Comparative assessment of sanitation and hygiene policies and institutional frameworks in Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania

The paper evaluates sanitation policies in Rwanda, Uganda, and Tanzania against seven criteria, finding that while frameworks are ambitious and reforms toward decentralization and Sector Wide Approaches (SWAps) are positive, significant gaps remain in funding, technical capacity at the district level, and the translation of policy into functional facilities.

• Rwanda, Uganda, and Tanzania all exhibit a trend toward decentralization, community participation, and increased private sector involvement in sanitation service delivery.
• A critical governance challenge across all three countries is the lack of clear definition of roles and responsibilities, which leads to overlapping interventions and confusion among stakeholders.
• Rwanda and Uganda have established separate sanitation and hygiene policies, whereas Tanzania was still in the process of developing a separate policy at the time of the study.
• All three countries have adopted Sector Wide Approaches (SWAps) to improve coordination, though their specific focuses differ: Rwanda focuses on joint monitoring and policy development, Uganda on clarifying roles and budgets, and Tanzania on harmonizing guidelines and standards.
• There is a systemic failure to translate ambitious national policies into practice due to inadequate financing, a lack of technical capacity at the district level, and poor enforcement of laws.
• While policies in all three countries claim to target vulnerable groups and emphasize gender equality, actual resource allocation often prioritizes urban areas and the wealthy, particularly in Tanzania and Rwanda.
• None of the three countries possess separate legal provisions specifically for sanitation and hygiene, which hinders efficient monitoring and evaluation.
• Rwanda has made the most significant progress in improving sanitation coverage in the region, which the authors attribute to the government's ability to translate policy into practice.
• Sanitation is predominantly framed as a health issue in all three countries, with strong links established between sanitation, health, and human well-being in their respective policies.

APA

Ekane, N., Weitz, N., Nykvist, B., Nordqvist, P., & Noel, S. (2016). Comparative assessment of sanitation and hygiene policies and institutional frameworks in Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/SEI-2016-WorkingPaper-Ekane-Sanitation.pdf

Chicago

Ekane, Nelson, Nina Weitz, Björn Nykvist, Petter Nordqvist, and Stacey Noel. Comparative assessment of sanitation and hygiene policies and institutional frameworks in Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2016. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/SEI-2016-WorkingPaper-Ekane-Sanitation.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Ekane |first1=Nelson |last2=Weitz |first2=Nina |last3=Nykvist |first3=Björn |last4=Nordqvist |first4=Petter |last5=Noel |first5=Stacey |title=Comparative assessment of sanitation and hygiene policies and institutional frameworks in Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania |publisher=Stockholm Environment Institute |date=June 2016 |url=https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/SEI-2016-WorkingPaper-Ekane-Sanitation.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{ekane2016comparative, author = {Ekane, Nelson and Weitz, Nina and Nykvist, Björn and Nordqvist, Petter and Noel, Stacey}, title = {{Comparative assessment of sanitation and hygiene policies and institutional frameworks in Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, year = {2016}, month = jun, url = {https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/SEI-2016-WorkingPaper-Ekane-Sanitation.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }