Barbara van Koppen, Patrick Moriarty and Eline Boelee

IWMI is a Future Harvest Centersupported by the CGIAR

Multiple-Use Water Servicesto Advance the MillenniumDevelopment Goals

98

RESEARCHR E P O R T

I n t e r n a t i o n a lWater ManagementI n s t i t u t e

SM

IWMI is a Future Harvest Centersupported by the CGIAR

Postal AddressP O Box 2075ColomboSri Lanka

Location127, Sunil MawathaPelawattaBattaramullaSri Lanka

Telephone+94-11-2787404

Fax+94-11-2786854

E-mailiwmi@cgiar.org

Websitehttp://www.iwmi.org

I n t e r n a t i o n a lWater ManagementI n s t i t u t e

ISSN 1026-0862ISBN 92-9090-627-8

978-92-9090-627-8

Research Reports

IWMI’s mission is to improve water and land resources management for food,livelihoods and nature. In serving this mission, IWMI concentrates on the integrationof policies, technologies and management systems to achieve workable solutionsto real problems—practical, relevant results in the field of irrigation and water andland resources.

The publications in this series cover a wide range of subjects—from computermodeling to experience with water user associations—and vary in content fromdirectly applicable research to more basic studies, on which applied work ultimatelydepends. Some research reports are narrowly focused, analytical and detailedempirical studies; others are wide-ranging and synthetic overviews of genericproblems.

Although most of the reports are published by IWMI staff and their collaborators,we welcome contributions from others. Each report is reviewed internally by IWMI’sown staff and Fellows, and by external reviewers. The reports are published anddistributed both in hard copy and electronically (www.iwmi.org) and where possibleall data and analyses will be available as separate downloadable files. Reports maybe copied freely and cited with due acknowledgment.

i

International Water Management InstituteP O Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka

Research Report 98

Multiple-Use Water Services to Advance theMillennium Development Goals

Barbara van Koppen, Patrick Moriarty and Eline Boelee,with contributions fromJuergen Hagmann, Deepak Adhikari, Mintesinot Behailu, YogeshBhatt, Rocio Bustamante, John Butterworth, Tessa Cousins, MichikoEbato, Fungai Makoni, Theo Maluleke, Marielle Montginoul, SylvieMorardet, Dhruba Pant, Frits Penning de Vries, Ines Restrepo.Sawaeng Ruyasoongnern, Stef Smits, Sudarshan Suryawhanshi andBob Yoder

IWMI receives its principal funding from 58 governments, private foundations, andinternational and regional organizations known as the Consultative Group onInternational Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Support is also given by the Governmentsof Ghana, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

The authors: Barbara van Koppen is Principal Researcher at the International WaterManagement Institute (IWMI); Patrick Moriarty is Section Head: Knowledge Developmentand Advocacy at the International Water and Sanitation Centre (IRC); and Eline Boelee isSenior Researcher at the International Water Management Institute (IWMI).

This research report is based on the ongoing work by the action-research project “Modelsfor implementing multiple-use water supply systems for enhanced land and waterproductivity, rural livelihoods and gender equity.” This project is funded by the ChallengeProgram on Water and Food, the Government of France, and matching funds of IWMI andglobal and national partners. The authors gratefully acknowledge the excellent commentson earlier drafts of this research report by Roberto Lenton, Nancy Johnson, Richard Carterand Mary Renwick.

van Koppen, B.; Moriarty, P.; Boelee, E. 2006. Multiple-use water services to advance themillennium development goals. Research Report 98. Colombo, Sri Lanka: InternationalWater Management Institute,

/ water supply / domestic / irrigation / water services / gender / water quality / planning /design / livelihoods / user charges / financing / environmental sustainability / developmentpolicy / poverty alleviation / water legislation / participatory management / water use /costs / appropriate technology / public health / risks / integrated water resourcesmanagement / decentralization / multiple water uses /

ISSN 1026-0862ISBN 92-9090-627-8

978-92-9090-627-8

Copyright © 2006, by IWMI. All rights reserved.

Cover design: Rosalyn Olyslager.

Please send inquiries and comments to: iwmi@cgiar.org

iii

iii

Contents

Summary v

Background and Aim of the Report 1

From Single-Use to Multiple-Use Planning and Design 5

Merits and Drawbacks of Multiple-Use Water Services 9

Envisioning Upscaled Multiple-Use Water Services 18

Empowering the Poor at Community Level 20

Enhancing Service Delivery at Intermediate Level 25

Ensuring an Enabling Environment at National Level 30

Conclusions 34

Literature Cited 37

v

SUMMARY

This research report presents the findings of thefirst phase of the action-research project “Modelsfor implementing multiple-use water supplysystems for enhanced land and water productiv-ity, rural livelihoods and gender equity.” Multiple-use water services, or “mus” in short, is aparticipatory, integrated and poverty-reduction-focused approach in poor rural and peri-urbanareas, which takes people’s multiple water needsas a starting point for providing integrated ser-vices, moving beyond the conventional sectoralbarriers of the domestic and productive sectors.Three aspects are discussed. First, a typology isdeveloped for the various efforts since the 1980sto overcome the shortcomings of conventionalsingle-use planning and design. Second, theempirical evidence is analyzed to identify genericmerits and drawbacks of needs-based andparticipatory water-services provision comparedto conventional approaches with regard to well-being; gender; ability and willingness to pay forwater services; water productivity and “more useper drop;” integrated local water managementinstitutions; protection against illegal use; health;equitable and environmentally sustainable water

