Transcript Synthesis of the MUS Project

Multiple Use Systems (MUS) Project
Synthesis and main new insights
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
Background to the MUS Project
Context
Findings: community level
Findings: intermediate and national level
Conclusions
Recommendations for scaling up
Background to the
project
• Rationale:
– people need water for multiple use, and they
will take water anyway for their needs
– Explicitly catering for these needs can
improve livelihood options of poor men and
women and sustainability of services
• Focus:
– “how to do” mus?
– “how to scale up mus”?
Background project
• Methodology
– Action research in 8 countries
– Learning alliances at different levels (national,
intermediate, community)
– Global synthesis, dissemination, advocacy
• Consortium:
– Global: IWMI, IRC, IDE
– National: national partners, broader LA
• Funded by CPWF – 1.5 million US$
• Started Jan 2004
Conceptual framework
• Definition (Van Koppen et al., 2006):
• Approach towards water services
provision, which takes poor people’s
multiple water needs as a starting point
for providing integrated services, moving
beyond the conventional sectoral barriers
of the domestic and productive sectors
Conceptual framework
• Not a specific technology, but an
approach, way of thinking
• Takes people’s livelihoods needs as
starting point
• Matching needs with integrated but
reasonable response
• Service delivery model
Context
Exploring diversity of situations
Country
Study area
Focus of learning process
Bolivia
Cochabamba valley: geographical area of
the central and upper valley around the city
of Cochabamba, covering 7 Municipalities.
Community initiatives for water supply in
peri-urban areas, and responses by private
sector and local government
Colombia
A number of communities were studied in
different municipalities in the Quindío and
Valle del Cauca Departments.
Inclusion of mus concepts into the PAAR –
the government rural water supply
programme, and other local programmes
Ethiopia
Dire Dawa woreda (district). One Peasant
Association (PA) was selected within this
district. Two smaller studies in Tigray
region
Learning about NGO innovations in the field
of MUS.
India
The districts of Nasik, Ahmednagar and
Aurangabad in the State of Maharashtra.
Two villages were studies in detail in Nasik.
Including mus concepts into the government
rural water supply programme. Working
closely with NGO in the learning alliance
process
Nepal
Middle hills, the geographical area of the
Southern Himalayan foothills. Three
communities were studied in three different
districts.
Innovation for mus in an NGO programme,
but linking with government bodies and
NGOs through the learning alliance.
South Africa
Ward 16 of the Bushbuckridge Local
Municipality
Focusing on the integrated development
planning process of the Local Municipality,
and trying to include mus issues here.
Thailand
Northeast Thailand
Farmer to farmer learning through Farmer
Wisdom Network. Link with national policy
Zimbabwe
Overall scoping, with surveys in the Rural
District Councils (RDCs) of Marondera,
Murehwa and Uzumba Maramba Pfungwe
(UMP).
Mainly capturing innovations done under
NGO programmes.
Context
• Physical-hydrological context: from semiarid to humid
– Influences type of technology and storage
– Only India and South Africa phase physical
scarcity; others economical scarcity
• Water services context:
– Access linked to poverty status
– Type of technology
Context
Group
Technology
Examples of cases in study
Household owned
options
Wells and boreholes
Zimbabwe family wells, with or without rope pump
Rooftop rainwater harvesting
Household and school level rainwater harvesting in
Thailand and Zimbabwe
Household ponds
Ethiopia and Thailand
Wells or boreholes with hand
pumps
Ethiopia communal dug wells; Zimbabwe, bush pumps
Wells or boreholes with
motorised pump without
distribution network
Uncommon, as most motorised systems will more towards
distribution systems
Village ponds
Not studied in this study, but common in West Africa
(Ghana, Burkina Faso, etc ref), but not suitable for
drinking.
Gravity fed piped systems
Many examples, including all the systems in Bolivia,
Colombia, Nepal, South Africa, and one spring system in
Ethiopia. In some cases there are separate distribution
systems for productive and domestic use, such as in Vinto
Groundwater-fed piped
systems
Various cases in Bolivia and South Africa. One system in
Ethiopia
Gravity fed open canal
systems
Only small-scale systems studied in Andes and Nepal.
