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