allocation and protection of people’s basicmultiple water needs; and incremental costs.Third, a framework is provided, based on prin-ciples grouped in “Learning Wheels” at thecommunity, intermediate and national levels. Theprinciples represent the conditions that theproject team identified as pivotal for implementingand upscaling mus approaches at a larger scale.The ten principles include: service provisionbased on a thorough understanding of water-related livelihoods; sustainable, equitable andefficient use of water resources; appropriatetechnologies; inclusive institutions (at communitylevel); adequate financing (crosscutting alllevels); adaptive and learning-based management(at the intermediate level); coordination betweensectors and actors; long-term support; participa-tory planning (at intermediate and national lev-els); and enabling policies and legislation (bygovernments at national level). Action-researchguided by this framework is expected to generatebetter insights and better action to upscale thisappropriate form of IWRM and multiply its ben-efits to advance the Millennium DevelopmentGoals.

v

1

Multiple-Use Water Services to Advance theMillennium Development Goals

Barbara van Koppen, Patrick Moriarty and Eline Boelee

Background

The present research report is the outcome ofthe joint work of the team of the action-research project “Models for implementingmultiple-use water supply systems forenhanced land and water productivity, rurallivelihoods and gender equity” (seewww.musproject.net).1 This project develops aparticipatory, integrated, and poverty-reduction-focused approach to providing people withappropriate and sustainable water (and sanitation)services, which we call “multiple-use waterservices” or, in short, “mus.”2 The objective of theproject is to advance the Millennium DevelopmentGoals by identifying and developing practicalmodels, tools and guidelines for providing andupscaling improved water services that bettermeet poor women’s, men’s and children’s multiplewater needs.

The Millennium Development Goalsacknowledge the critical and multifaceted role ofwater in realizing a world, which aims, by 2015,at achieving the following:

Goal 1: halving the prevalence of hunger(water improves food and income from crops,animals and small businesses in poor ruraland peri-urban areas);

Background and Aim of the Report

1This partnership of researchers and implementers from the domestic and productive sector is, at global level, led by InternationalDevelopment Enterprise (IDE), International Water and Sanitation Center (IRC), International Water Management Institute (IWMI),Khon Kaen University, Thailand, and Mekelle University, Ethiopia. The action research is carried out in collaboration with nationalpartners in five benchmark basins of the Challenge Program: the Andean basins (Colombia and Bolivia), Indus-Ganges basin (Indiaand Nepal), Mekong basin (Thailand), Limpopo basin (South Africa and Zimbabwe), and Nile basin (Ethiopia). The project is fundedby the Challenge Program on Water and Food (see www.waterforfood.org).2The term “water services” is used broadly and includes both sanitation services and hygienic behavior change.

Goal 2: universal primary education (girls areliberated from domestic water chores, andboys from herding livestock to distant waterpoints);

Goal 3: women’s empowerment (women areliberated from domestic water chores andobtain equal access to water for food andincome);

Goal 4: reduced child mortality;

Goal 5: improved maternal health;

Goal 6 HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseasescombated (more water of higher quality isavailable for drinking and hygiene, and water-related diseases are prevented); and

Goal 7: enhanced environmental sustainability(water resources are used equitably, rationallyand sustainably, and watershed managementensures adequate drainage and preventspollution and land and water erosion) (UNMillennium Project Task Force on Water andSanitation, 2005;www.unmillenniumproject.org).

In the past decade, broad consensus hasbeen achieved amongst governments, NGOs,international development and financing agenciesand donors on key changes necessary within the

2

water sector, if it is to rise to the challengesposed by achieving the Millennium DevelopmentGoals, including:

• Good governance, including people’sparticipation and the devolution of decision-making authority and the required resourcesto the lowest appropriate level.

• Participatory and demand-based technologychoice, from a range of appropriate andaffordable technologies.

• A central role for women in planning andmanaging water services, as expressed in theDublin principles (1992).

Above all, it is widely recognized by nowthat, in addition to good governance,decentralization and participatory technologydevelopment, it pays to think and act in a moreintegrated and holistic way. This philosophy isreflected in the concept of Integrated WaterResources Management (IWRM), which is definedas a process which promotes the coordinateddevelopment and management of water, land andrelated resources, in order to maximize theresultant economic and social welfare in anequitable manner without compromising thesustainability of vital ecosystems (GWP 2000).IWRM has become the overarching consensus ofthe water community, at least at the abstractlevel. However, at a more concrete level, theIWRM paradigm has been critiqued for beingamorphous and open to multiple interpretations,and perhaps most seriously for lack of practicaltools and approaches by which to implement it(Biswas 2004).

