Factors in sub-optimum performance of rural water supply (RWS)

systems (as lessons learned for rain water management (RWM)

systems) in the Ethiopian Highlands

Seifu A. Tilahun, Aschalew D. Tigabu, Tegegne M. Tarekegne , Meseret B. Addisie, Habtamu

A. Beyene, Zemenu A. Alemeyehu, Manyahlshal Ayele, Amy S. Collick, Tammo S. Steenhuis

Nile Basin Development Challenge (NBDC) Science Workshop

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 9–10 July 2013

Rural Water Supply • For more than two decades ,

various efforts have been done

to increase water supply

coverage and to provide safe

water supplies

• The information of failure or

success from constructed

water supply points could be a

lesson to rain water

management systems

• Give an overview of the

survey results of the

performance of the more than

100 rural water supply point

Study Area

Study Study Area

(Districts)

Area

(km2)

Population

(2007

census)

Zone % of rural

population

Selection

Method

A1

Achefer 2500.0 173,211 West Gojam 93 randomly 16 water

supply systems

(WSS)

Libokemekem 1706.2 198,374 South

Gondar 88.9 randomly 20 WSS

Semada 2281.7 228,271 South

Gondar 95.5 randomly 16 WSS

A2

Mecha 1612.5 292,250 West Gojam 92.4

randomly 16

WSS; 50%

functional & 50%

non functional

Quarit 613.6 166,848 West Gojam 97.5

randomly 12

WSS; 50%

functional & 50%

non functional

B Amhara Region 161,828 17,214,056 11 zones 89% 32 WSS selected

based on success

and failure

Methodology • Formal interview, focal

group discussion and field observation in 2008, 2010 and 2011

• Descriptive statistics based on percentages and ratios

• Linear regression model

– For example, per capita water consumption with household size and distance from the source

– contributions of cash with number of alternative water sources, degree of household participation, and trust on water use committees

Result • Functionality of schemes:

about only two thirds were operational

• Amount of water use per day: Water use was between 10 and 15 l/day per capita

– an increase of household by one person decreases significantly the per capita water consumption by 1.5 l/day

– increase in travel by 1 km to the water source decreased water use by 6 l/day per capita

Result

• Alternative sources:

– 70% of the 160

respondents in

Semada had more

than one source

– 65% of the villages

from Study B had

unprotected

alternative source

– A unit increase in the number of

alternative sources decreases

the contribution of cash by 0.25

Ethiopian birr from a household

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

River unprotectedspring

Traditionalhand dug well

Other

Pe

rce

nt

Functional Schemes

Nonfunctionalschemes

Type of water source used before the developed scheme in Mecha woreda

Result

• Operation and maintenance: In about 60% of the sites in the region, no cash contribution is observed

• the contributions were not more than 1 birr except for sites with borehole

• they are poor which is not taken into account when systems are planned (Carter, 2009) and

• low participation of beneficiaries in the design and construction as explained by Deneke et al (2011).

Result

• WUCs: Water Use Committees (WUCs) were instituted in many villages for governing water systems

• Ratio is 5 experts for 200 water supply points

• An increase of the level of trust in WUCs by one unit significantly increases the cash contributions by 0.19 ETB per month

• Not effective because local indigenous institutions missing (Deneke et al., 2011)

Community, local leader and implementers share responsibility in site selection in Quarit and Mecha Woredas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

community local leader implementers community local leader implementers

Pe

rce

nt

Quarit Mecha

Functional Non-functional

Result

Result

Project Cost in Mecha woreda

Most successful RWS

• The Harbu area which is the water scarce areas described as semi-arid.

• There are no alternative sources such as springs and shallow wells.

• System is borehole

• 6 Birr/month

• RWS with multiple use • 6 HDW, one is constructed for

livestock water

• Fontenina springs-developed by Water Action that have strong revenue

• Irrigation user safe-guard the system

Most successful RWS

Conclusions

• The availability of alternative water sources was

an important factor in the failure of the system

– improving unprotected alternative sources near the

houses

• most cash collected for O & M should be spent

on maintenance rather than operation such as

payment for guard

– Operation payments could be in kind by through

participation of all households

Conclusions

• RWS is relatively successful in community that local leaders participated in the selection of site, project scheduling, and important decisions during construction

• Improving the functioning of the Water User Committees (WUCs) – be preferable to use local indigenous institutions as described in

Deneke et al (2011) or local leaders

Further Information

http://soilandwater.bee.cornell.edu/research/international/eth_pubs.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckAgEUFK5yM

Thesis, briefing notes and main report

Documentary Film

Thank You!!