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
1.1) The city has an up-to-date CIP. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
1.2) CIP process is institutionalized (e.g. through establishment of an "Urban Infrastructure Unit". ++ ++ ++ + ++ ++ + ++
1.3) Projects from CIP are incorporated in the current budget proclamation. ++ + + + + ++ + ++
1.4) The city has an up-to-date REP. ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
1.5) REP process is institutionalized. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + ++
1.6) The city has an up-to-date AMP. + + ++ ++ ++ + ++ +
1.7) AMP process is institutionalized. ++ + ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++
1.8) Project mgmt. capacities of CA have enhanced by training and experience exchange visits. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
2 The city spends 65% of investment budget for 2012/13 (2005 EFY) and 80% of their investment
++ ++ ++ n.a. + + + ++
budget for 2013/2014 (2006 EFY) as planned.
3 In the city's budget for 2012/13 (2005 EFY) and 2013/14 (2006 EFY) the share for operation and
++ n.a. ++ n.a. ++ n.a. n.a. n.a.
maintenance cost for infrastructure increases by 20% compared to the previous years.
3.1.1) The share for operation and maintenance cost for infrastructure has increased. ++ n.a. ++ n.a. ++ n.a. n.a. n.a.
3.1.2) At least 5% of the city's investment budget is allocated for maintenance. + n.a. ++ n.a. ++ ++ n.a. 0
3.1.3) Projects from AMP are incorporated in the current budget proclamation. ++ + ++ + ++ ++ 0 ++
3.2.1) City has recorded assets. ++ + ++ + + 0 + +
3.2.2) City has valued (financial) assets ++ + + + 0 n.a. 0 +
3.2.3) City has produced asset report annexed to the financial report. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.2.4) City has disposed all non-functional and non-maintainable assets. ++ + ++ 0 0 ++ 0 +
3.2.5) Fixed assets valuation training was given. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
3.2.6) Fixed asset valuation guidelines are produced and disseminated. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
4a The majority of (interviewed) citizens confirm that cities’ infrastructure investments are in line to
++ ++ ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++
the priorities which were set through consultation processes (refer to CSS 2007).
4b The majority of urban poor confirm (1) that they have been invited to public hearings on
municipal spending, (2) that they could articulate their interests, and (3) that their voice had been ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
reflected in cities investment planning (refer to CSS 2007).
4c The city proves the application of institutionalized activities that enable selected social groups to
++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + ++
equally participate in planning instruments and in setting of priorities of infrastructure measures.
4.1) Public consultation meetings are improving. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
4.2) Public consultation meetings for CIP are held at least annually. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
4.3) Participants of public consultation meetings for CIP are representatives of all social groups. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
4.4) At least 30% of participants of public consultation meetings for CIP are women. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
4.5) City opened other possibilities for public participation (others than public hearings). It tested and
++ ++ ++ + 0 ++ 0 ++
applies an innovative management model aiming at including poor social groups.
4.6) Ability of the CA to conduct participatory planning methods has increased. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
77
Indicators Adwa Assosa D. Markos Gambella Jijiga Nekemte Semera Yirgalem
5 Till 2006, the own revenue share of the city for the financing of local services has increased by
++ ++ ++ 0 ++ ++ n.a. ++
20% (GASB) and 30% (OSAT) respectively, compared to 2004.
5.1) City's own revenue (municipal revenue) is increasing. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
5.2) The city has diversified its revenue sources. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
5.3) Citizens' tax awareness has improved since 2004 (refer to BLS 2005 and ELS 2007) ++ ++ 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
5.4) Citizens' tax literacy has improved (refer to ELS 2007). ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
5.5) Tax literacy trainings have been organized. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
5.6) Actors involved in revenue collection (RO, RRA, OFED, BUDC, BOFED, Office of trade and
transport/industry, Office of justice, City service office, Chamber of commerce, City Council and Mayor ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + ++
Office) are sensitized and clear about tasks and responsibilities of each actor.
5.7) The city has coherent expenditure plans. ++ + + 0 ++ ++ + ++
5.8) Cities can adequately price their services and generate related revenues. 0 0 0 + + + 0 0
5.9) Training on service costing conducted. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
5.10) Service costing manual produced and disseminated. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
5.11) RO staff is trained on various tax administration issues. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
6 The city annually conducts internal as well as external audits and achieves at least the remark
++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
“qualified”.
6.1) All backlogs are cleared and accounts are closed. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
6.2) Internal auditing has become a routine work since 2005. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
6.3) Accounts of the last 3 years (2004-2006) are audited externally. ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
6.4) At least 1 qualified opinion is given by external auditors for 2005 or 2006. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
7 The city proves that it made relevant information on budget, tenders and accounting accessible
++ ++ ++ + + ++ + ++
to the public.
8 Majority of council members of the city attended at least two hearings on audit, budget,
++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ n.a. ++
procurement and accounting between 2005 and 2006.
9a 50% of those benefitting from economic opportunities generated by municipal spending state
++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
that their livelihood has improved (refer to CSS 2007).
9b Urban poor organized in waste collection and recycling groups state that the economical benefit
++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ n.a. ++
from waste collection and recycling has increased.
9c At least 4000 urban poor (in total) have got the technical skills and the basic equipment
++ ++ ++ ++ + ++ + ++
necessary to take part in the implementation of labor-intensive infrastructure projects.
9d City started the implementation of its strategy for poverty reduction. ++ ++ ++ + ++ ++ + ++
9.1) Cooperation mechanism between CA and TVET is in place for LICS. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
9.2) City invests in LIC projects. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
9.3) Cooperation between MSE Office and TVET is in place. ++ ++ ++ + ++ ++ + ++
9.4) Poverty and Livelihood Analysis (PLA) is conducted. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
9.5) Assessment on local stakeholders is conducted. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
10 City applies local competitive bidding for labor intensive construction projects. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + ++
11 Baseline and Endline Survey on the citizens' satisfaction have been conducted ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
Legend: (+ +) = achieved / (+) = partly achieved / (0) = not yet achieved
78
2 UGDP Infrastructure projects and their benefits
Adwa Yirgalem Debre Markos Nekemte Jijiga Semera Gambella Assosa
BMZ Projects Drainage CS roads SWM site Market centre Drainage SWM site CS roads Drainage
(2012 & 2013 incl. drainage incl. CS road (Change of project after incl. CS road incl. drainage
/ 1st Round) feasibility study) (Change of project after
feasibility study)
Benefits for  75 % contracted to  All surfaces  Access road  Construction partly  Masonry construction  Access road  All surfaces  Masonry construction
the urban local MSEs subcontracted to subcontracted to subcontracted to local subcontracted to local subcontracted to subcontracted to subcontracted to local
poor  Protection from local MSEs local MSEs MSEs MSEs local MSEs local MSEs MSEs
flooding  Access to all-  Healthier  Access to better  Protection from  Healthier  Access to all-  Protection from
weather roads environment for all market premise and flooding environment for weather roads flooding
 Protection from citizens opportunities citizens  Protection from
flooding flooding
BMGF Market shades Drainage CS roads Market shades CS roads CS roads CS roads CS roads
Projects
(2012 & 2013
/ 1st Round)
Benefits for  Contract to local  Construction  All surfaces  Contract to local MSEs  All surfaces  All surfaces  All surfaces  All surfaces
the urban MSEs contract to local subcontracted to  Access to better subcontracted to local subcontracted to subcontracted to subcontracted to local
poor  Access to better MSEs local MSEs market opportunities MSEs local MSEs local MSEs MSEs
market opportunities  Protection from  Access to all-  Access to all-weather  Access to all-  Access to all-  Access to all-weather
flooding weather roads roads weather roads weather roads roads
 Protection from  Protection from  Protection from  Protection from  Protection from
flooding flooding flooding flooding flooding
BMZ Projects CS roads CS roads SWM machineries CS roads Drainage SWM machineries CS roads, incl. Drainage
(2013 & 2014 incl. drainage incl. drainage incl. drainage drainage
/ 2nd Round)
Benefits for  All surfaces  All surfaces  Access to waste  All surfaces  Masonry construction  Access to waste  All surfaces  Masonry construction
the urban subcontracted to subcontracted to collection service subcontracted to local subcontracted to local collection service subcontracted to subcontracted to local
poor local MSEs local MSEs  Job creation in MSEs MSEs  Job creation in local MSEs MSEs
 Access to all-  Access to all- waste collection  Access to all-weather  Protection from waste collection  Access to all-  Protection from
weather roads weather roads service roads flooding service weather roads flooding
 Protection from  Protection from  Healthier  Protection from  Healthier  Protection from
flooding flooding environment for flooding environment for flooding
citizens citizens
79
BMGF Projects Market shades Drainage CS roads Market shades CS roads CS roads CS roads CS roads
(2013 & 2014 / incl. drainage incl. drainage incl. drainage incl. drainage incl. drainage
2nd Round
Benefits for the  Contract to local  Construction  All surfaces  Contract to local  All surfaces  All surfaces  All surfaces  All surfaces
urban poor MSEs contract to local subcontracted to MSEs subcontracted to subcontracted to subcontracted to subcontracted to
 Access to better MSEs local MSEs  Access to better local MSEs local MSEs local MSEs local MSEs
market opportunities  Protection from  Access to all- market  Access to all-  Access to all-  Access to all-  Access to all-
flooding weather roads opportunities weather roads weather roads weather roads weather roads
 Protection from  Protection from  Protection from  Protection from  Protection from
flooding flooding flooding flooding flooding
BMGF Projects CS roads CS roads Drainage CS roads
(Pro-poor incl. drainage incl. drainage incl. drainage
Performance
Grants)
Benefits for the  All surfaces  All surfaces  Construction  All surfaces
urban poor subcontracted to subcontracted to contract to local subcontracted to
local MSEs local MSEs MSEs local MSEs
 Access to all-  Access to all-  Protection from  Access to all-
weather roads weather roads flooding weather roads
 Protection from  Protection from  Protection from
flooding flooding flooding
80
3 UGDP Skill development in labor intensive construction sector and service delivery
LICS situation  No quarry  Functioning quarry  Functioning quarry  No quarry  No quarry  No quarry  No quarry  No quarry
01/2012  Occasional training  Regular training for  Regular training for  Regular training for  On demand training  No TVET  No training  No training
for level I and II level I and II level I and II level I and II for level I and II
 No informal training  No informal training  No informal training  No informal training  No informal training
Skill development  Cobblestone  Cobblestone  Cobblestone  Cobblestone  Cobblestone  Cobblestone  Cobblestone  Cobblestone
(2012)  Drainage  Solid Waste Mgmt.  Solid Waste Mgmt.
construction
LICS situation  Functioning quarry  Functioning quarry  Functioning quarry  Functioning quarry  Functioning quarry  Partly functioning  Partly functioning  Functioning quarry
12/2012  Regular training for  Regular training for  Regular training for  Regular training for  Regular training for quarry quarry  Training for level I
level I-III level I-III level I-III level I-III level I and II  Training for level I  Training for level I-II and II
 Informal training  Informal training  Informal training  Informal training  Informal training  Informal training  Informal training  Informal training
Beneficiaries CS: 207 CS: 199 CS: 144 CS: 132 CS: 79 CS: 132 CS: 64 CS: 105
in training (2012) Drainage: 84 SWM: 70 SWM: 130
Total: 1,346 Total: 207 Total: 283 Total: 214 Total: 262 Total: 79 Total: 132 Total: 64 Total: 105
Skill development  Cobblestone  Cobblestone  Cobblestone  Cobblestone  Cobblestone   Cobblestone  Cobblestone
(2013)  SWM training  SWM training  SWM training  SWM training  SWM training  SWM training
 Urban greenery
LICS situation  Functioning quarry  Functioning quarry  Functioning quarry  Functioning quarry  Functioning quarry  Partly functioning  Functioning quarry  Functioning quarry
12/2013  Regular CS training  Regular CS training  Regular CS training  Regular CS training  Regular CS training quarry  Occasional CS  Regular CS training
level I-III level I-III level I-III level I-III level I-III training level I-III level I-III
 Informal training  Informal training  Informal training  Informal training  Informal training  Informal training  Informal training
 Partly functioning  Partly functioning  Partly functioning  Partly functioning  Partly functioning   Partly functioning
SWM enterprises SWM enterprises SWM enterprises SWM enterprises SWM enterprises SWM enterprises
Beneficiaries CS: 991 CS: 235 CS: 458 CS: 716 CS: 110 CS: 198 CS: 424
in training (2013) SWM: 24 SWM: 30 SWM: 13 SWM: 16 SWM: 35 SWM : 53
U. greenery: 19
Total: 3,322 Total: 1,015 Total: 265 Total: 471 Total: 751 Total: 145 Total: 198 Total: 477
81
Skill development  SWM training  SWM training  SWM training  SWM
(2014)  Urban greenery  Drainage construction  Urban greenery
LICS situation  Functioning quarry  Functioning quarry  Functioning quarry  Functioning quarry  Functioning quarry  Partly  Partly functioning  Functioning quarry
12/2014  Regular CS training  Regular CS training  Regular CS training  Regular CS training  Regular CS training functioning quarry  Regular CS training
level I – III level I – III level I – III level I – III level I – III quarry  Occasional CS level I – III
 Informal training  Informal training  Informal training  Informal training  Informal training  Partly training level I – II  Informal training
 Functioning CS  Functioning CS  Functioning CS  Functioning CS  Functioning CS functioning CS  Informal training  Functioning CS
enterprises enterprises enterprises enterprises enterprises enterprises  Partly functioning CS enterprises
 Functioning SWM  Functioning drainage  Functioning SWM  Functioning SWM  Functioning SWM enterprises  Functioning SWM
enterprises construction enterprises enterprises enterprises  Partly functioning enterprises
 Partly functioning enterprises  Functioning UG  Partly functioning UG SWM enterprises
urban greenery  Functioning SWM enterprise enterprise
enterprises enterprises  Functioning self-help-  Partly functioning self-
groups help-groups
Beneficiaries SWM: 35 Drainage: 18 SWM: 40 SWM: 41
in training (2014) U. greenery: 60 SWM: 33 U. greenery: 37
Total: 264 Total: 95 Total: 51 Total: 77 Total: 41