Large-scale irrigation not included
Communal single
access point
systems
Communal
distribution networks
Context
• Poverty/livelihoods context: Least developed countries
(Ethiopia, Nepal, Zimbabwe) to middle income
(Colombia, SA, Thailand)
– Livelihoods and poverty situation of users:
• Rural communities which nearly exclusively depend on on-farm
activities (Ethiopa, Zimbabwe)
• Rural communities which largely depend on off-farm income, but
complement these with on-farm activities (Nepal, South Africa)
• Peri-urban areas, with a mixed pattern of families depending on onfarm and off-farm income
– Often, diversity of livelihoods and poverty within communities
– Also influences presence and capacity of State, and the services
it provides
Context
• Institutional context of services delivery:
– Self supply, where users do large part of
investments: Bolivia and Zimbabwe
– “project” driven context (NGOs): (Bolivia),
Ethiopia, Nepal, Zimbabwe
– Government programmes: Colombia, India
and South Africa
• Stage of innovation cycle: from advocacy,
to piloting, to policy development
Bolivia
Colombia
Ethiopia
Nepal
India
South Africa
Thailand
Zimbabwe
Findings: water and
livelihoods
• Big demand for water for small-scale productive
uses around homestead
• This demand is largely unmet
• Is not necessarily main component of family
income
• But important in livelihoods
–
–
–
–
Diversification
Reducing vulnerability
Access to cash
Access to nutritious food
Child support grant
12%
24%
8%
Old age pension
Disability grant
Part-time jobs
9%
Small business
Social networks
12%
23%
10%
Water-related small
business
Stable jobs
2%
“Every pepper that you see hanging here,
represents a 500 Peso coin.”
Woman farmer, Colombia
Findings: implications
for water demand
• In all cases, people use water for productive uses, even
in Ethiopia
• Extent to which people engage in multiple use depends
on access to services:
–
–
–
–
Quantity
Distance
Reliability
(Quality)
• Empirical data converted into water ladder
• 40-100 lpcd is a reasonable amount for small-scale
productive uses
• This does mean a move away from common standards
Service level
Overview
Quantity
(lpcd)
per capita
Quantity for
productive use at
household level
Needs met and Multiple Use Potential
>100
>475
Sufficient for domestic needs
Not all but in some combination:
Sufficient for livestock
Sufficient for gardening (~50m2 – >200m2)
Sufficient for many small-scale enterprises
Improved source very close to home.
Access: < 5 minutes RT, < 150m
Quantity: 40 – 100 lpcd
Quality: Improved source
Reliability: daily
40-100
175 – 475
Sufficient for basic domestic purposes
Not all but in some combination:
Sufficient for livestock (~7 – 17 cows)
Sufficient for gardening (~25m2 – 200m2)
Sufficient for some micro-scale enterprises
Basic Multiple
uses
Frequent street taps, easily accessible
improved source
Access: < 15 minutes RT, < 150-500m;
Quantity: 15-50 lpcd
Quality: improved source
Reliability: daily or storage
15 – 50
50 – 280
Sufficient for basic domestic purposes
Not all but in some combination:
Sufficient for some livestock (~15 goats – 8-10 cows)
Some gardening, especially with re-use( ~10-100m2)
Some micro-scale enterprises
Basic Domestic
Improved point source or self-supply w/
simple lifting device
Access: upto 30 minutes RT, < 1km
Quantity: 10-25 lpcd
Quality: improved source
Reliability: daily or storage
10-25
25 - 100
Sufficient for drinking and cooking
Hardly sufficient for basic hygiene
Not all but in some combination:
Insufficient for cleaning house
Possibility for r-use for horticulture and very limited
livestock (eg. chickens or goat)
No service
Unprotected or distant improved sources
Access: > 30 minutes RT, >1 km
Quantity: < 5 lpcd
Quality: unimproved source
Reliability: daily
< 10
<25
Highest level
multiple uses
House and yard connections
Access: household connection or tap in yard
Quantity: > 100 lpcd
Quantity: Improved source
Reliability: daily
Intermediate
level multiple
uses
Sufficient for drinking and cooking
Insufficient for basic hygiene
Findings: implications
for water demand
• Livelihoods need to be taken as starting
point
• Converted into water demand
• Matching demand with realistic supply
options
• Demand will be heterogeneous within
community, and in time
Infrastructure
• Different types of infrastructure provide
different levels of access and potential for
mus
• Incremental steps within and between
system types
Infrastructure
• Private options
– Family wells: good access due to close proximity; may
be upgraded with additional lifting devices
– Rainwater harvesting: often as complimentary source
• Communal point source systems
– Borehole with hand pump: limited productive use at
homestead; at most communal productive use; often
in combination with other sources
– Piped system with very scattered standpipes: same as
hand pump
Infrastructure
• Communal distribution systems:
– The closer the taps, the more productive use
– Various incremental steps possible
• “add-ons”: household storage tanks, cattle
troughs, farm ponds, etc
– Important components to facilitate access,
especially household storage
– Multiple sources for multiple uses
Infrastructure
• Treatment: “wasting clean water on
productive uses?”