This research report focuses on a concrete,participatory, integrated, and poverty-reduction-focused approach to providing people withappropriate and sustainable water and sanitationservices that meet their multiple water needs. Werefer to this approach as “multiple-use waterservices” or “mus.” A mus approach addressesthe challenges mentioned above by recognizingthat people’s water needs are integrated and arepart and parcel of their multifaceted livelihoods,and that the necessity to better meet people’s

multiple water needs is a main driver forintegration within the water sector itself.Concurrent multiple water needs especially prevailamong the primary target group of the MillenniumDevelopment Goals: the rural and peri-urban poorin developing countries whose diversifiedlivelihoods depend strongly and in many waysupon water. They use water concurrently fordomestic purposes, cropping, gardening,livestock, fisheries and aquaculture, tree growing,food processing (beer making, coffee processing,butchery), brick making, market places, weaving,handicrafts and other small businesses andceremonial and cultural purposes. Table 1illustrates such multiple water uses for a ruralhousehold. Hence, any water service that seeksto meet their real-life water needs can only do soby meeting multiple water needs at the sametime.

The single most important reason whyplanning and design of water services on thebasis of multiple water needs are still not thenorm, in spite of water services providers’genuine and intensive efforts to improve users'well-being, is that people’s integrated need forand use of water do not match the ways in whichthe water sector itself is organized. Thestructuring of policymaking, implementation,subsidization and financing by governments and,often to a lesser extent, by nongovernmentalorganizations (NGOs), private water servicesprovision and commercial financing, is sectoraland top-down, dividing water services provisioninto a domestic sector, an irrigation sector, alivestock sector, a fisheries and aquaculturesector, etc. In this setup, each sector specializesin one single water use and plans and designs itsinterventions according to what can be called a“single-use planning and design” approach.Implicitly, it is assumed that “other sectors” takecare of the other water needs of their clients—whether “the other sectors” are actually present ornot, and in many poor areas they are not. Inwater-scarce areas there may actually be onlyone source of water and once this has beenallocated to a particular use, it cannot easily beused for other purposes. Thus, technicalspecialization and bureaucratic structuring

3

TA

BLE

1.

Wat

er d

eman

d ch

arac

teris

tics

of a

hyp

othe

tical

rur

al h

ouse

hold

(ei

ght

pers

ons;

a c

ow,

a do

nkey

and

six

goa

ts o

r sh

eep

in a

hot

clim

ate)

.

Cha

ract

eris

tics

ofD

rink

ing-

Dri

nkin

g-B

athi

ng a

ndW

ashi

ngF

ish

cultu

reIr

rigat

ion

Ent

erpr

ise

dem

and

and

bene

fits

Hum

ans

Live

stoc

ksa

nita

tion

How

fre

quen

tly i

sD

aily

Dai

lyD

aily

to

Dai

ly t

oC

ontin

uous

Wee

kly

Var

ies

wat

er n

eede

d?w

eekl

yw

eekl

y

How

muc

h w

ater

is

12

302

453

45

6,00

08,

0004

Var

ies

need

ed p

er y

ear?

(m

3 )1

How

crit

ical

is

good

Ver

y, e

spec

ially

org

anic

Qui

te,

less

tha

nN

otN

ot,

exce

ptH

ardl

yH

ardl

y, e

xcep

tV

arie

s

wat

er q

ualit

y?po

llutio

n an

d ce

rtai

n ch

emic

als

for

peop

lefo

r ha

rdne

ssfo

r sa

linity

Ela

stic

ity o

f w

ater

Ver

y lo

w a

bove

Ver

y lo

w a

bove

Lo

wL

ow

Hig

hV

ery

high

Hig

h

use

w.r.

t. su

pply

min

imum

req

uire

men

tsm

inim

um r

equi

rem

ents

Site

of

use

Hom

este

adH

omes

tead

, ne

arH

omes

tead

Hom

este

adH

omes

tead

Hom

este

adH

omes

tead

dist

ant,

past

oral

ist

or n

ear

or n

ear

near

or

dist

ant

near

or

dist

ant

near

or

dist

ant

Ben

efits

Hea

lth/h

ygie

neF

ood,

inc

ome,

dra

ught

Hea

lth/h

ygie

ne/

Hea

lth/

Foo

d/in

com

eF

ood/

inco

me

Inco

me

pow

er,

asse

tsa

nita

tion

hygi

ene

Mon

etar

y co

sts

ofM

ediu

mM

ediu

mM

ediu

mM

ediu

mM

ediu

m-H

igh

Hig

hV

arie

s

wat

er p

rovi

sion

Not

es:

1C

alcu

latio

ns b

ased

on

dai

ly r

equi

rem

ents

for

peo

ple

at

4 lp

pd

(H

owar

d a

nd B

artr

am 2

003)

; fo

r ca

ttle

27 lp

cd,

shee

p 5

lpsd

, d

onke

y 16

lpd

d (

FAO

198

6);

for

bat

hing

(in

clud

ing

san

itatio

n) a

ndw

ashi

ng 1

5 lp

cd e

ach

(Tho

mp

son

et a

l. 20

01).

2Th

is is

wat

er o

nly

for

drin

king

. W

ater

may

als

o b

e us

ed f

or b

athi

ng a

nd c

lean

ing

of

stab

les.

3O

ne h

ecta

re o

f la

nd w

ith 0

.5 h

a ric

e re

qui

ring

8 m

m/d

ay d

urin

g 1

20 d

ays

(4,8

00 m

3 ), 0

.5 h

a ve

get

able

s re

qui

ring

5 m

m/d

ay d

urin

g 1

20 d

ays

(3,0

00 m

3 ) an

d a

rai

n-fe

d c

rop

dur

ing

the

res

t of

the

year

.

w.r.

t. =

with

reg

ard

to; l

pp

d =

lite

rs p

er p

erso

n p

er d

ay; l

pcd

= li

ters

per

cow

per

day

; lp

sd =

lite

rs p

er s

heep

per

day

; lp

dd

= li

ters

per

don

key

per

day

.