Beneficiaries CS: 1,198 CS: 434 CS: 602 CS: 848 CS: 189 CS: 132 CS: 262 CS: 529
in training SWM: 59 Drainage: 102 SWM: 123 SWM: 146 SWM: 35 SWM: 41 SWM: 53
(since 01/12) U. greenery: 60 SWM: 63 U. greenery: 37 U. greenery: 19
Total: 4,932 Total: 1,317 Total: 599 Total: 762 Total: 1,013 Total: 224 Total: 132 Total: 303 Total: 582
MSEs formed
Total: 44 Total: 31 Total: 29 Total: 69 Total: 3 Total: 7 Total: 15 Total: 43
(since 2012): 241
82
4 UGDP Trainings in regions and cities (2009 – 2014)
Training Period No. of participants
Region Component Content City Participants
Year Dates M F Total
Budgeting and City Accounting System 2011 09-17 Dec Semera-L OFED 19 6 25
IBEX 2012 27-30 March Semera-L OFED 8 2 10
REP (Revenue Enhancement Planning) 2012 27-29 March Semera-L OFED 7 3 10
Internal Audit 2012 09-12 April Semera-L OFED 13 2 15
Finance administration regulations 2012 May Regional OFEDs 18 6 24
Revised tariff regulations 2012 May Semera-L OFED and City service office 7 5 12
Budgeting, City Accounting System, REP 2012 01 Sep Regional OFEDs & City service offices 26 12 38
Tariff regulations 2012 12-13 Oct Semera-L Semera-L. & other 6 municip. 22 8 30
IBEX (refresher) 2012 24-28 Oct Semera-L OFED 3 5 8
Government procurement procedure 2012 12-13 Dec Semera-L CA, OFED, City service office 8 4 12
Tax awareness 2012 15 Dec Semera-L Citizens 62 14 76
Tax assessment and collection 2012 16-17 Dec Semera-L CA, OFED, City service office 8 6 14
Accounting and Budgeting 2013 13 March Semera-L CA, OFED, City service office 14 8 22
Financial Management
Cash management 2013 28-30 April Semera-L CA, OFED, City service office 8 9 17
Internal auditing 2013 01 May Semera-L CA 8 4 12
REP - ToT 2013 13 May Regional BUDC/BOFED 7 3 10
University of Semera and
Sensitization on tax awareness 2013 23 May Semera-L 70 47 117
Medic. College
Internal auditing - ToT 2013 29-30 May Semera-L BOFED, OFED, OAG 7 5 12
Tax awareness 2013 15 Dec Semera-L Tax payers 62 14 76
Tax assessment and collection 2013 16-17 Dec Semera-L CA, OFED, City service office 8 6 14
Afar
IBEX and TP-Link Client 2013 Dec Semera-L OFED 5 4 9

OFEDs, City service offices,
Accounting and Budgeting , REP 2014 Feb Regional 22 8 30
Municipalities
Revenue Strategy - ToT 2014 March Semera-L BUDC/BOFED, RA 19 8 27
Revenue Strategy 2014 March Semera-L OFED & other sector offices 12 10 22
BUDC, BOFED, RRA, OFED,
Municipal Service Costing - ToT 2014 March Semera-L 6 5 11
City service office
BUDC, BOFED, RRA, OFED,
Fixed Asset Valuation - ToT 2014 April Semera-L 6 6 12
City service office
OFED, City service office and
Fixed Asset Management and Valuation 2014 April/May Semera-L 17 7 24
other sectors
CIP (Capital Investment Planning) 2011 29-31 Dec Semera-L Municipality, BUDC 12 3 15
CIP & AMP 2012 01 Sep Regional CAs 26 12 38
Service delivery, participation
and poverty-oriented urban
Cobblestone chiseling 2012 Nov - Dec Semera-L Urban poor 74 32 106

Cobblestone paving 2013 Jan Semera-L Urban poor 18 8 26
development
AMP 2013 13 May Semera-L CA 10 6 16

AMP 2013 19-22 May Semera-L CA 10 6 16
AMP 2012 10-11 April Semera-L Municipality 7 2 9
CIP & REP (E-learning) 2013 01 June Semera-L CA 12 8 20
Cobblestone quality control 2014 March Semera-L CA 18 6 24
Strengthening services & LICS
2014 Jan Semera-L CA 12 2 14
(Experience exchange)
Total 671 302 973
Financial Planning, Budgeting,
2009 23 Feb-05 Mar Gondar OFED 6 5 11
Accounting, Internal Audit
2009 16-26 March Dessie OFED 5 7 12
2009 30 Mar-09 April Bahir Dar OFED 6 5 11
2009 05-15 May Kombolcha OFED 5 4 9

IBEX 2009 11-15 Aug Gondar OFED 8 8 16
Amhara
IBEX 2009 25-29 Aug Bahir Dar OFED 7 8 15

