Summary of Theme 1 : Identifying current experience

Summary of Theme 1 : Identifying current experience

E-conference 'Tackling poverty through multiple use water services'

Over the past 2 weeks, participants in Theme 1 of the English language e-conference have submitted contributions from Bolivia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Pakistan, India, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Brasil and of course the UK and the Netherlands. A Spanish-language e-conference has been underway in parallel. This summary of the contributions to Theme 1 was prepared by the E-conference moderators. You can find all the contributions made to the E-conference on the archive. You can, of course, also find from this web site the case studies submitted by participants, the background paper for the E-conference and links to other recommended sources of information. If you are interested in the discussions from Latin America, you will also want to read the summary of findings from the first 2 weeks of the Spanish-language e-conference: these will be circulated.

Theme 1 (weeks 1 & 2): Identifying current experience In the first 2 weeks of the E-conference we were invited to respond to the question 'what are your experiences with multiple use systems and services, both good and bad?'

Ian Thorpe (Pump Aid, Zimbabwe) told us about the NGO PumpAid's programme to promote wells fitted with rope pumps (the Elephant Pump) in Zimbabwe based upon a strong participatory approach (see full case study). Interestingly, these schemes for households and schools have met multiple needs from the outset. Elephant Pumps are used for domestic purposes (drinking, cooking, washing), irrigation (including livestock), building and micro-enterprise. The high extraction rate of the Elephant Pump (1 litre per second for a head of 20 metres) makes it suitable for micro-scale irrigation in addition to meeting household (or school) domestic water needs. This gives small-scale farmers the opportunity to increase the size of their vegetable gardens and enables them to sell excess produce. Ian also explains how bringing a water source closer to people, means that they can divert time previously spent collecting water to other useful tasks such as marketing their produce.

Stef Smits (IRC and The Mvula Trust, South Africa) told us about three case studies (full case study available at www.irc.nl/page/9497) from South Africa where a nice term has been coined for better than basic water supplies ('stepping up the water ladder'). It is commonly accepted that the higher rungs of the ladder need to be paid for by users, while a basic supply of 25 lpcd is free according to government policy. The case studies include community gardens being developed along with improved 'domestic' water supplies using the same or alternative water sources to the main water supply system. Stef says there are practical problems in arranging systems for payment of higher levels of service, and reports ideas on how this might be done differently in different places, with community involvement.

Rocio Bustamante (Andean Center for Water Use and Water Management, Bolivia) referring to two case studies near Cochabamba (see case study documents) reported how a significant proportion of domestic water in rural and peri-urban areas is used in productive activities, and how not recognizing this, can lead to conflicts. Conflicts were about water resource rights in the first case (in Tarata) where irrigators and urban water users contested over the urban communities right to use water from a reservoir for peri-urban irrigation, rather than just domestic use. In the second case, conflicts were linked to the implementation of new WATSAN projects (in Tiquipaya) that did not take sufficient account of people's needs and wishes to have a say in the design and management of systems and to help make them suit their (multiple) needs.

Tessa Cousins (Association for Water and Rural Development, South Africa) introduced an NGO perspective. AWARD have developed a methodology to work at village level with villagers and the various service providers (departments like Agriculture and Water as well as local authorities and NGOs) on a more integrated and holistic approach to water resource development and serivces management. One finding from their focus on multiple use services was that management need not fall under one "hat". The challenge is rather to work with the diverse institutions, interests, sources and needs, towards focused analysis and action. As Tessa says 'this is proving not to be simple!'.

Ramitha Wijethunga (Intermediate Technology Development Group, Sri Lanka) also reflected on the struggle in convincing various types of decision makers to prove the importance of demand-led water systems and the sustainability of these systems. Ramitha also reminded us that rain water harvesting can be one option for alternative systems.

Dick de Jong (IRC, Netherlands) remarked that, as a journalist, water specialists are not selling their case well enough to decision makers in other sectors. Too often he says they stress technical messages such as "productive uses of water". Instead he says, they should stress economic benefits such as "men and women earn money because of using water for products they get from using or selling products from farms and home gardens, or
beer brewing, or by selling latrine parts".

Alan Nicol (ODI, UK) expressed the opinion that achieving impacts on poverty has to be about much more than improving access to water, and that multiple uses and their livelihood benefits will always depend upon other factors in the broader development environment like social capital or access to money to invest. This view was supported by Joep Verhagen (HabiCom Int., India) in the semi-arid areas of Western Gujarat in India where research showed that an improved water supply combined with micro-enterprise development and improved gender relations enabled women to make an important contribution to the household income especially in times when other livelihood options are non-existent such as droughts. A reliable water supply that addresses the multiple needs (domestic, livestock, kitchen gardens and plantations, enterprise) was found to be a precondition for poverty alleviation in these semi-arid areas, but not sufficient by itself.

Brian Mathew (IWE, Cranfield University, UK) pointed out how there could be an interesting link between ecological sanitation and 'multiple use services', since this generates a useable form of fertiliser for gardens. Sawaeng Ruaysoongnern (Khon Kaen University, Thailand) and Alfredo Duran (Andean Center for Water Use and Water Management, Bolivia) both proposed frameworks for research examining multiple uses of water separating different issues and aspects. Sawaeng remarked on the importance of process above many issues such as technology.

Finally reflecting on the two polarised opinons offered by Tom Slaymaker (ODI, UK), not many people expressed opinions on whether they belonged in one of these groups or somewhere in between!

1. "Water supply systems (formal and informal) have always been subject to multiple uses and this fact is widely recognised by sector professionals. Multiple use is inevitable but does not significantly affect system sustainability and does not merit any serious rethinking of existing approaches to water supply development. The benefits of explicitly catering for multiple uses are negligible".
2. "Many of us working on water supply development have paid insufficient attention to this issue. A preoccupation with narrow health or agric. productivity concerns has blinded us to the importance of water in a wide range of different livelihood activities. Failure to cater for these multiple uses has resulted in systems and services which largely fail to meet user needs and frequently breakdown and collapse. It is therefore essential that we rethink current approaches to take account of multiple uses"

Next themes for the E-conference The following themes that will build upon the first 2 weeks of the E-conference will be: - Theme 2 (weeks 3 & 4): What are the lessons learned?- Theme 3 (weeks 5 & 6): Moving forward: how do (and should) we go forward? On Monday 31st May we will start Theme 2 to be moderated by John Butterworth during week 3 and then Patrick Moriarty, Catarina Fonseca and colleagues at IRC during week 4.

John Butterworth (NRI) and Tom Slaymaker (ODI) Moderators for Theme 1