Upload
enya
View
24
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
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: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
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 semi-arid 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
Communal single access point systems
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.
Communal distribution networks
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
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 on-farm 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
24%
23%
2%10%
12%
9%
8%
12% Child support grant
Old age pension
Disability grant
Part-time jobs
Small business
Social networks
Water-related smallbusinessStable jobs
“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
Highest level multiple uses
House and yard connectionsAccess: household connection or tap in yardQuantity: > 100 lpcdQuantity: Improved sourceReliability: daily
>100 >475 Sufficient for domestic needsNot all but in some combination: Sufficient for livestock Sufficient for gardening (~50m2 – >200m2)Sufficient for many small-scale enterprises
Intermediate level multiple uses
Improved source very close to home.Access: < 5 minutes RT, < 150mQuantity: 40 – 100 lpcdQuality: Improved sourceReliability: daily
40-100 175 – 475 Sufficient for basic domestic purposesNot 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 sourceAccess: < 15 minutes RT, < 150-500m; Quantity: 15-50 lpcdQuality: improved sourceReliability: daily or storage
15 – 50 50 – 280 Sufficient for basic domestic purposesNot 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 deviceAccess: upto 30 minutes RT, < 1kmQuantity: 10-25 lpcdQuality: improved sourceReliability: daily or storage
10-25 25 - 100 Sufficient for drinking and cookingHardly sufficient for basic hygieneNot all but in some combination:Insufficient for cleaning housePossibility for r-use for horticulture and very limited livestock (eg. chickens or goat)
No service Unprotected or distant improved sourcesAccess: > 30 minutes RT, >1 kmQuantity: < 5 lpcdQuality: unimproved sourceReliability: daily
< 10 <25 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 re-construction” 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: community-level
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