IBEX 2009 07-12 Oct Dessie OFED 4 9 13
IBEX 2009 13-17 Oct Kombolcha OFED 4 7 11
Accounting and financial mgmt (refresher) 2010 16-17 Aug Gondar OFED 10 13 23
2010 23-24 Aug Kombolcha OFED 6 7 13
Accounting & Internal Audit (refresher)
Revenue Enhancement Plan (REP) 2010 25 Aug Kombolcha Revenue Office 7 9 16
2010 16-17 Sep Dessie OFED 5 17 22
Accounting & Internal Audit (refresher)
REP 2010 18 Sep Dessie Revenue Office 8 7 15
REP 2010 22 Sep Gondar Revenue Office 8 4 12
83
REP 2010 29-30 Sep D. Markos Revenue Office 15 7 22
REP 2010 11 Oct Bahir Dar Revenue Office 14 8 22
Budgeting and accounting (refresher) 2010 26-27 Oct Bahir Dar OFED 4 8 12
2010 15-25 Dec D. Markos OFED 6 15 21
REP 2011 20 May D. Markos Revenue Office 17 8 25
Internal audit 2011 07-11 Nov Bahir Dar OFED 7 3 10
Draft finance products 2012 26 Jan Region OFED/RO 6 1 7
Internal audit 2012 19-23 Feb D. Markos OFED 4 8 12
Financial mgmt and revenue (discussion
2012 24 Feb D. Markos OFED/RO 12 4 16
with cabinet)
Mentoring 2012 28-29 Feb Region OFED/RO 6 4 10
Cash Register Machine 2012 23 April Bahir Dar Revenue Office 9 3 12
Municipal revenue mobilization 2012 04 May Bahir Dar Revenue Office 14 10 24
Tax assessment and collection 2012 05 May Bahir Dar Revenue Office 24 16 40
Financial management & Revenue admin. 2012 10 June Dangela 38 CAs 88 27 115
Financial mgmt. performance evaluation 2012 14 June Bahir Dar OFED 12 19 31
Stakeholders' tax awareness forum 2012 29 June Bahir Dar Revenue Office 68 12 80
IBEX 2012 19-22 June D. Markos OFED 3 10 13
Tax assessment and collection 2012 15-17 Nov D. Markos RO and others 14 9 23
Procurement 2012 19-23 Nov D. Markos OFED and others 19 14 33
Cash Management 2013 14-15 Jan D. Markos OFED and others 7 15 22
Tax Awareness 2013 16 Jan D. Markos RO and others 52 23 75
Tax Appeal Procedures 2013 17-18 Jan D. Markos RO and others 10 4 14
Municipal revenue 2013 10 April D. Markos TVET 85 65 150
Tax awareness to tax payers 'A' and ‘B’ 2013 11 April D. Markos Revenue Office 45 13 58
All Eastern Amhara CAs and
REP and Financial Management 2013 15-17 May Dessie 35 110 145
Municipalities
All Western Amhara CAs and
REP and Financial Management 2013 06-07 June Dangela 18 95 111
Municipalities
IBEX (refresher) 2013 05-06 Aug D. Markos OFED 1 9 10
REP and Financial Management 2013 15 Oct D. Markos City council 9 49 58
Strengthening internal audit 2013 04-05 Dec D. Markos 9 9 18
REP, Procurement, Budgeting, Property, 4 Amhara CAs' city and
2013 10-13 Dec Gondar 22 58 80
Auditing Kebele councilors
Planning, Budgeting, Accounting,
2014 05-07 March D. Markos OFED and others 6 11 17
Procurement, Auditing
Asset Management 2014 12-14 March D. Markos OFED and others 7 14 21
Revenue Strategy, REP, Collection and
Assessment, Documentation and Service 2014 27-29 March D. Markos RO and others 9 7 16
delivery
REP, Budgeting, Procurement Property,
2014 07-11 April D. Tabor All 38 Amhara CAs 67 171 238
Contract Mgmt., Auditing and ULGDP II
Municipal Service Costing 2014 20-21 May D. Markos OFED and others 10 10 20
Awareness on revenue, budgeting, audit,
municipal service costing, procurement 2014 22-23 May D. Markos City council
and asset management
Asset Valuation 2014 27-28 May D. Markos OFED & pertinent offices 4 9 13
REP, Budgeting, Procurement Property,
2014 05-10 June Bahir Dar 10 ULGDP cities & bureaus 7 13 20
Contract Mgmt., Auditing, ULGDP II (ToT)
Round Table Discussion on Financial
Management and Revenue Administration 2014 27 June D. Markos City cabinet 15 6 21
with Assosa City Cabinet Members
Development & project planning, M&E 2009 25-29 Jan Bahir Dar Region 54 11 65
Development & project planning, M&E 2011 21-25 March Bahir Dar Region 23 7 30
poverty-oriented urban development
Service delivery, participation and
Bahir Dar,
Phasing-Out and -In:
Gondar, Bahir Dar, Gondar, Dessie,
CIP, AMP, Procurement mgmt,
2010 14 Aug-27 Oct Dessie, Kombolcha, Debre-Markos 109 7 116
Environment mgmt., Public participation,
Kombolcha CA officials
LDP, Project Planning and M&E
D. Markos
CIP, REP, AMP 2012 17-20 May - - - 38 CAs and municipal towns 72 11 83
Dangela
ULGDP tools 2013 January --- --- --- 289
and Dessie
Dangela
Regional Incentive Fund (RIF) 2013 January 38 CAs and municipal towns --- --- ---
and Dessie
CIP, REP, AMP 2013 March - - - 38 CAs and municipal towns --- --- ---
CIP & REP (E-learning - 1st round) 2013 2nd quarter D. Markos CA 16 4 20
84
CIP & REP (E-learning - 2nd round) 2013 3rd quarter D. Markos CA 10 3 13
SWM, cost recovery and community Community representatives
2013 December D. Markos --- --- 75
contribution awareness from 7 Kebeles and officials
Local development planning 2011 17 March - - - Region 20 2 22
Councilors Training 2012 March - - - D. Markos & Bahir Dar 78 40 118
ULGDP, CIP, REP, AMP, RIF 2012 June - - - 10 Zones + 36 CAs 105 5 110
Institutionalization of ULGDP 2012 Feb - - - Region + 4 ULGDP Cities 21 2 23
SWM (1st round) 2012 March D. Markos Urban Poor 13 57 70
Establish women councilors forum 2012 Aug Bahir Dar City Council 8 52 60
Cobblestone chiseling (1st round) 2012 November D. Markos Urban poor 108 36 144
Documentation and information Experts from 7 local
2013 January - - - --- --- 23
management governments and BoIUD
SWM (2nd round) 2013 Feb D. Markos Urban Poor 3 10 13
Cobblestone chiseling (2nd & 3rd rounds) 2013 Jan - April D. Markos Urban Poor 114 48 162
Cobblestone paving (three rounds) 2013 Jan - June D. Markos Urban Poor 217 79 296
Urban and local development planning 2013 March Bahir Dar CA sector offices --- --- 54
Idirs, FBO, Chamber of
commerce, Kebele admin.,
Joint LUSUP planning workshop 2013 August D. Markos Development committees, --- --- 75
Sector office heads, youth,
women associations
Documentation, information management, Officials, experts, Kebele
service delivery and complaint 2013 October D. Markos associations and citizens --- --- 58
management groups representatives
Urban greenery development 2014 February D. Markos Poor men and women 10 27 37
Self-help group approaches, life, Poor' women working on
2014 February D. Markos 0 80 80
entrepreneurial and saving skills market sheds
Waste collection, standardization and
SWM MSE members;
services, entrepreneurship and financial 2014 March D. Markos 7 34 41
responsible CA staff
management (SWM 3rd round)
Self-group approaches, business, Self help group members;
2014 June D. Markos --- --- 90
marketing, entrepreneurship, life skills responsible CA staff
Community groups and
Community based monitoring (CBM) 2014 April D. Markos 96 72 168
stakeholders
CA officials and community
CBM (Experience exchange - Yirgalem) 2014 May D. Markos 7 1 8
representatives
Councilors (D. Markos,
Urban management & councilors' duties 2014 May - - - Gondar, Debark, Aykele, --- --- 148
Genda-Wouha)
CA officials and experts,
Cobblestone quality control (three rounds) 2014 June - July D. Markos cobblestone MSEs and 232 68 148
community leaders
Total 2.172 1.643 4.473
Financial management 2010 10-21 May Assosa OFED 3 9 12
REP (Revenue Enhancement Planning) 2010 9-10 Nov Assosa RD, OFED, BOFED, RRA 12 8 20
REP 2011 08 June Assosa RO 12 10 22
IBEX 2011 17-23 Nov Assosa OFED 8 9 17
Internal audit 2011 19-23 Dec Assosa OFED and internal audit unit 8 4 12
RD, RRA, OFED, BOFED,
New tariff regulations 2011 24 Dec Assosa 17 7 24
BUDC
New urban finance regulation 2011 27 Dec Assosa OFED, BOFED and BUDC 16 12 28
Mentoring 2011 29 Dec Assosa OFED, BOFED and BUDC 3 6 9
Benishangul-Gumuz
Revenue mobilization and tax admin. 2012 23-24 March Assosa OFED, RD 14 9 23
New tariff regulations 2012 26 March Assosa RD, OFED, Kebele represent. 16 9 25
Urban revenue 2012 20 Oct Assosa TVET College 126 143 269
Government Procurement System 2012 20-25 Oct Assosa OFED, Health C., BOTITUD 13 6 19
2004 EFY revenue achievements and
2012 21-22 Dec Assosa RO 20 8 28
REP drafting
Tax awareness 2012 24 Dec Assosa Citizens --- --- 50
Tax awareness 2013 19 Feb Assosa Students, citizens etc. 5 26 31
Tax Appeal Procedures 2013 21-22 Feb Assosa Tax Appeal Committee 9 2 11
Cash Management 2013 23-24 Feb Assosa --- 8 6 14
Accounting, Budgeting, Procurement and
2013 28 Feb, 1-2 Mar Assosa 9 Municipalities and 1 CA 17 4 21
Auditing
Personal savings 2013 03 March Assosa High school students 22 28 50
Accounting, Budgeting, Procurement and
2013 04-06 March Assosa BOFED, RA 6 3 9
Auditing - ToT
85
IBEX (refresher) 2013 22-23 July Assosa OFED 7 6 13
Strengthening internal audits 2013 31 Oct-01 Nov Assosa OFED, Internal audit unit etc. 4 8 12
Tax awareness 2013 01 Nov Assosa Assosa University 70 89 159
CIP, AMP, REP, Procurement, Auditing
2013 04-06 Nov Assosa 9 Municipalities and 1 CA 31 6 37
and Property Mgmt
Financial Asset Management 2014 18-19 Feb Assosa --- 10 10 20
Planning, Budgeting, Accounting,
2014 20,21,25 Feb Assosa OFED 7 14 21
Procurement & Auditing
Revenue Strategy, REP, Collection &
2014 21,22,26 Feb Assosa RO 6 9 15
Assessment, Service Delivery
REP, Budgeting, Procurement Property, 28 April & 1-2
2014 Assosa RO & RRA 12 4 16
Contract Mgmt., Auditing, ULGDP II (ToT) May
Municipal Service Costing 2014 06-07 May Assosa OFED & BoIUDC 13 8 21
Revenue, budgeting, audit, municipal
service costing, procurement and asset 2014 08 May Assosa City council (office) 13 8 21
management (awareness creation)
Asset Valuation 2014 17-18 June Assosa OFED 6 11 17
Financial Mgmt. and Revenue Admin. 2014 19 June Assosa City Cabinet Members 12 3 15
City & Kebele councils, Mayor
Participatory Budgeting 2014 13 August Assosa 49 27 76
office, sectors
Asset Management Planning (AMP) 2010 08-12 Nov Assosa BUDC, Municipality, BOFED 34 6 40
Capital Investment Planning (CIP) 2010 08 Nov Assosa BUDC, RD, BOFED, RRA 31 10 41
AMP 2011 17-19 May Assosa BUDC, Municipality, BOFED --- --- 0
HIV/AIDS & Gender mainstreaming 2011 11-12 Aug Assosa BUDC and CA 9 18 27
HIV/AIDS & other infectious disease
2012 28-29 March Assosa Kebele focal persons 8 5 13
prevention
Cobblestone chiseling and paving (TVET) 2012 March-July Assosa TVET Students 17 7 24
Councilors Training 2012 08-11 May Assosa Councilors 58 13 71
Cobblestone chiseling (1st round) 2012 19 Nov-12 Dec Assosa Urban Poor 52 29 81
LDP public consultation 2012 07 Dec Assosa Residents, University 40 23 63
Cobblestone chiseling (2nd round) 2013 21 Jan-20 Feb Assosa Urban Poor 48 41 89
Cobblestone chiseling (3rd round) 2013 March Assosa Urban Poor 96 93 189
Cobblestone chiseling (4th round) 2013 April Assosa Urban Poor 61 85 146
Service delivery, participation and poverty-oriented urban development
Small Contract Management 2013 12 Feb Assosa MSE leaders 37 2 39

regional MSE, TVET,
Cobblestone procurement 2013 12 Feb Assosa --- --- 8
BTITWUD and CA
MSEs, TVET, Regional
Small Contract Management 2013 Feb Assosa 37 2 39
Bureau experts
Importance of savings 2013 05 March Assosa Students 53 47 100
Solid Waste Management awareness LUSUP steering committee,
2013 05 March Assosa 8 45 53
raising Urban poor
Entrepreneurship, basic business skills,
2013 06-07 March Assosa MSE leaders 56 35 91
cobblestone procurement
CIP & REP (E-learning) 2013 14-16 March Assosa CA, Bureau 16 5 21
Public participation, moderation skills in
2013 29-30 March Assosa CA officials, Sector offices 37 13 50
participatory planning process
Experience Sharing with Sh/ne, Bishoftu, Speaker of the House, CA
2013 15-22 April Assosa 2 1 3
Hawassa CAs & SNNP Regional Bureau Manager, MSE leaders
Basic Computer Skills and Project CA sector offices, Kebele
2013 25-27 June Assosa 9 6 15
Design, Implementation and Evaluation managers
Urban poor (in 5 MSEs),
SWM 2013 17-21 June Assosa 15 38 53
Ketena leaders
Joint-Planning Workshop 2013 17 July Assosa BUDC, CA 31 9 40
CIP & REP (E-learning) 2013 25-27 Sept Assosa --- 13 5 18
Reform tools awareness (CIP,REP,AMP) 2013 27 Sept Assosa CA leaders 11 3 14
CA, MSE leaders, community
Cobblestone quality control 2013 October Assosa 15 9 24
representatives
CBM (Community Based Monitoring) CA, community and other
2013 Oct - Dec Assosa 67 53 120
awareness raising stakeholders
Standing committee members
Pro-poor sensitive M&E of CA plans 2013 December Assosa --- --- 53
and Bureau experts
Business skills 2014 May Assosa SWM enterprise members --- --- 38
SWM standards, life skills, financial mgmt. 2014 February Assosa Women organized in MSEs 0 28 28
Life skills, savings, small contract mgmt. 2014 May Assosa MSE leaders 20 5 25
CBOs, community and other
City-wide CBM Scaling-up workshop 2014 May Assosa 67 33 100
stakeholders
Business and financial management skills 2014 June Assosa Saudi Arabia/Sudan returnees 0 75 75
86
Business skills 2014 July Assosa Unemployed youth 70 0 70
Participatory pro-poor planning and
2014 July Assosa City-councilors and experts 76 24 100
budgeting
Mentoring 2011 29 Dec Assosa RRA, BOFED and BUDC 6 2 8
Gender focal persons at
Women rights, regional family law (ToT) 2012 26 March Assosa 0 19 19
Others (incl. Knowledge Mgmt.)
various CA offices
Municipality and BUDC
LDP (experience sharing with Bahir Dar) 2012 27-31 March Assosa 2 0 2
planning work process
BUDC and Regional
Councilors Training (ToT) 2012 07-11 May Assosa 7 0 7
Management Institute
Leadership skills 2012 05-07 Dec Assosa Mayor's Committee members 12 3 15
Citizen Satisfaction Survey (CSS) 2012 19-21 Dec Assosa BUDC and CA 7 6 13
Documentation and meeting skills 2013 1st quarter Assosa CA staff --- --- 8
Family Law and gender mainstreaming 2013 02-03 April Assosa CA 10 14 24
City-University linkage forum 2013 10 July Assosa CA and University 21 2 23
Councilors' key roles and competencies 2013 18 July Assosa City councilors 28 15 43
Total 1.762 1.341 3.260
Financial management 2010 15-26 Nov Gambella OFED, BOFED, Municipality 12 5 17
REP (Revenue Enhancement Planning) 2011 10-11 March Gambella RRA, Revenue office, BUDC 14 5 19
IBEX (refresher) 2011 09-13 May Gambella OFED 8 0 8
Revenue Enhancement 2011 16 June Gambella City and Regional Bureau 20 5 25
Capital Investment Budget 2011 11 Aug Gambella CIP committee from d/t offices 11 3 14
Tariff regulation familiarization 2011 19 Dec Gambella CA sector offices 18 5 23
Mentoring on FM systems 2011 21 Dec Gambella OFED, BOFED, RRA 8 0 8
CA budget committee consultation 2012 09 March Gambella CA council 8 0 8
Tax assessment and collection 2012 17-18 May Gambella CA revenue office RRA 15 4 19
Consultative meeting on budgeting for
2012 30 July Gambella --- 14 21 35
mayor's committee
Procurement 2012 19-23 Nov Gambella OFED & Municipal 12 3 15
Revenue office, Trade and
REP 2012 24-25 Nov Gambella 11 3 14
Industry
Tax awareness 2013 17 Jan Gambella City Tax payers --- --- 60
Budgeting and Accounting 2013 22-28 Jan Gambella OFED 8 2 10
Cash management 2013 29 Jan Gambella OFED 7 1 8