4

become, on the ground, an unintended priority forone single water use, whether domestic orproductive, ignoring the reality that the agencies’clients need water for multiple uses.

Moreover, this sector-based structuring goeshand in hand with efforts to formalize andstandardize implementation procedures and normsfor infrastructure, water quality, or watercommittees, especially by governments. Thisdoes not sit well with the informal and highlyvariable water situation of the rural and peri-urbanpoor. In these informal settings, where thepresence of public agencies is limited, the priorityof infrastructural development for better watercontrol tends to be low. An individual’s owninitiative and private-sector initiative prevail inaccessing water from rainfall, streams, ponds,springs, groundwater, or wetlands. Importantsynergies are derived from complementary use ofmultiple water sources. Access to multiplesources is also at the heart of strategies to copewith seasonal and annual droughts and floods.This water situation differs widely from the well-controlled conditions of the urban andindustrialized middle class where formal, sector-based approaches work much better. So multiple-use water services in the interests of the poorstand for: water services planning and design thattake people’s multiple water needs as a startingpoint and that searches for incrementalimprovements in access to water across therange of needs within informal settings and ahighly variable water situation.

The challenge, which has been recognizedsince at least the 1980s, is how to engender thechanges required in the water sector to makesuch multiple use services a reality. In 2003,international symposia in South Africa (Moriarty etal. 2004a; www.irc.nl/page/9077) and Colombia(Agua 2003. www.cinara.org.co) brought togetherprofessionals from both the domestic andproductive water sectors, who continued andexpanded collaboration into the PRODWATThematic Group (www.prodwat.watsan.net) andalso through the action-research project "Modelsfor multiple water-use water supply systems forenhanced land and water productivity, rurallivelihoods, and gender equity" the first results of

which are presented in this report. Leavingsectoral boundaries behind, the specific aim wasto search together for a more integrated approachto water services delivery that contributes to theMillennium Development Goals. Indeed, the GlobalWater Partnership, a key global network on IWRM,also refers to mus approaches as “appropriateforms of IWRM in poor areas with backlogs ininfrastructure development” (GWP 2004).

The observed high potential of multiple-usewater services taken together with the alreadymentioned general global trends towardsdecentralization and participation implies thatbroad and systematic upscaling of musapproaches in poor rural and peri-urban areasmay well present a real opportunity toimplementing IWRM while contributing toachieving the Millennium Development Goals. Ifmus approaches have proven to have systematicmerits across quite a number of projects, theirbenefits will multiply manifold if appliednationwide. This research report seeks tosystematically set out the existing evidence forthe merits of mus, followed by presenting aframework within which further testing andvalidating of mus approaches can be carried outin preparation for rapid upscaling.

Aim of the Report

The aim of this research report is threefold. First,to analyze past empirical evidence ofconventional single-use planning and designapproaches and the various responses by waterservices providers to better accommodatepeople’s multiple water needs. In the secondsection an overview of existing approaches towater service delivery is provided according toour typology of “single-use,” “domestic-plus” or“productive-plus,” and multiple-use water services.

Second, to compare this empirical material onmus approaches with conventional single-usewater services in order to identify recurring meritsand drawbacks. The third section analyzes howapproaches based on the mus concept avoidsome of the pitfalls of single-use approaches; andit examines whether the approach is replicable.

5

The third aim is to propose a set of principlesthat provide a conceptual background for the musapproach, that can frame and support researchand implementation efforts to identify and upscalelocally suitable mus. The fourth to seventhsections introduce such a framework of principlesand hypotheses, as developed by the ChallengeProgram on Water and Food-supported project“Models for implementing multiple-use watersupply systems for enhanced land and waterproductivity, rural livelihoods and gender equity”on the basis of their own and others’ experienceand literature from around the world.

Methodology

As indicated above this research report is theoutcome of the initial phase of the ChallengeProgram on Water and Food-supported project“Models for implementing multiple-use watersupply systems for enhanced land and waterproductivity, rural livelihoods and gender equity.”The analysis of past empirical evidence and theidentification of merits and drawbacks of muscompared to conventional approaches are basedon both a global literature review and theexpertise of the project members. The principle-

based framework for the implementation ofmultiple-use water services was developed by theteam during a series of intensive discussions,with the conceptual guidance and processfacilitation of Juergen Hagmann (Boelee et al.2004; Ramaru and Hagmann 2005; Hagmann2005). Currently, this framework is being usedto orient the action-research initiated by theproject in eight countries in five basins, and toallow comparison across communities,districts, countries and basins. In each of theproject sites, the action-research is organizedaround “learning alliances,” which involve awide range of key stakeholders, includingadministrative and technical governmentdepartments, NGOs, farmer movements andother Community-Based Organizations, ruraldevelopment banks, international donors, aswell as international and national research andknowledge development organizations. For anin-depth analysis of learning alliances asvehicles for conducting action-research, seeMoriarty et al. 2005. At the end of the projectby end 2007, field-tested lessons learned willbe consolidated into country-level, organization-level, or more generic models, tools andguidelines for implementing and upscalingmultiple-use water services approaches.