• Only an issue in surface water fed systems
• Level of treatment: central or household
• Quality a difficult issue anyway
Infrastructure
• Not only type of technology; also its
performance
• Chicken-and-egg between performance
and engagement in productive use
• Further work needed into “social reconstruction” of infrastructure
Findings: costs
• Costs of mus should be considered as
incremental
• Case specific and little insight into general trends
• Capital costs:
–
–
–
–
relatively small when incremental steps
larger when jumping to higher service level
Context-specific
Especially in piped systems, many uncertain factors;
mus is in the margins of error
– Sunk costs
Findings: costs
• O&M costs:
– Directly related to consumption in pumped systems,
or where treatment is involved
– Less direct relation in gravity fed systems
• Who pays?
– Communities can assume incremental O&M costs
– For capital costs this is less clear-cut; possible some
community contribution can be expected
– Replacement/rehabilitation costs: not considered…
Findings: communitylevel institutions
• No equal demand for multiple use within
community
• Calls for internal rules and regulations to ensure
equitable distribution and priority setting
• In community-managed systems easier to define
locally-relevant rules than in agency-managed
systems
• Often calls for outside support
• Many community management issues as in
conventional services delivery
Findings: implications
for water resources
• Demand for water for small-scale
productive uses remains small compared
to other demands at river basin level
• Yet, there may be local water resources
issues
• In closed basins re-allocation may need to
be considered – using appropriate
measures
• In open basins, focus on local IWRM
Conclusions:
community level
• There is a large demand for water for
small-scale productive uses
• This demand is largely unmet
• Meeting the demand means a slight move
away from current approaches, though not
drastic
• Appropriate community management is an
important precondition for sustainable
mus services
Findings: scaling up
• Focus: what is needed to scale up mus in
space and in time
• Three main approaches with different
potential for scaling up:
– Self supply by households and communities
– Project approaches
– Government programmes
Findings: scaling up
• Self-supply:
– True community/household ownership
responding to their own needs
– Capitalises upon household investments
– Poorest may not be able to invest
– Need to support self-supply: credit,
technology, etc
– Without programmatic approach to supporting
self-supply, scale cannot be achieved
Findings: scaling up
• Project and NGO approaches:
– At the forefront of innovation
– Not such rigid sectoral boundaries
– Difficult to ensure long-term sustainability, when (local)
government is not involved
• Government programmes
– Potential to go to scale
– However, more rigid in norms, standards, financing
arrangements, etc
• Scaling up:
– Needs government involvement and leadership
– Building upon innovation and financing of NGOs, communities,
and other players
– Partnership approach
Findings: intermediate
level
• Roles at intermediate level, largely similar
as to ones for conventional approaches:
planning, financing, support, coordination
• Main differences: what is planned for
– Balance between bottom-up water demand
and realistic supply options
– Work from within sectoral boundaries, but
slowly opening up; give sectors mus mandate
– Opening up financial frameworks
Findings: national level
• Enabling conditions:
– Supporting decentralised services provision
– Flexible norms, standards, policies which at
least that do not limit mus
Taking mus forward
• Implementation at scale; on the basis of
the identified criteria which represent
opportunities
• Strengthening capacities; especially at
intermediate level
• Research; from exploration of diversity to
going into depth in some contexts
• Policy dialogue; with multiple stakeholders