Tax assessment and collection 2013 30-31 Jan Gambella Revenue, Trade & Industry 18 8 26
Internal Audit 2013 22-26 March Gambella OFED 14 2 16
IBEX (refresher) 2013 29 Mar-02 April Gambella OFED 10 2 12
Tax awareness 2013 31 March Gambella College Students 18 30 48
Tax awareness 2013 01 April Gambella CA sector offices 10 14 24
Tax Appeal 2013 10 June Gambella CA tax appeal committee 8 0 8
Budget and Accounting - ToT 2013 12-14 June Gambella OFED, BOFED, RRA & BUDC 6 2 8
Gambella
City Council Forum on Financial Mgmt. 2013 31 Oct Gambella City Council members 27 16 43
RO, Trade and Industry
Revenue Strategy 2013 9-11 Dec Gambella --- --- 9
Office, RRA experts
OFED, BOFED, RO, Regional
Internal Audit - ToT 2014 27-28 Feb Gambella 8 1 9
RA & BUDC staff
OFED, BOFED, RO, Regional
Financial Asset Management - ToT 2014 1-2 Mar Gambella 8 1 9
RA & BUDC staff
OFED & other pertinent sector
Financial Asset Management 2014 6-9 Mar Gambella 10 5 15
office staff
RO, OFED and Industry &
Revenue assessment & collection 2014 14 May Gambella 14 8 22
Trade Office staff
City Council Forum on Financial Mgmt. 2014 15 May Gambella City Council members 32 14 46
Regional Bureau heads, City
Revenue Strategy 2014 16 May Gambella Cabinet members, experts & 44 18 62
Kebele administrations
Councilors Training 2010 11-15 April Gambella CA Council & Speakers office 47 10 57
Service delivery, participation
Municipality, WSA (Water &

and poverty-oriented urban
Asset Management Planning (AMP) 2010 27-31 Dec Gambella Sewerage Authority), OFED, 9 1 10
Revenue office, BUDC
development

AMP 2011 14-18 Nov Gambella Sewerage Authority), OFED, 7 1 8
Revenue office, BUDC
Capital Investment Planning (CIP) 2011 10-12 August Gambella Sewerage Authority), OFED, 11 3 14
Revenue office
Cobblestone chiseling (in four rounds) 2012 -following years Gambella TVET students & Urban poor 147 76 223
87
CYWAO, Kebele
Women's rights, regional family law (ToT) 2012 29 Feb-01 Mar Gambella 4 13 17
representatives
Coffee ceremony & community discussion
2012 03 March Gambella Kebele representatives 25 225 250
on HIV/AIDS
MSE awareness 2012 23 March Gambella CA sector offices 24 4 28
Stakeholders Analysis methodologies 2012 05-06 April Gambella CA 2 1 3
CYWAO, Kebele
Women's rights and regional family law 2012 29-30 May Gambella 23 29 52
representatives
Gender mainstreaming 2013 25-26 Feb Gambella CA sector offices 18 19 37
Contract management 2013 19-21 Mar Gambella New MSEs 14 2 16
CIP & REP (E-learning - 1st round) 2013 19-21 Mar Gambella BOFED, OFED, RRA, CA 21 4 25
Cobblestone paving 2013 Jan - Feb Gambella Urban poor 19 5 24
Cobblestone construction 2013 March - May Gambella TVET 12 3 15
CIP & REP (E-learning - 2nd round) 2013 01-03 Oct Gambella BOFED, BUDC, RRA, OFED 21 4 25
SWM awareness 2013 29 Oct Gambella CA, Kebele, MSE, CBOs 25 4 29
Cobblestone quality control 2014 Jan Gambella CA, MSE agency, MSEs 32 8 40
Small contract management (refresher) 2014 June Gambella Cobblestone MSE members 18 2 20
SWM awareness 2014 May Gambella CA, community etc. 34 16 50
Solid waste management (SWM) 2014 May Gambella SWM enterprise members 34 7 41
Participatory pro-poor planning and MSE Councilors, CA and Regional
2014 July Gambella 42 16 58
development officials
Total 982 631 1.682
REP and concepts and practices of OFEDs, ROs of Adama,
2010 10 Jan 4 cities 10 10 20
revenue administration Bishoftu, Jimma, Sh/ne
REP & Financial Management 2010 10 July Nekemte OFED and revenue office 42 0 42
Financial management, revenue
2011 26-31 Jan Nekemte OFED and revenue office 45 0 45
administration & property taxation
Municipalities’ management
Scaling up ULGDP experiences 2011 12-18 Feb BIUD 120 0 120
and experts from 20 cities
Revenue Administration System and
2012 23-26 April Nekemte RA 8 4 12
Tariff Regulation
City Finance Standing
Budget, revenue, finance, auditing 2012 27 April Nekemte 8 2 10
Committee
Internal Audit and Control 2012 14-17 May Nekemte OFED 5 4 9
Strengthening existing Revenue Admin.
2012 29 May-01 June Adama RA 23 7 30
System and Tariff Regulations
Integrated Budget & Expenditure System 2012 26-29 June Nekemte OFED 3 9 12
City Finance Standing
Budget, revenue, finance, auditing 2012 02 June Adama 3 3 6

Committee
Internal Audit and Control 2012 04-07 June Adama OFED 2 4 6
Accounting and budgeting 2012 22-26 Oct Nekemte CA Finance Office 7 11 18
Cash management 2012 27-28 Oct Nekemte CA Finance Office 7 11 18
IBEX (refresher) 2012 29 Oct - 11 Nov Nekemte CA Finance Office 5 10 15
Revenue assessment & collection (incl.
Oromia
2013 24-26 Jan Nekemte CA Revenue Office 14 18 32

tax arrears mgmt.)
Revenue tax appeal 2013 29-30 June Nekemte Tax Appeal board 11 2 13
Tax awareness 2013 08 March Nekemte Citizens 42 20 62
Internal Auditing 2013 04-08 March Nekemte CA Finance Office 6 7 13
Procurement procedures 2013 27-31 March Nekemte CA Finance Office 8 12 20
Municipal finance 2013 27 Nov Nekemte CA Councilors 13 5 18
Tax Awareness Creation 2013 02 Dec Nekemte Pertinent Offices 15 1 16
Financial management 2014 28 Jan - 01 Feb Regional Non-partner CAs 172 7 179
Asset Management 2014 11-15 Feb Nekemte CA Finance Office 9 4 13
Revenue Strategy - ToT 2014 31 Mar-04 April Region Pertinent Offices 12 3 15
Asset Valuation 2014 19-23 May Nekemte Pertinent Offices 7 12 19
Municipal Service Costing 2014 26-30 May Nekemte Pertinent Offices 14 13 27
Participatory Budgeting 2014 30 Jul-01 Aug Nekemte Pertinent Offices 13 5 18
Municipal finance 2014 08 Aug Nekemte CA Councilors 24 15 39
Revenue collection and management 2014 17-22 Sep Nekemte CA Revenue Office 18 31 49
Cobblestone works history, civil works’
2009 09 June Nekemte Municipality 10 25 35
urban development
socio-economic advantages & techniques

participation and
Service delivery,
poverty-oriented
Introduction of cobblestone 2009 Aug Bishoftu Municipality --- --- 19

Introduction of cobblestone 2009 Sep Sh/ne Municipality --- --- 45
Urban Dev. Planning & Implementation 2009 19 Sep Sh/ne City Administration 120 0 120
Introduction of cobblestone 2009 30 Dec Waliso Municipality --- --- 7
Cobblestone works 2009 Dec Sh/ne Municipality, cabinet members --- --- 27
88
4 ULGDP
CIP & AMP preparation (refresher) 2010 10 Jan ULGDP focal persons, BIUD 20 0 20
cities
Cobblestone works (orientation) 2010 10 March Bishoftu Municipality & Kebele leaders 25 0 25
Cobblestone works (orientation) 2010 31 March Jimma Municipality and management 45 0 45
LDP preparation, Garden City EiABC 2010 06 May Bishoftu Municipality and management 34 0 34
Urban Dev. Planning & Implementation 2010 21 June Bishoftu Municipality 0 16 16
Urban waste management 2010 10 July Nekemte Management 28 0 28
AMP and infrastructure asset inventory 2010 10 Aug Nekemte Municipality, OFED 17 0 17
Urban greening and public parks, urban
Land and environmental
waste management and slaughterhouse 2011 11 April Nekemte 65 0 65
protection office, Municipality
management
Wastewater Mgmt. in relation to UP & EP 2011 12-13 April BIUD BIUD mgmt. and experts 55 0 55
43 reform Municipalities, Infrastructure
Procurement and contract management 2011 28-30 July 161 0 161
cities departments, BIUD
SWM (Solid Waste Management) 2012 April Nekemte Urban poor 30 100 130
Municipality, TVET College
Cobblestone construction - ToT 2012 May - July Nekemte 7 4 11
and MSEs
Municipality, TVET College
Cobblestone foremen training (refresher) 2012 Sept Nekemte 6 14 20
and MSEs
Cobblestone chiseling (1st round) 2012 Oct - Nov Nekemte Urban poor 72 29 101
ToT for CIP, REP, AMP 2012 November - - - 22 cities, BIUD --- --- 72
Municipality, MSE office,
Small Contract Management (ToT) 2013 Jan Nekemte 4 1 5
TVET College
Cobblestone chiseling (four rounds) 2013 Jan - Nov Nekemte Urban poor 415 212 627
Labor intensive SWM, greenery and
2013 February Regional 8 CAs --- --- 80
public parks project activities
Entrepreneurship, business planning and
2013 May Nekemte TVET graduates --- --- 175
project mgmt.
SWM 2013 June Nekemte Urban poor 2 14 16
Idirs, FBO, Chamber of
commerce, Kebele admin.,
Joint LUSUP planning workshop 2013 July (1 day) Nekemte Development committees, --- --- 71
Sector office heads, youth,
women associations
Regional Incentive Fund (RIF) 43 reform BIUD, city managers &
2013 Sep (4 days) --- --- 171
implementation cities experts
CIP & REP (E-learning) 2013 3rd quarter Nekemte --- --- --- 15
Cobblestone paving 2013 Oct - Dec Nekemte Urban poor 62 27 89
Urban greenery development 2013 Nov Nekemte Urban poor 4 15 19
CA officials and experts, MSE
Cobblestone quality control 2014 Jan Nekemte leaders and community 120
representatives
Urban greenery MSE
Business and entrepreneurial skills 2014 February Nekemte 5 21 26
members
CIP (refresher) 2014 February Regional Experts, leaders from 33 cities --- --- 501
Community-based monitoring (Experience
2014 March Nekemte CA officials 3 3
sharing - Assosa)
CA officials, experts,
CBM awareness raising and follow-ups 2014 April - June Nekemte 190 139 329
community leaders etc.
SWM standards & business skills 2014 June Nekemte SWM MSE members 90
Self-help group approaches, life skills and
2014 June Nekemte Poor women 127 127
credit management
Small Contract Management 2014 July Nekemte Cobblestone MSE members 75
Pro-poor planning and community
2014 July Nekemte CA planning experts 20
mapping
Urban information management 2009 09 June Nekemte City administration 30 5 35
Urban information management and
Others (incl. Knowledge Mgmt.)
2009 14 July Adama Municipality 24 0 24