From Single-Use to Multiple-Use Planning and Design

This section synthesizes global experience ofwater service provision from the point of view ofsuccess in meeting people’s multiple needs. Todo so a typology is introduced of approaches toservice provision as it is applied today. Thisconsists of:

• Single-use planning but de facto multiple use.

• Domestic-plus and productive-plus.

• Multiple-use approaches.

Single-Use Planning but De FactoMultiple Uses

Discomfort with the sectoral divides in the watersector and the search for ways to better considerpeople’s multiple needs in poor rural and peri-urban areas are not new, and important lessonscan be learnt from analyzing these experiences.For long, professionals in the domestic andirrigation sectors—the two most important service

6

provision sectors—have highlighted theunexpected outcomes and shortcomings ofsingle-use planning and design approaches andhave proposed alternative and more integratedapproaches that take people’s multiple needs asa starting point (Yoder 1983; Silliman and Lenton1985; Meinzen-Dick 1997; Boelee et al. 1997;Moriarty 2002).

Most concern arose as a result of the literallyuniversal observation that externally facilitatedschemes that were originally planned anddesigned for a single use, either a “domestic” or“irrigation” scheme (or a “livestock” of a “fish”pond) are invariably transformed into de factomultiple-use schemes by the users immediatelyafter construction is finalized. Documented casesabound, from making unauthorized connections inSouth Africa (Pérez de Mendiguren Castresana2004) to higher volumes of use than planned forin Bolivia (Bustamante et al. 2004) or the use ofcostly treated water for irrigation in Colombia(Sánchez et al. 2003). Domestic uses, animalwatering, fisheries and tree-growing werecommonly reported as uses of “irrigation” water(Yoder 1983; Bakker et al. 1999; Renwick 2001a;Nguyen-Khoa et al. 2005).

The de facto use of single-use plannedsystems for multiple purposes has often causedproblems. Users or their livestock damaged thehardware and, within the domestic sector,additional use frequently caused low pressureresulting in the tail-end users not receiving anysupply and increasing conflict (Moriarty et al.2004a). In cases where non-planned usesthreatened the functioning or even the existenceof the scheme, water service providers often triedto prevent such uses. They declared such usesas “illegal,” sometimes leading to fines. Cattlewere banned from entering irrigation canals. Usersof piped domestic schemes were banned fromusing water for gardening. However, interventionsthat were only taken during the use phase usuallyfailed, perpetuated conflict between user groupsand seldom resulted in a better functioningservice (Schouten and Moriarty 2003).

In situations where non-planned usesprovided little or no threat to scheme functioning,field staff usually tolerated such uses which

provided obvious livelihood benefits. However,these non-planned uses were seldom mentionedin official reports, either because the “box” to fillsuch use did not exist or, worse, because therewas a risk of being reprimanded for encroachinginto another sector’s mandate.

Awareness about the profound limitations ofsingle-use water services provision was alsoexpressed in Black and Talbot’s (2005) study ofUNICEF’s 40-year involvement in India’s“domestic water” sector.

[…] The thrust [of UNICEF] was safe drinkingwater, to pursue the goal of improved publichealth particularly of children. In spite of theneeds of the Indian farmer for water to irrigatehis crops during the dry season, withoutwhich his family’s food supply would bethreatened and children’s and women’s well-being jeopardized from another direction,UNICEF’s concern was limited to water fordrinking and domestic purposes. Indeed, ifthere had been any mention of agricultureduring the debates surrounding the proposal,it would have stopped dead in its tracks.Some advocates of applied nutrition werekeen to support domestic water supplies forkitchen gardens as an adjunct of family foodsupplies, but nutrition programs were thenseen as an adjunct to health in the UNICEFperspective. […]

But a policy that neglected other basic waterneeds and failed to integrate requirements forboth agriculture and health has become, inmore recent times, an albatross of terrifyingproportions. Such a crisis has not beenanticipated at the time. [...]

Domestic-Plus and Productive-Plus

A response to de facto multiple uses of single-use planned schemes that aims to bettercontribute to people’s well-being and to enhancescheme sustainability is the anticipation of andcatering for “additional” uses by designinginfrastructural add-ons, while maintaining thesector’s single-use as the starting point. This

7

response is occurring in both the domestic andproductive water sectors, parallel to each other. Inour typology we refer to these as “domestic-plus”or “productive-plus” water services. In theirrigation sector, where water quantities fordomestic uses are few, if not negligible,compared to the quantities of water used forirrigation, various sorts of add-ons can bedistinguished. For example, in schemes withoutyear-round irrigation, water can be provided year-round for domestic uses by ensuring some waterin canals even when crops do not need it.Another add-on is providing improved access fordomestic and livestock uses, for example, stepsin irrigation canals that allow access to people fordrinking, bathing or laundry, and access points foranimals.

Especially in arid areas where large irrigationschemes are the only source of water, the vitalimportance of such add-ons for domestic suppliesis well recognized. In Morocco, for example,intakes for formal municipal water-treatmentplants are sometimes constructed at mainirrigation canals. In large-scale irrigation schemes,communities can also get special waterallocations to fill their traditional communalcisterns for domestic purposes, while they mayuse their personal crop water allocations to divertwater through self-made canals to their individualtanks (Laamrani et al. 2000; Boelee andLaamrani, 2004). In the Punjab region inPakistan, canals were constructed that led waterto open domestic village water reservoirs andanimal ponds (Jehangir et al. 2000). The totaldependency on the irrigation scheme shows mostclearly when the canals are closed formaintenance. Household water consumption maydrop to 10 liters per person per day (lpd) (Ensinket al. 2002).

