Summary of Theme 3 : Moving forward

Summary of Theme 3 : Moving forward

Participants responded to the questions posed at the start of the session, namely: Is it feasible to further promote and adopt a multiple use focus to water supply? Why or why not? What are the best ways to “scale up” a multiple use approach to water supply? Which organisations can be involved in this and how? How can the adoption of multiple use water services best be financed, and by whom? What policies and regulations would be required to facilitate the scaling up of multiple use water services?

We also welcomed two more case studies on multiple uses. The first case study came from Hillary Jeune (PRODWAT 43) on the experiences with Sand dams for multiple use in Kenya (see also www.irc.nl/page/9497). Joachim Ibeziako Ezeji (PRODWAT 45) described a case from Nigeria (see www.irc.nl/page/10491 ).

The main themes related to “moving forward with multiple uses” that seemed to emerge from the contributions are:

• Feasibility for scaling up multiple use approaches
• Funding and financing mechanisms
• Institutional context, including policies and regulations
• Flexibility to experiment and learn
• Technology

Feasibility for scaling up

Already from the debates during the first two blocks, it seemed that adopting a multiple use focus would be feasible. As mentioned in the summary of Theme 2, the multiple use approach has the potential to alleviate poverty, but factors outside the water sector often limit this potential.

Laurent Stravato (PRODWAT 40) added to that discussion of block 2 his message arguing that multiple use systems indeed have the potential for reducing poverty, as it creates both livelihood options as well as reducing income poverty. But poverty impact is not the only reason for adopting more broadly a multiple use focus.

Tom Remmington (PRODWAT 33) describes how CRS (Catholic Relief Services) adopted this approach from a programmatic implementation point of view, seeking better integration between development interventions would lead to increased efficiency and effectiveness of these interventions.

Funding

If then it is feasible to move ahead with a multiple use approach, of course one has to look at the costs, and the ways of covering these costs. The costs of multiple use systems are typically higher than those of single use systems, because of the larger quantities of water used, and hence for higher investment and operation and maintenance costs. The question is who pays for these additional costs. Stef Smits (PRODWAT 33) argues that funding mechanisms need to be looked for that combine money from those organisations responsible for domestic water supply and those responsible for agriculture or economic development. Some first attempts to do that are made in South Africa, though with some difficulty. In most places, communities are also required to contribute to the costs for water supply. However, many difficulties are experienced in that.

Mike Wood (PRODWAT 41) describes the case of the western part of Sudan where multiple use water points are collapsing because of poor maintenance. It appears that the very high tariff that is paid by the community is not adequately re-invested in maintenance of the water points, but rather to cover the salaries of the water supply institution. The solution that has been adopted there is that communities manage a large part of the revenue themselves to make sure that maintenance does take place. CARE and the EU are now lobbying that the Government of Sudan uses other revenue to pay for their workforce. It is hoped that in this way, sustainability is guaranteed, or to put it in other words.

Also related to community contributions to water supply was the message posted by Catarina Fonseca (PRODWAT 42). She argues that many communities are limited in their contributions to investments in domestic water supply due to the fact that they have no access to credits, not even micro-credit. Access to micro-credit can only be obtained when some guarantee can be given to the credit supplier. Multiple uses, linked to small-scale productive activities, can give that guarantee. Adopting a multiple use approach can thus enhance access to micro-credit for investment in community water supply.

Institutional context

A second enabling (or limiting) factor for further up-scaling and impact of the multiple use approach is the institutional context. In the first place, one needs to address institutional arrangements within the community.

The case from Kenya by Hillary Jeune (PRODWAT43) shows that Sand dams for multiple uses had a positive impact on production, health housing conditions and the environment. However, local level institutional arrangements, especially related to local by-laws for use of water from the dams, limited some people from benefiting from these dams.

Power issues also play a role where there are organised dialogues between the multiple users, as alluded to in the messages by Jeroen Warner (PRODWAT 36) and Jeroen van Bommel (PRODWAT 38). There are no easy solutions to overcome that of course. Then, finally, national level policies, laws, regulations and institutional arrangements are necessary to enable scaling up of multiple use approaches.

Stef Smits (PRODWAT 39) argues that an enabling framework at national level is needed. He gives the examples of Colombia and South Africa where national policies and norms and standards indeed encourage an approach where people’s economic needs for water are recognised when planning water services. Unfortunately, having an enabling environment at national level does not automatically translate into action on the ground. Further work needs to be done to take that step. Not only, official (government) policies can bring about change. NGOs also have their own policies, which can bring about change.

Tom Remmington (PRODWAT 33) describes how CRS adopted a multiple use approach for the whole organisation: adopting internal policies for action on the ground.

Technology

The last mentioned crucial factor for moving forward with multiple use, is the choice of technology for delivering a multiple use service.

Grace Oluwasanya (PRODWAT 44) promotes rainwater harvesting as one way of moving ahead with the multiple use approach. Rainwater harvesting increases in the first place water availability at household level. In addition, it also offers people the possibility to put into practice “multiple sources for multiple uses”, i.e. people can manage water of different qualities for purposes that require different qualities.

Unfortunately, rainwater harvesting is not feasible everywhere, as argued by Joachim Ibeziako Ezeji (PRODWAT 45). He says that separating water for domestic use from water for productive uses is often not very practical, especially where only one water source is available, like in the case he describes from Nigeria. Rather, use the same borehole for both uses at the same time, even if that means that good quality water is used for irrigating gardens. Household level filtering could be a solution where the quality of the source is too low for drinking but good for irrigation.

Conclusions for part 3

Although we had fewer than desired contributions to Theme 3 (moving forward with multiple uses), they were again of high quality, and some interesting conclusions can be drawn with respect to this:

• Broader scaling-up of a multiple use approach seems feasible, because of its potential impacts on poverty, possibility to increase efficiency and effectiveness of development initiatives and positive impact of sustainability of services (see also summary of Theme 2 for further discussion).
• In order to move forward, partnerships for funding and financing need to be established, between different government departments, NGOs, and communities. Micro-credit and community management of funds seem essential components to that.
• An enabling institutional environment needs to be developed, consisting of national level policies, regulations, norms and standards, and intermediate level institutional arrangements that allow flexibility and learning by doing to find the best mix of technologies and approaches to provide sustainable services.

Stef Smits (IRC)