harmonizing IT
Ethiopian
Urban information management and base
2009 09 Aug Mapping ICT and GIS Department 32 0 32
map
Agency
BoWUD, Mayors, city managers and
Urban Information Management 2009 10 Aug 330 0 330
cities, CM bureau heads
Urban information management and Land information system
2009 10 Aug Adama 15 0 15
harmonizing IT department
Urban information management and
2010 20 Jan BIUD Management 0 12 12
harmonizing IT
89
Urban Information Management 2010 18 Feb Bishoftu Municipality 20 0 20
Urban Information Management 2010 30 March Jimma Municipality and management 27 0 27
Urban Information Management, Urban
2010 18 April BIUD Management and experts 11 0 11
Planning Units
Mayors, city managers and
Principles of community participation 2010 June BIUD --- --- 45
bureau heads of 18 cities
Municipality mgmt & experts
Scaling up of ULGDP experiences 2010 22-30 Dec BIUD 180 0 180
(group 1) of 23 reform cities
Municipality mgmt & experts
Scaling up of ULGDP experiences 2011 12-18 Feb BIUD 120 0 120
(group 2) of 20 reform cities
43 reform
Councilors training (ToT) 2011 11 Dec House of speakers, experts --- --- 114
cities
Community participation and participatory Management and experts of
2012 12 March BIUD 72 0 72
budgeting reform cities
Institutionalization of ULGDP and regional non Municipalities, Infrastructure
2012 20-26 May 81 0 81
urban infrastructure fund application ULGDP departments (22 reform cities)
Knowledge management and institutional Industry and urban
2012 October Regional --- --- 120
memory development experts
MUDHCo public participation manual 2013 November Nekemte CA officials --- --- 70
Councilors training 2013 November Nekemte Councilors --- --- 18
Total 2.988 991 5.834
Hawassa,
Sodo, Dilla,
Internal Audit & Audit handling 2012 12-16 March OFED 15 9 24
Arbaminch,
Hossana
Hawassa,
Sodo, Dilla,
Fixed asset management 2012 30 Jan-03 Feb OFED, BOFED 12 7 19
Arbaminch,
Hossana
Budget preparation, planning, accounting, Hawassa,
2011 11-20 Oct OFED 15 6 21
internal audit Hossana
Revenue Enhancement Planning (REP) 2010 04 Nov --- --- 11 4 15
IBEX 2012 27 Aug-01 Sep Yirgalem CA OFED 4 8 12
Revenue assessment, collection (incl. tax CA Revenue Authority Branch
2012 03-05 Sep Yirgalem 4 18 22
arrears mgmt) Office

IBEX 2012 27 Aug-01 Sep Yirgalem Finance Office 4 8 12
Revenue assessment, collection (incl. tax CA Revenue Authority Branch
2012 03-05 Sep Yirgalem 4 18 22
arrears mgmt.) office
Accounting and budgeting 2012 24-28 Dec Yirgalem Finance Office 9 11 20
Cash management 2012 29-30 Dec Yirgalem Finance Office 9 8 17
Procurement procedures 2013 15-19 Feb Yirgalem Finance Office 10 9 19
Tax awareness 2013 20 Feb Yirgalem Citizens 91 25 116
Internal Auditing 2013 13-17 March Yirgalem CA Finance Office 12 7 19
SNNP
Financial Asset Management 2013 02-05 Sep Yirgalem OFED 11 4 15

IBEX 2013 31 Oct-02 Nov Yirgalem CA Finance Office 4 6 10
Efficient revenue collection mechanism 2013 30 Dec Yirgalem Different pertinent offices 15 1 16
Tax awareness 2014 28 Feb Yirgalem Citizens --- --- 102
City councilor forum 2014 15 March Yirgalem CA Council 35 18 53
Asset Valuation 2014 06-11 June Yirgalem OFED 6 7 13
Municipal Service Costing 2014 15-24 April Yirgalem OFED, City Manager office 10 11 21
Sensitization on tax awareness 2014 01 May Yirgalem College students 28 33 61
Revenue collection and management 2014 28-30 April Yirgalem CA ORA 6 22 28
Revenue Strategy - ToT 2014 12-14 April Region Pertinent Offices 1 11 12
Hawassa,
Municipalities, Infrastructure
poverty-oriented urban development
CIP & REP 2010 Dec Sodo, Dilla, 4 0 4

Service delivery, participation and
Offices, ROs, RA
Arbaminch
Hawassa,
Sodo, Dilla,
CIP (refresher) 2011 March Municipality, OFED, BoTIUD 18 2 20
Arbaminch,
Hossana
18 reform
CIP & AMP 2011 29-30 Dec Municipality, OFED, BoTIUD 90 21 111
cities
Municipality, RA, Zonal
CIP & REP 2012 - - - Regional 95 17 112
departments, OFED, BoTIUD
Masonry drainage construction 2012 April - June Yirgalem Urban poor 54 30 84
Cobblestone paving (refresher) 2012 Aug - Sept Yirgalem Urban poor 33 22 55
90
Cobblestone chiseling (1st round) 2012 Sept - Nov Yirgalem Urban poor 87 45 132
Cobblestone construction (ToT) 2012 Oct - Dec Yirgalem Urban poor 5 7 12
Cobblestone foremen training 2013 Jan - March Yirgalem Urban poor 23 1 24
all reform
AMP (refresher) 2013 April (4 days) CA staff --- --- 100
cities
Urban poor youth and
Life skills 2013 Oct Yirgalem --- --- 50
marginalized groups
SWM (1st round) 2013 Oct Yirgalem Urban poor 5 25 30
Facilitating CBM 2013 Oct Yirgalem Local experts 9 3 12
Community based monitoring (CBM) - I 2013 Oct Yirgalem Community and CA staff --- --- 40
Community based monitoring (CBM) - II 2013 Dec Yirgalem Community and CA staff --- --- 150
Community based monitoring (CBM) - III 2013 Dec Yirgalem Community, CA staff, MSEs 224 136 360
Planning tools and steering structure 2014 Feb Regional Zonal and city level officials --- --- 34
Strengthening steering structure at Regional bureau heads, zone,
2014 May Regional --- --- 42
different levels city officials
Community representatives &
CBM city-wide scaling up (workshop) 2014 May Yirgalem 69 45 114
MSE members
Masonry drainage construction 2014 May - July Yirgalem Urban poor 10 8 18
SWM (2nd round) 2014 May Yirgalem Urban poor 33
Cobblestone and drainage
Small contract management 2014 June Yirgalem 32 8 40
construction MSEs
Labor-intensive construction
Business and entrepreneurial skills 2014 July Yirgalem 63 37 100
sector MSEs
Total 1.137 658 2.346
Budgeting & Accounting 2011 21 Feb-03 Mar Jijiga OFED --- --- 20
Capital Investment Budget 2011 18 May Jijiga CIP committee --- --- 23
Urban Financial Management awareness 2011 07 Oct Jijiga CA officials --- --- 15
Budgeting & Accounting 2011 16-20 Nov Jijiga OFED --- --- 14
IBEX 2011 27-31 Dec Jijiga OFED --- --- 13
Tariff regulation familiarization 2011 31 Dec Jijiga Revenue Office --- --- 16
Tariff regulation familiarization 2012 01 Jan Jijiga Revenue Office --- --- 14
Tariff regulation familiarization 2012 01 Jan Jijiga Revenue Office --- --- 14
City council budget & finance
Budgeting & Accounting 2012 31 March Jijiga --- --- 13
standing committee, cabinet
Procurement 2012 22-25 Oct Jijiga OFED --- --- 19
Internal Audit 2012 27-30 Oct Jijiga OFED --- --- 19
Urban Financial Management 2012 31 Oct Jijiga City Cabinet members --- --- 8
Cash Management 2012 24-25 Dec Jijiga OFED --- --- 21
Tax assessment and collection 2012 28-29 Dec Jijiga Revenue Office --- --- 27
Tax payers awareness 2013 14 Feb Jijiga City tax payers --- --- 137
IBEX 2013 14-16 Feb Jijiga OFED --- --- 14
CA sector offices, Kebeles,
Stakeholders tax sensitization workshop 2013 22 Feb Jijiga Regional Bureaus & Chamber --- --- 52
of Commerce
Somali
REP 2013 23-24 Feb. Jijiga Revenue Office --- --- 28