Add-on productive-plus designs improvefisheries too. Particularly in Asia, water in canals,open reservoirs and also in paddy fields is oftenused for fisheries. With relatively simpleadaptations to the infrastructure, such as fish-friendly drop-structures and cross-drainageculverts that reduce flow velocity and improveecological connectivity for migrating aquaticorganisms, fisheries are enhanced. While these

water uses hardly “consume” any water, theyrequire specific measures, e.g., minimum “dead”water reserves in dam reservoirs, to protect andcapitalize on these uses (Nguyen-Khoa et al.2005; Renwick 2001a).

Various combinations of cropping andfisheries and also duck breeding and tree-growingare explored nowadays, also expanding beyondthe boundaries of irrigation schemes, for example,for productive uses in holistic watersheds. Arecent workshop on Multiple Water Use Systemsin Asia, supported by the Challenge Program onWater and Food, proposed to distinguish between“productive-plus-multi-agricultural enterprises”(such as rice-fish-duck systems) and “productive-plus-other business enterprises,” and also torename Participatory Irrigation Management asParticipatory Watershed Management (ChallengeProgram on Water and Food et al. 2005).

In domestic-plus designs, the major issue isenhancing water quantities, for example, byincreasing the capacity of abstraction, storageand delivery infrastructure by augmenting thediameters of pipes or the abstraction capacity ofpumps (Lovell 2000; Moriarty 2002). Villagedrinking troughs fed by piped domestic suppliesenable animal watering, while maintaining waterquality for humans. Domestic-plus designs aresometimes as simple as advancing the time ofthe use of the full capacity of schemes.Anticipated future expansion is often alreadydesigned into a scheme (for example by “over”-dimensioning pumps, pipes or storage tanks), butnot used upfront because of the prevailing verylow norms for water services that are assumed tobe for domestic purposes only. Using the fullcapacity from the outset avoids infrastructurelying idle while the scheme is vandalized becausepeople have more water needs than domesticuses alone.

In these “domestic-plus” and “productive-plus”technical designs, the range of water needs ismuch better recognized, but the predominance ofthe sector-based priority water use does not fullydisappear. This is seen, for example, when cattle-drinking troughs are located too close to domestictap-stands leading to unsanitary conditions andcontamination. Women’s preferences may also

8

still be ignored. For example, in Colombia, manywater schemes have been developed with thepurpose of domestic supply and water forprocessing of coffee beans. But using water forpig rearing, a women’s activity, is considered awaste (Butterworth et al. 2005). In Zimbabwe,water points were designed to meet waterdemands for domestic uses and cattle watering,but the designers had not considered water forbackyard gardening, which is women’sresponsibility (Smits, Zimbabwe, 2005, personalobservation). Also, while the hardware becomesmore user-friendly, the newly established users’organizations sometimes perpetuate the mainsectoral mandate. Even though the committeesmanaging such domestic- or productive-plusschemes are called “water user associations,” inreality it is either a farmers’ committee (withfarmers without land titles, livestock keepers,fishermen, and representatives of the domesticsector at best in a secondary role), or a domesticwater committee that regards other uses assecondary (Meinzen-Dick and Bakker 2001).

Towards Multiple Use Water Services

Recently, some NGOs have adopted somethingclose to a full-fledged multiple-use water servicesapproach. Because they are often less hinderedby sector boundaries or sector-based governmentpolicies, and have a strong mandate to tacklepoverty and incentive to meet clients’ needs, theytend to be able to operate more flexibly andholistically than governments or many donor-driven programs. The most widespread exampleis traditional and upgraded household roof-waterand runoff harvesting and storage (Agarwal et al.2001) including groundwater recharge (Shah2005). Household storage is also increasinglybeing promoted by governments, as in Thailand,South Africa and Ethiopia.

In a number of other NGO cases musapproaches have been driven by technologicalinnovation, such as the rope-pumps (Alberts andVan der Zee 2004; Robinson et al. 2004) andtreadle pumps (Shah et al. 2000; Polak et al.2004; ApproTEC 2004). These technologies are

now provided through largely self-financing supplychains in many parts of the world. The small-scale enterprise AguaTuya in Bolivia, which sellspipes and equipment to groups and individuals formultiple-use schemes, is another illustration ofprivate-sector services that meet people’s waterneeds and users’ willingness to pay for suchservices. Many small collective schemes alsowork well in municipalities, as also seen inBolivia (Bustamante et al. 2004). In other cases,multiple-use schemes remain partly subsidized. InEthiopia and elsewhere, for example, the NGOCatholic Relief Services implements subsidizedmultiple-use village gravity schemes (Ebato andVan Koppen 2005).

The problem that, wherever water is limited,water for productive uses needs to be used asefficiently as possible is also being addressed.Nepal Smallholder Market Initiative (SIMI), withInternational Development Enterprise (IDE) andWinrock, introduced multiple-use systems inNepal. They consist of collection tanks at springsor small stream diversions that deliver water to areservoir near village settlements by gravity flowthrough a pipe. These systems serve 10–40households for both domestic purposes andhomestead horticulture. The introduction of small-scale drip irrigation systems supported farmers inmore efficient use of water, labor-saving andbetter plant growth (Nepal SIMI 2004). On theother hand, where water is less scarce as in theabove-mentioned case in Colombia, the districtgovernment supported by the research instituteCINARA negotiated the augmentation of watersupplies, also for pig rearing. This was feasiblefrom a water-resources and financial perspective,but was blocked by formal limits on the use of“domestic” water (Butterworth et al. 2005).

Some NGOs started focusing on theinstitutional aspects of mus. For example, theSouth African NGO Association for Water andRural Development is piloting livelihood-basedbottom-up planning for multiple uses, which is fullyintegrated into the Integrated Development Plans ofLocal Government (Maluleke et al. 2005).

Innovations by global organizations alsomoved towards multiple-use planning and design.The UNDP continued various initiatives through

9

the “Community Water Initiative,” which is anotherexample of service delivery to villages without apreconceived notion of the water uses thatcommunities want to develop first (www.undp.org/water/initiative). An early example, supported bythe Water and Sanitation Program of the WorldBank, is the Kabuku Water Project in Kenya inwhich the water service was designed fordomestic uses, extensive gardening and otheruses from the outset (video Sustainability:productive use of water at www.odi.org.uk/wpp/films.html). The Community-Driven DevelopmentProgram of the World Bank aims to empowerlocal groupings through self-controlledinvestments in any activity of their choice. In anumber of cases, communities opted for waterinitiatives (Binswanger and Tuu-Van Nguyen 2005;De Regt 2005).

Conclusions

The interest in the concept and the actualimplementation of domestic-plus, productive-plus,

and multiple-use water services, which haveexisted since the 1980s, seem to be rapidlygaining momentum nowadays. The cases citedabove represent diverse conditions across theglobe: from individual self-financed manual pumpsor small gravity schemes to large-scale publiclyfinanced irrigation-cum-domestic schemes; inwater-scarce and water-abundant areas; insocioeconomically more- and less-developedareas; among the poorest and somewhatwealthier; initiated from both the “domestic” andthe “productive” sector; initiated by NGOs butincreasingly also by the large internationalorganizations and national governments. Allschemes contribute to achieving the MillenniumDevelopment Goals, albeit at a very limitedscale. If mus approaches work in manydifferent settings, the potential for upscalingacross the water sector and multiplying itsbenefits may be substantive. However, beforedrawing that conclusion, a more rigorousanalysis is needed of the merits anddrawbacks of multiple-use services. This is theaim of the next section.

Merits and Drawbacks of Multiple-Use Water Services

Improved Well-Being

Many studies on de facto multiple-use schemesidentified and quantified the livelihood benefits ofthese unplanned uses. The benefits from using“irrigation” schemes for drinking, washing, bathing,laundry, livestock watering and income-generatingactivities are mentioned in several studies (Ault1981; Yoder 1983; Bakker et al. 1999; Palanisamiand Meinzen-Dick 2001; Meinzen-Dick and Vander Hoek 2001). Inland fisheries, which mayprovide rural households with 10 to 30 percent oftheir total income, are especially important for thepoor (Nguyen-Khoa et al. 2005). The return valuefrom unrecognized fisheries in the Kirindi OyaIrrigation and Settlement Project in Sri Lanka wasestimated at 18 percent of the income from

paddy (Renwick 2001b). Nowadays, the irrigationsector rightly argues that these additional valuesshould be fully considered in decision making inpolicy and programs whether to invest in“irrigation” or not.

Similar studies were done in the “domestic”sector. WaterAid, for example, identified small-scale productive uses at the household level as amajor unplanned benefit from the schemes thatthey implemented in the early 1990s (WaterAid2001). In South Africa, Perez de MendigurenCastresana (2004) found that the rural poor, andparticularly women, use “domestic” water suppliesfor a wide range of productive activities.Comparing villages with lesser water supplies withthose with higher water supplies, he found thatthe total incremental value of all water-dependent

10

activities divided by the total population amountedto R293 (US$45) per person. This increase inactivities depending upon domestic water suppliesrepresented an increase from 17 to 33 percent ofthe total income. Elsewhere in South Africa,backyard gardens appeared especially importantfor home-based care givers supporting personsinfected by HIV/AIDS, as, otherwise, they wouldnot have any access to high-quality food, suchas vegetables (Kgalushi et al. 2003). InCochabamba in Bolivia nondomestic uses of peri-urban water supplies were also found to givesignificant additional income (Duran et al. 2005).

Unfortunately, few studies differentiatebetween the user groups to whom the benefitsaccrue according to wealth class. One study inwhich specific attention was paid to the land-poorwas an assessment of the impact of irrigationinvestments on poverty alleviation. Silliman andLenton (1985) observed that the direct benefits tothe land-poor from irrigating their lands areinevitably less than those with more land,although the land-poor were acknowledged tobenefit indirectly, for example, from employmentgeneration. However, nonirrigation water useswere acknowledged to be especially important forthem (Silliman and Lenton 1985). A study of theWest-Gandak Irrigation Scheme in Nepal alsoconfirmed that 44 percent of the poorest third ofthe population used water from irrigation canalsfor nonirrigation purposes, while none of thewealthiest third did so (Van Koppen et al. 2002).Also, in Pakistan, where livestock is an asset tothe poor more than to the nonpoor, animalwatering provisions do benefit the poordisproportionately and, hence, contribute topoverty reduction at a larger scale (Jehangir et al.2000).