Tax appeal 2013 23 April Jijiga Tax Appeal committee --- --- 8
OFED, BOFED, Revenue
Budgeting and Accounting - ToT 2013 24-26 April Jijiga --- --- 12
Office & BUDC staff
Accounting & Cash Management - ToT 2013 27-29 Sep Jijiga --- --- 9
Office & BUDC staff
Internal Audit - ToT 2014 12-13 Feb Jijiga 9 1 10
Office & BUDC staff
Asset management - ToT 2014 14-15 Feb Jijiga 9 1 10
Office & BUDC staff
Revenue strategy 2014 14-16 Feb Jijiga Revenue Office experts 8 4 12
Municipal Services Cost Accounting &
2014 4-7 Apr Jijiga Office , BUDC staff & city 10 5 15
Gender Mainstreaming
service experts
Cost accounting 2014 10 April Jijiga City cabinet members 24 11 35
Asset Management 2014 10-13 Apr Jijiga Office , BUDC staff & city 9 5 14
service experts
City council forum on Urban Financial
2014 19 June Jijiga City Council members 20 15 35
Management
Non-partner cities' finance
Budgeting & Accounting 2014 24-26 June Jijiga 14 2 16
experts
91
CIP, REP, AMP 2010 15-17 July Jijiga Municipality 8 8
AMP 2011 10-14 Feb Jijiga City service office 22 1 23
Financial Management 2011 21 Feb-03 Mar Jijiga Finance & Economic Dev't 13 4 17
Urban Dev't Policy & Strategy 2011 24-26 March Jijiga CA, BUDC 42 8 50
Procurement 2011 4 days Jijiga City service office 14 14
GIS & Auto CAD 2012 10 days Jijiga City service office 20 3 23
Councilors Training 2012 19-22 April Jijiga City parliament office 32 13 45
CIP 2012 18-20 May Jijiga City service office 15 15
Citizen Satisfaction Survey (CSS) 2012 21-23 Dec Jijiga BUDCI & CA 2 8 10
Cobblestone chiseling (2 rounds) 2012 -following years Jijiga MSE Office and TVET College 77 98 175
CA Offices and Regional
CIP, REP, AMP 2013 09-10 March Jijiga 19 1 20
Bureau
CIP & REP (E-learning) 2013 18-20 April Jijiga BUDCI & CA 20 0 20
MSE strategies and directives 2013 29 April-02 May Jijiga MSE Office 36 4 40
OFED, Municipality, Revenue
CIP & REP (E-learning) 2013 24-26 Oct Jijiga 17 15 32
Agency & BUDCI
Entrepreneurship & Business Skills - ToT 2013 --- Jijiga MSE Office 23 2 25
Contract Management - ToT 2013 --- --- CA & TVET 4 0 4
Cobblestone foremen training 2013 July-August Jijiga CA & TVET 10 2 12
Solid Waste Management 2013 17-18 Sep Jijiga MSE Office & Municipality 18 15 33
Planning and SWM awareness 2013 12 Oct Jijiga MSE Office & Municipality 100 130 230
Entrepreneurship & Business Skills 2013 16-18 Oct Jijiga MSE Office & Municipality 18 15 33
Pro-poor Approaches and SWM 2013 19 Oct Jijiga MSE Office & Municipality 20 5 25
Public participation awareness 2013 December Jijiga Community -- -- 230
Public participation & mobilization 2014 March Jijiga BUDCI, 4 CAs, 10 Municipal. -- -- 65
Small contract management 2014 April Jijiga Cobblestone MSEs 27 8 35
Regional steering committee 2014 May Jijiga CA and regional bureau -- -- 45
Awareness raising on SWM for the public,
Regional bureau, CA and
regional and CA officials, experts and 2014 July Jijiga 130 65 195
community leaders
community leaders
Participatory budgeting and monitoring 2014 July Jijiga CA officials and councilors 38 17 55
Total 828 458 2.122
City budget preparation process 2009 June 12 cities OFED 22 8 30
CA accounting system and budgeting 2009 19-29 Aug 12 cities OFED 112 48 160
4 ULGDP
ULGDP financial management 2009 Oct OFED, City service 20 4 24
cities
ULGDP
Revenue Enhancement Planning (REP) 2010 June OFED, Revenue office 17 6 23
cities
ULGDP
Capital Investment Planning (CIP) 2010 June City service, OFED 24 6 30
cities
Overview on REP and Financial OFED and Revenue service,
2010 Dec Adwa 4 2 6
Management RRO
CIP, AMP, REP 2010 Dec all cities City service, OFED 68 9 77
REP 2011 March Mekelle RRO, OFED and City service 19 4 23
CIP, AMP, REP 2011 Dec all cities Municipality, OFED, Revenue 74 17 91
IBEX 2012 Jan Adwa OFED 6 7 13
CIP, AMP, REP 2012 Feb all cities Municipality, OFED, Revenue 87 8 95
IBEX 2012 March Mekelle OFED 6 9 15
Internal audit 2012 March Adwa OFED 9 8 17
Tigray
Property management 2012 April Adwa OFED 8 7 15

Property management 2012 May Mekelle OFED 13 11 24
Budget & accounting (refresher) 2012 May Adwa OFED 7 7 14
Revenue Enhancement Planning (REP) 2012 June Mekelle Revenue authority office 4 11 15
Budget & accounting (refresher) 2012 June Mekelle OFED 6 13 19
Budget & accounting (refresher) 2012 June Adwa Revenue authority office 6 8 14
Cash management 2013 25-26 Jan Adwa OFED 12 6 18
Tax awareness 2013 28-29 Jan Adwa City councilors, RO 3 3 6
Tax awareness 2013 March Adwa Tax payers 62 12 74
Tax awareness 2013 March Adwa TVET and High school 38 12 50
CIP, AMP, REP 2013 March all cities all sectors 140 60 200
Municipality, OFED, BOFED,
Participatory Budgeting 2013 May all cities 52 2 54
BUDTI
Budget & accounting (refresher) 2013 26-28 May Adwa OFED 12 8 20
Recourse mobilization & tax assessment 2013 28-29 May Adwa Revenue Office 7 9 16
Internal audit (refresher) 2013 15-18 June Adwa OFED 8 8 16
Tax Appeal 2013 29-30 June Adwa Tax appeal committee 8 2 10
92
IBEX and TP-Link solution 2013 12-13 Nov Adwa OFED 6 8 14
Financial Management 2013 15 Nov Adwa City councilors 42 32 74
Financial Management, REP and BOFED, BUDTI, RRA and
2013 Dec Mekelle 22 2 24
Accounting - ToT Mekelle OFED,RO
Municipalities, OFED,
CIP and REP 2013 all cities 22 16 38
Revenue, MU
Municipalities, OFED,
ULGDP 2013 all cities 124 62 186
Revenue,
Accounting and Financial Management 2014 February 12 cities OFED, RRO and City Service 44 8 52
BOFED, BUDTI, RRA and
Fixed Asset Mgmt. and Valuation - ToT 2014 April Regional 15 2 17
Mekelle OFED,RO
Fixed Asset Mgmt. and Valuation 2014 April Adwa OFED, City service 20 7 27
Revenue strategy - ToT 2014 May Regional 22 5 27
Mekelle OFED,RO
Revenue strategy 2014 May Adwa RO, OFED and Other sectors 15 19 34
Municipal Service Costing - ToT 2014 May Regional 13 4 17
Mekelle OFED,RO
Municipal Service Costing 2014 May Adwa OFED. RO and City Service 19 6 25
City Councilors Forum 2014 June Adwa City councilors 42 21 63
Tax awareness 2014 June Adwa Tax payers 196 44 240
All sectors and Kebele
Participatory Budgeting 2014 August Adwa 25 15 40
Administrations
ULGDP
CIP, AMP, REP workshop 2010 June City service, OFED 24 6 30
cities
CIP, AMP, REP workshop 2010 Dec all cities City service, OFED 68 9 77
CIP, AMP, REP workshop 2011 Dec all cities Municipality, OFED, Revenue 74 17 91
CIP, AMP, REP workshop 2012 Feb all cities Municipality, OFED, Revenue 87 8 95
Cobblestone chiseling (1st round) 2012 08 Oct-11 Nov Adwa Urban Poor and vulnerable 35 5 40
Cobblestone chiseling (2nd round) 2012 05 Nov-08 Dec Adwa Urban Poor and vulnerable 73 61 134
Cobblestone foremen training (1st round) 2012 10 Dec-05 Jan Adwa CS Paving DGs 32 1 33
Citizen Satisfaction Survey (CSS) 2012 21-23 Dec Adwa CA Survey team members 8 2 10
Urban poor and unemployed
Cobblestone paving (five rounds) 2012 -following years Adwa 471 463 934
youth
Urban poor and unemployed
Cobblestone foremen training (2nd round) 2013 Jan - March Adwa 40 17 57
youth
CIP, REP 2013 --- all cities Municipality, OFED, Revenue 22 16 38
ULGDP 2013 --- all cities Municipality, OFED, Revenue 124 62 186
CIP, REP, AMP 2013 March all cities all sectors 140 60 200
CIP & REP (E-learning) 2013 2nd quarter 12 cities Municipality, OFED, Revenue 33 5 38
SWM (1st round) 2013 June Nekemte Poor women 0 24 24
Joint LUSUP planning workshop 2013 August Adwa different stakeholders --- --- 40
Women self-help group
Business skills 2014 April Adwa 0 81 81
members
Urban greenery and business skills 2014 May Adwa Poor women 0 60 60
SWM standards & business skills (2nd
2014 June Adwa Urban poor 16 19 35
round)
Income generating awareness raising 2014 June Adwa Urban poor 20 232 252
Business, entrepreneurial skills (2 rounds) 2014 June - July Adwa Cobblestone MSE members 168 198 366
Total 2.916 1.912 4.868
13.456 7.936
Total
25.558
93
5 UGDP BLS (2012) and ELS (2014) key indicators
Changes in key indicators (2012 – 2014)
Households (%) Other Target Groups (%)

Themes Description Business
Poor Non-poor Both CSOs
Enterprises
Access to services
+10.6 +6.2 +7.9 +5.8 --
(average among all 16 services)
Satisfaction with services
+1.6 +9.5 +4.8 -8.9 --
Public services (average among all 16 services)

(specific question on overall satisfaction -1.1 +2.6 +0.2 -0.5 --
with all services)
Level of participation +8.7
+8.0 +11.0 +6.6 +7.4
(average of 6 aspects) (2 aspects)
Projects' consistency with people's priorities +9.0 +14.0 +7.0 -- --
Public Quality of meetings

-- -- -- -- --
participation, (average of 3 aspects)
Access to
public-domain Satisfaction with participation outcomes
+11.6 +10.4 +10.8 +3.5 --
information, (average of 3 aspects)
Tax literacy Satisfaction with access to public-domain
information +9.5 +16.7 +13.1 +5.6 +10.1
(average of 4 aspects)
Tax literacy & awareness

-- -- -- -- --
94
Key indicators (2014)

Enterprises
Access to services
65.0 66.0 65.0 67.0 --
39.5 49.0 43.5 37.0 --
(specific question on overall satisfaction 34.0 43.0 38.0 33.7 --
with all services)
Level of participation 64.3
63.2 71.2 64.4 72.9
Projects' consistency with people's priorities 58.0 70.0 61.0 65.6 --
Quality of meetings
-- -- -- -- --
Public
participation, Satisfaction with participation outcomes
Access to 27.3 37.3 32.2 30.7 --
public-domain
information, Satisfaction with access to public-domain
Tax literacy information 15.4 25.1 20.3 19.5 27.1
Satisfaction with transparency and

-- -- -- -- 32.9
accountability

-- -- -- -- --
95
Key indicators (2012)

Enterprises
Access to services
54.4 59.8 57.1 61.2 --
37.9 39.5 38.7 45,9 --
(specific question on overall satisfaction 35.1 40.4 37.8 34.2 --
with all services)
Level of participation 55.6
55.2 60.2 57.8 65.5
Projects' consistency with people's priorities 49,0 56,0 54,0 62,9 --
Quality of meetings
62.9 66.6 64.8 68.2 --
Public
participation, Satisfaction with participation outcomes
Access to 15.7 26.9 21.4 27.2 --
public-domain
information, Satisfaction with access to public-domain
Tax literacy information 5.9 8.4 7.2 13.9 17.0
Satisfaction with transparency and

-- -- -- -- 24,5
accountability

81.0 86.9 83.0 84.8 --
96
6 UGDP CSS results (2007-2014) – compiled
Summary of survey results 2007, 2009, 2012 and 2014 – for details, please refer to reports
Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline
Study
2007 2010 2010 2012 2012 2014
Satisfied % Satisfied % Satisfied % Satisfied % Satisfied % Satisfied %
Satisfaction
(average 8 (average 8 (average 14 (average 14 (average 16 (average 16
City
services) services) services) services) services) services)
1 Mekelle 28.9% 48.4% 50.0% 60.0% -- --
2 Adigrat 31.3% 58.4% 59.9% -- -- --
3 Axum 27.7% 43.2% 47.7% -- -- --
4 Shire 21.6% 56.1% 50.6% -- -- --
5 Adwa -- -- 58.6% 59.0% 58.0% 66.1
6 Bahir Dar 35.9% 48.4% 48.4% 47.2% -- --
7 Gondar 46.9% 49.1% 48.1% -- -- --
8 Kombolcha 40.2% 52.9% 60.9% -- -- --
9 Dessie 35.7% 43.1% 42.3% -- -- --
10 Debre Markos -- -- 46.6% 35.8% 47.8% 32.7%
11 Adama 21.7% 49.9% 54.1% 40.7% -- --
12 Jima 22.5% 30.0% 28.9% -- -- --
13 Shashemene 30.6% 44.2% 48.9% -- -- --
14 Bishoftu 46.3% 49.3% 52.7% -- -- --
15 Nekemte -- -- 26.0% 48.2% 28.8% 53.0%
16 Hawassa 18.1% 23.3% 34.4% 44.1% -- --
17 Arba Minch 21.6% 32.3% 29.1% -- -- --
18 Sodo 18.1% 23.3% 21.7% -- -- --
19 Dilla 17.6% 25.3% 27.3% -- -- --
20a Hosaina -- -- 22.5% 37.0% -- --
20b Yirgalem -- -- -- -- 25.0% 48.7%
21 Dire Dawa 36.0% 56.8% 60.1% -- -- --
22 Harar 25.2% 57.3% 54.7% -- -- --
23 Gambella -- -- 12.6% 10.6% 34.6% 31.1%
24 Assosa -- -- 27.2% 29.0% 52.4% 20.0%
25 Jijiga -- -- 31.4% 38.0% 42.7% 57.0%
26 Semera -- -- 31.3% 35.6% 43.0% 30.1%
Total (18 former partner cities) 29.2% 41.4%
Increment rate 2007–2009 (%) 41.8%
Total (4 former + 8 partner cities) 36.9% 40.4%
Increment rate 2009–2012 (%) 9.5%
Total (8 partner cities) 32.0% 36.7% 38.7% 43.5%
Increment rate 2012–2014 (%) 14.7% 12.4%
Increment rate 2009–2014 (%) 35.9%
Total (26 new & former partner cities) 46.2%
97
7 Support by Regional Bureaus to cities – survey results
List of cities:
Region Former partner city Recent partner city Non-partner city
Dessie Debre Markos Debre Berehan
Gondar Mota
Amhara
Bahir Dar Woldiya
Kombolcha
Adama Nekemte Dukem
Bishoftu Mojo
Oromia
Jimma Sululta
Shashemene
Arbaminch Yirgalem Durame
Dilla Hallaba
SNNP
Hawassa Yirgachefe
Sodo
Adigrat Adwa Humera
Axum
Tigray
Shire
Mekelle
Gambella Gambella
Benishangul Gumuz Assosa
Somali Jijiga
Results – 33 former, recent and non-partner cities

What kind of support does your city administration receive from the bureau(s)?
Count Mentions and quotes
In planning
24 Training of planning experts
23 Review of plan…and Feedback
17 Supportive docs / Manuals / Basic planning standards
7 Alignment of the CA plan with the regional GTP targets was made (based on the continuous supportive supervision)
3 Reporting formats/system were established
3 Support in community awareness creation
1 Feasibility study
2 Best practices
1 Exposure visits and experience sharing
“We got a major input in the preparation of the region main plan.” (Amhara)
“Capacity building training for experts and support mechanisms conducted were very supportive and because of that
the administration had the capacity to prepare different plans for service delivery.” (Amhara)
“Refresher training was delivered on CIP manual. This has helped the CA to solve the problem of low staff
awareness as a result of high turnover.” (Oromia)
“It’s good. Leading plans were given. Trainings on CIP, REP, AMP were provided. Different documents for plan
preparation were provided.” (SNNP)
“We received an adequate training with a very interesting training manual and we were satisfied by the training
given. And we also receive standards of some works to be included and guidelines for participation of the citizens
during the preparation.” (Tigray)
”The revenue office of the city is responsible for the preparation and implementation of the REP. Training was given
by the region: how to prepare the budget for own revenue and resource mobilization were the focus areas. We
shared other city’s experience.” (Tigray)
98
At plan approval stage
3 Support & follow-up of approval procedures
2 On-the-job trainings and support in adjusting the CIP before approval by the city council
1 Community participation
“We have received feedback by observing the current plan status and other cities’ experiences on how we can
improve our plan.” (SNNP)
“Before the approval of the CIP, the region takes the responsibility to comment and give a timely correction. Experts
are coming to the city and give on job trainings and support in adjusting the CIP before approved by the city council.
And they also forced us to adhere to the timetable of approval.” (Tigray)
“How sectors and the citizens should participate in the approval phase was also declared and trainings to different
sectors and citizens were given.” (Tigray)
“We didn’t receive enough feedback. And based on cost and time frame the implementation is to be seen as
medium level.” (Amhara)
“Constructive feedback was given on the drafted CA plan before approval. However, the feedback given was not
timely. The plan approval was also delayed.” (Oromia)
“Yes, but the plan was not prepared in the consideration of the level of our city. It was broad. Therefore the
implementation level was very low.” (SNNP)
In plan and project implementation
11 Financial support
15 Continuous monitoring
1 (Quarterly) monitoring, follow up, supervision, feedback, evaluation of plan versus achievement
7 Technical support an follow-up (on request)
2 Capacity building and evaluation against the standard
3 Feedbacks and corrections
“Every quarter of the year a technical team is sent to give support and progress assessment and support was given
by conducting city by city computation and ranking” (Amhara)
“Capacity Building on implementation was provided. Development works and job creation are being introduced.”
(SNNP)
“Even though there is a budget shortage we have received supervision on how the current budget allocated is
utilized.” (SNNP)
“The budget set for CS road construction was not sufficient enough to finish the started projects. Therefore for the
next time it would be better if the budget was sufficient.” (SNNP)
“More oversight than support.” (Tigray)
What does your city administration do different because of the support? OR

What additional/other possibilities does your city administration have because of the support?
Indirect – service delivery
5 Quality of projects has improved
11 Improvement in public participation
1 Increased citizen satisfaction
1 In our planning system we have improved our priority setting based on different criteria’s
1 Timely implementation projects and utilization of budget
5 Development works (e.g. CS) and job creation
11 Improved service delivery (drainage, cobblestone roads, bridges)
Direct – management capacity
8 The quality of the plan by itself has improved (realistic)
11 CA revenue increased
3 Enhanced capacity and awareness of leaders and experts
4 The enhanced capacity with regard to human resource of the CA plan implementation of the CA has been enhanced
1 All activities has been conducted with a high commitment from the staffs
1 Mainly it has paved the alignment of the CA plan with the regional GTP targets
1 Able to review progress on a regular basis by the CA itself
1 Improvement in asset management
2 There are changes on capacity building trainings on how to use money wisely
99
Quotes
“By the budget support that we received, the city fund raised 10-% revenue; and in addition there were other
development works done on different services like water infrastructure in a very remote Kebele.“ (Amhara)
“We are now conducting continuous community participation.” (Amhara)
“Planning quality and implementation capacity enhanced. In the CA there is a wide problem of drainage system
however, with a continuous support from the region it has been enabled to solve the problem.” (Oromia)
“As a result of the knowledge transfer the CA plan and implementation was enhanced and quality of projects have
improved.” (Oromia)
“Before within the city there was a lot unemployed youth. But after the introduction of CS works, the youth could
engage in the sector and now started to save money, even opened small jobs and a few bought motorbikes and
started their own business.” (SNNP)
“On different times, money, capacity building was provided esp. in our city big changes are observed on job creation
and road construction.” (SNNP)
“The capacity of planning has been increased and our implementation capacity has shown a change. Our plan and
performance are almost the same. Revenue of the city is increasing year to year. Infrastructure services are
increasing year to year. The participation of the citizens in the planning process and implementation period is
improving year to year and hence the citizen’s satisfaction is improved from year to year.” (Tigray)
Looking into the past has the support from the regional bureaus improved over time?
32 Yes
1 No
In what way has the support by the Regional Bureaus improved AND in which areas (planning,
implementation etc.) has it improved?
10 On supervision/monitoring works
7 Financial support
6 Planning support
4 Capacity building
3 Technical support
4 Enhanced implementation effectiveness and efficiency
3 More timely approval
1 More direct contact
1 More support to all cities
“There was unlimited exchange of report that was based on a checklist.” (Amhara)
“The support in aspects of planning, monitoring and evaluation of plans and capacity building that enhanced our
implementation effectiveness and efficiency.” (Amhara)
“More reasonable attention was given by the Bureau than before.” (Oromia)
“It would be better if training was provided on how to do pre-preparations and after preparation on how to move to
implementation.” (SNNP)
“It was improved but support should be given at necessary time.” (SNNP)
“Previously the support by the regional bureau was focusing the four ULGDP cities, but nowadays we other cities
are receiving the support.” (Tigray)
“Trainings were given to capacitate the staff, and experiences of other cities were communicated in regional
meetings. We received the necessary manuals and documents from the regional bureau to prepare different plans.”
(Tigray)
100
In which area(s) does your city administration still need most support?
11 Budget (e.g. cars, fuel, office spaces), loans
1 Infrastructural developments necessary for the city and the community
1 House construction for communities who have low income
1 Continuous phone and in person support
1 We want a continuous knowledge transfer spreading of best practices
18 Improved capacity development; better trainings (because of staff turnover)
1 Measurement mechanisms
4 AMP
2 New indicators of ULGDP on land management, greenery, urban planning etc.
6 Monitoring and evaluation
11 More engineering support for cobblestone (red ash, making roads straight)
1 Experts availability
3 Training on regulations
1 Updating tariffs regulations
1 Resource mobilization
2 How to integrate projects as a whole
1 Machinery for infrastructure development
2 Technical and advisory support –especially in areas of drainage and waste management
“As there are a lot of manufacturing industries in the CA, there is a problem of power supply. The water supply
system is also very weak.” (Oromia)
On a scale, how satisfied are you with the overall support by the regional bureaus?
17 Very satisfied
15 Rather satisfied
1 Rather dissatisfied
0 Very dissatisfied
0 Don’t know
What kind of support did your city receive in capital investment planning?
16 Training (incl. refresher)
10 Review of plan and constructive feedback
4 Monitoring and follow up
1 Support by consultants based at regional level
1 Computers and laptops that helped for plan preparation
5 Experience sharing and exposure visits
1 Support by experts sent to the city
1 E-learning training
3 Manuals
“We first worked on Woliyta CIP, were trained, and then prepared for our city.” (SNNP)
“Exposure visits: experience sharing visits to other cities were organized to Shashemene CA.” (Oromia)
“Refresher training was delivered on CIP manual – this has helped the CA to solve the problem of low staff
awareness as a result of high staff turnover.” (Oromia)
Additional support needed
1 By being present in person and checking the results if the training and the trained experts
6 Refresher training (because of high staff turn-over)
5 Continued supportive supervision
3 More on capacity building training
2 Identification of best practices and sharing and organizing exposure visits
1 Financial support
1 Follow-up on implementation
1 AMP and the integration with the CIP
4 Experience sharing across the country, not bounded to the region
101
Support needed
3 Refresher Training on CIP (staff turn-over)
2 Exposure visits: experience sharing visits to other cities
2 Continuous supportive supervision
1 In general checking and monitoring if the plan is going in the new program
What kind of support did your city receive in revenue enhancement planning?
17 Training
2 Complete plan of income title especially titles that can’t be avoided
1 Awareness created on how ULGDP and income enhancement are related
6 Reviewing the plan and giving constructive feedback
4 Monitoring and follow up on how plan is implemented
3 Exposure visits & experience sharing
3 Manuals
“There was continuous training during the past four years to our office and the revenue office which is responsible
for planning and implementation of the REP. The region has made it clear that the revenue office is responsible for
the REP. So we have been supported from identifying the different sources to the analysis of the revenue.” (Tigray)
8 Best practice sharing/exposure visits
1 Trainings for tax payers
8 Refresher training
1 Constructive feedback
1 Follow up in implementation
2 Update tariff regulations
Support needed
1 By being available in person and providing information
1 Meeting and consulting on the plan prepared based on the magnitude of the plan
3 Refresher training
3 Exposure visits: experience sharing visits to other cities
What kind of support did your city receive in asset management planning?
17 Training
3 Experts coming to the city / technical support
1 Manual
5 Reviewing the plan and giving constructive feedback
3 Monitoring and follow up on how plan is implemented
3 Exposure visits
“When we had lack of experts we received support.” (Oromia)

“The region has supported the city in the preparation of the AMP by conducting training and on job training. But
absence of standard manual. Support by sending experts to intervene during the preparation of the AMP.” (Tigray)
1 By being present at the offices and covering the gaps in infrastructure administration and data collection
5 Monitoring, feedback and continued supportive supervision
4 Best practice sharing
1 More clear and precise work process
9 Capacity building and refresher training
4 Technical support on how to prepare AMP and in engineering aspects of AMP
1 Financial support
3 A standard manual
“In the process of inventorying the infrastructure assets we need an expertise support and further trainings. This is
one area which we did not manage so well.” (Tigray)
102
Support needed
2 Technical/engineering/support on AMP preparation
2 Refresher Training on AMP
3 Exposure visits
2 Continuous supportive supervision
Results – 10 non-partner cities

What kind of support does your city administration receive from the bureau(s)?
Count Mentions
In the preparation of plans
9 Formal training on how to prepare plan was given to our planning experts
2 Reporting system strengthening
3 Alignment of plan with the regional GTP targets also made based on the continuous supportive supervision
conducted
3 Supportive documents
1 Leading plans were given
1 Basic planning areas/standards/ was provided
1 Awareness creation
“Capacity building training for experts and support mechanisms conducted were very supportive and because of that
the administration had the capacity to prepare different plans for service delivery.” (Amhara)
“It’s good. Leading plans were given. Trainings on CIP, REP, and AMP were provided. Different documents for plan
preparation were provided.” (SNNP)
”The revenue office of the city is responsible for the preparation and implementation of the REP. Training was given
by the region: how to prepare the budget for own revenue and resource mobilization were the focus areas. We
shared other city’s experience.” (Tigray)
At the approval stage
5 Constructive feedback was given on the drafted CA plan before approval
We have received feedback by observing the current plan status and other cities’ experiences on how we can
1 improve our plan.
Constructive feedback was given on the drafted CA plan before approval. However, the feedback given was not
2 timely. This makes approval delayed.
Yes, but the plan was not prepared in the consideration of the level of our city. It was broad. Therefore the
1 implementation level was very low.
“However, the feedback given was not timely.” (Amhara)

In implementation
2 Review meetings and evaluation of plan versus achievement was made
The necessary corrections have been forwarded and start to implement with a continuous monitoring and evaluation
1 by the regional experts as well as based on the reports.
2 Capacity building and evaluation against the standard
5 Financial support
1 Quarterly monitoring and supportive supervision was conducted on a quarterly basis
Even though there is a budget shortage we have received supervision on how the current budget allocated is
1 utilized.
2 Monitoring and supportive supervision was conducted
1 Quarterly monitoring
1 Annual Performance review meetings was organized by the bureau
“The budget set for CS road construction was not sufficient enough to finish the started projects. Therefore for the
next time it would be better if the budget was sufficient.” (SNNP)
103
What does your city administration do different because of the support? OR
What additional/other possibilities does your city administration have because of the support?
Count Mentions
Indirect – service delivery
4 Continuous community participation
3 big changes are observed on job creation and road construction
1 Drainage system was improved
1 Annual revenue of the CA is improving
2 Quality of projects improved
Direct – management capacity
1 The quality of the plan of the CA by itself has improved
1 All activities has been conducted with a high commitment from the staffs
1 Implementation of our projects based on the actual plan
1 Special grants to implement projects
1 Financial management
1 Quality and knowhow of staffs increase
“There are changes on capacity building trainings on how to use money wisely.” (SNNP)
Quotes
“We are now conducting continuous community participation.” (Amhara)
“Planning quality and implementation capacity enhanced. In the CA there is a wide problem of drainage system
however, with a continuous support from the region it has been enabled to solve the problem.” (Oromia)
“On different times, money, capacity building was provided esp. in our city big changes are observed on job creation
and road construction.” (SNNP)
“Before within the city there was a lot unemployed youth. But after the introduction of CS works, the youth could
engage in the sector and now started to save money, even opened small jobs and a few bought motorbikes and
started their own business.” (SNNP)
Looking into the past has the support from the regional bureaus improved over time?
10 Yes
0 No
In what way has the support by the Regional Bureaus improved AND in which areas (planning,
implementation etc.) has it improved?
Count Mentions
1 On supervision works
2 Financial support
2 Monitoring and evaluation
1 Enhanced implementation effectiveness and efficiency
2 Capacity building
2 Technical support
“The support in aspects of planning, monitoring and evaluation of plans and capacity building that enhanced our
implementation effectiveness and efficiency.” (Amhara)
“It would be better if training was provided on how to do pre-preparations and after preparation on how to move to
implementation.”
“Previously the support by the regional bureau was focusing the four ULGDP cities, but nowadays we other cities
are receiving the support.” (Tigray)
“Trainings were given to capacitate the staff, and experiences of other cities were communicated in regional
meetings. We received the necessary manuals and documents from the regional bureau to prepare different plans.”
(Tigray)
104
In which area(s) does your city administration still need most support?
Count Mentions
1 Continuous phone and in-person support
7 More on capacity building training
1 As there are a lots of Manufacturing industries in the CA There is a problem of power supply, the water supply
system is also very weak
2 Waste management is also an one main aspect we need support from the region
3 Financial support – “The subsidy from the region should be increased.”
1 More engineering support for cobblestone (red ash, making roads straight)
1 Technical support on infrastructure
1 How to ingrate our projects as a whole and we need additional support and follow up to implement our projects
1 Supportive supervision
1 Best practices
1 Focus more on measurement mechanisms.
1 Drainage
1 Revenue Enhancement
On a scale, how satisfied are you with the overall support by the regional bureaus?
4 Very satisfied
6 Rather satisfied
0 Rather dissatisfied
0 Very dissatisfied
0 Don’t know
What kind of support did your city receive in capital investment planning?
8 Training
4 Reviewing and giving constructive feedback
1 Experience of other cities
1 Necessary manuals and documents
1 Computers
1 By being present in person and checking the results if the training and the trained experts
4 But there’s a high turnover of experts, so if it better if receive continuous trainings
1 Experience sharing across the country, not bounded to the region
1 Identification of best practices and sharing
1 Organizing exposure visits to other CA
What kind of support did your city receive in revenue enhancement planning?
8 Training
1 Complete plan of income title especially titles that can’t be avoided
1 Shared other city’s experience
1 By being available in person and providing information
3 But there’s a high turnover of experts, so if it better if receive continuous trainings to the level needed
3 Additional trainings are needed to the whole city staffs since revenue is a multi sartorial responsibility.
1 More exposure visit is necessary
1 Awareness created on how ULGDP and income enhancement are related.
1 Training for tax payers
105
What kind of support did your city receive in asset management planning?
8 Training
2 Technical support
1 On-the-job training
1 By being present at the offices and covering the gaps in infrastructure administration and data collection
3 Continuous training
1 Standard manual
1 Support by sending experts to intervene during the preparation of the AMP
2 Technical support in engineering aspects of the AMP preparation is very important
1 Identification of best practices and sharing
1 Organizing exposure visits to other CA
1 More clear and precise work process.
1 Continuous monitoring
106
End

UGDP Final Evaluation Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UGDP Final Evaluation Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Urban Governance and Decentralization Program (UGDP)

Ministry of Urban Development, Housing and Construction (MUDHCo)

UGDP Final Evaluation Report

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Urban Governance and Decentralization Program (UGDP)

In all eight partner cities majority of urban

In at least four partner cities urban poor

Means of Means used for selection of survey

Citizen satisfaction survey in base-, mid- Fund (in SNNPR)

Analysis to be Are the plans up-to-date? Are the planning

Who will use the Cities for information and intervention

Collection annually (’12, ’13, ‘14) annually (’12, ’13, ‘14)

Analysis  CRP ’12: May 2012  15 January 2013

background figures and other details

Analysis to be What are the ten main sources of city

Means of CAs’ MoUs with TVETs; CA plans’

 Data summarized in CRP with ECSU impact studies

Analysis to be Are all accounts closed? Did internal

Means of Progress reports of “Community

background on figures and other details background on figures and other

Analysis to be How many public consultation meetings

Analysis to be Differentiation between “poor” and “non-

Who will use the Indicator 1:

Collection Indicator 1-3:

Analysis deadline Indicator 1-3:

collection and recycling groups practices derived from IF and

Means of verification  MUDHCo publications

Analysis to be Differentiation between “poor” and

Collection frequency annually (’12, ’13, ‘14)

(CRP existing since 2008)

Analysis deadline(s)  CRP ’12: May 2012  15 January 2013

The achievement of the overall objective of the Program will be measured

The program’s activities shall include – among others – the following:

 Support MUDHCo in the development of Municipal Service Standardization,

 Certification of the municipal staff for occupational standards page 27

 Capacity development of City Administrations in the provision of municipal

Figure 7: Households’ participation (all respondents)

Figure 14: Households' view on quality of meetings (all respondents)

Figure 16: Households' view on quality of meetings (all respondents)

The majority of (interviewed) citizens confirm that cities’ Yes

The majority of (interviewed) citizens confirm that cities’ Yes

Figure 17: Households' satisfaction with access to PDI (all respondents)

Figure 18: Businesses' satisfaction with access to PDI

Yirgalem: Drainage construction MSEs in Yirgalem are another example of business

Short-term Courses and E-learning Development

Through 4 experience exchange workshops organized by ECA, best practices in “Community

Municipality Revenue strategy

Total: 264 Total: 95 Total: 51 Total: 77 Total: 41

IBEX and TP-Link Client 2013 Dec Semera-L OFED 5 4 9

Cobblestone chiseling 2012 Nov - Dec Semera-L Urban poor 74 32 106

AMP 2013 13 May Semera-L CA 10 6 16

Accounting, Internal Audit

IBEX 2009 25-29 Aug Bahir Dar OFED 7 8 15

Small Contract Management 2013 12 Feb Assosa MSE leaders 37 2 39

Cash management 2013 29 Jan Gambella OFED 7 1 8

Municipality, WSA (Water &

Municipality, WSA (Water &

Budget, revenue, finance, auditing 2012 02 June Adama 3 3 6

2013 24-26 Jan Nekemte CA Revenue Office 14 18 32

socio-economic advantages & techniques

Introduction of cobblestone 2009 Aug Bishoftu Municipality --- --- 19

2009 14 July Adama Municipality 24 0 24

arrears mgmt) Office