These empirical studies underscore the well-known understanding of human well-being asbeing multidimensional. Broader and cumulativewater uses fulfill a broader range of water needs,and so contribute more effectively to people’swell-being. As also acknowledged in therelationships between water and the MillenniumDevelopment Goals, water uses concern coredimensions of well-being and poverty: health for

adults and especially children, food, income andreduced labor for water provision.

Moreover, the multiple benefits of watermutually reinforce each other for the better, andthe effects of lack of water reinforce each otherfor the worse. For example, food production andprocessing, which require water, are essential fornutrition and health. Health also depends onaccess to and correct use of domestic water andsanitation. Good health gives higher productivityresulting in production of more food and moreincome, which allows taking more preventivehealth measures and paying for health services.Better nutrition, in turn, decreases susceptibilityto disease (Cooper Weil et al. 1990). Reduceddrudgery of meeting domestic needs for womenand children or watering animals often for boysfrees up precious time for productive activities,domestic and child care, or schooling. While it isdifficult to quantify these and many moreinterrelationships between water and well-being(Hussain 2005) the assumed pathways aresufficiently plausible to corroborate that meetingmultiple water needs simultaneously contributesmore effectively to people’s well-being than amere addition of the beneficial effects each usewould suggest. Indeed, multiple water usesimprove different dimensions of multifaceted well-being in a virtuous circle taking the poor out ofpoverty.

Evidently, water is only one factorcontributing to people’s well-being. Hygieniceducation, output markets, soil fertility, know-how,inputs and financing—all influence how access towater is turned into health, food and income.IWRM in the sense of understanding andintegrating water development within the widersocioeconomic context and programs may evenbe more effective for poverty reduction thanmoving from single-use water services tomultiple-use ones. However, the conclusion hereis that multiple-use water services contributemore effectively to people’s well-being thansingle-use ones, and if also well targeted to thepoor, they can be an important opportunity tocontribute to achieving the MillenniumDevelopment Goals.

11

Gender Equity

Improved well-being under multiple-use waterservices benefits women in particular in threeways. While the domestic sector alreadyrecognizes the importance of improved domesticwater supplies to alleviate women’s and children’sburdens, domestic-plus approaches addproductive activities which are often around thehousehold. This is of special interest to women insocieties where their mobility is limited or wherethey lack access to fields of their own—asituation similar to that of land-poor and landlesshouseholds in general. For them, water provisionaround the household is the major opportunity tomake productive use of it. A study in Nepalconfirmed how women benefited, in particular,from the newly installed domestic-cum-gardeningwater supplies and drip irrigation kits (Upadhyayet al. 2005).

From a productive-plus perspective, theadded devices for domestic uses are often themost important, if not the only benefit of publicirrigation investments for women (Hussain 2005),especially in the past when women tended to beentirely excluded from newly introduced irrigationand when, sometimes, even their former landrights were eroded (Van Koppen 2002).Sometimes irrigation projects even weakenedwomen’s former domestic water rights. Forexample, night reservoirs in Tanzania weretraditionally designed for multiple uses, but theybecame “irrigation canals” governed by male-dominated “water user associations” after“improvements” by public irrigation agencies (VanKoppen, Tanzania, 1996, personal observation).By now, the roles of women, especially those ofpoor women, as farm decision makers andlivestock keepers in need of access to water, arebetter recognized and this has led to a moregender-balanced irrigation intervention. As womentend to spend a higher proportion of their incomesfor family welfare than men, this also benefitedtheir families (Meinzen-Dick and Zwarteveen1998; Van Koppen 2002).

From a third angle, full-fledged multiple-usewater services, which encompass women’s andmen’s entire range of water needs, may take

gender issues further to the center stage of waterservices planning and design. If service providerstake the multiple water needs of all users as astarting point in inclusive community-basedparticipatory planning fora, women are likely toprioritize reducing their and their children’sexcessive labor demands of fetching water andwatering animals, and to try and convince theirmale kin and service providers to support that(Van Wijk-Sijbesma 2001). Meeting domesticneeds would be discussed as the sharedresponsibility of men and women for householdwelfare. This would expose current divisions ofthe responsibilities for domestic water provision,in which women bear the heaviest labor burdenswhile men may contribute through, for example,well digging (Van Koppen 2001). Inequitableburdens may be somewhat better shared oncenew opportunities arise. Similarly, takingeverybody’s needs as equally important as astarting point implies that opportunities to betteruse water for productive purposes would, a priori,be equally open to women and men. Suchnegotiated consensus between the genders at thestart of the planning process is a firm basis fortechnical design, institution building, and anywater-prioritization issue later.

Willingness and Ability to Pay forWater Services

Improved well-being among the poor is not onlythe yardstick of achieving the MillenniumDevelopment Goals but also an importantdeterminant of the willingness and ability to payamong all users. According to the principle ofeconomic rationality, at the basis of all economicscience, humans are willing to pay more for agood or a service than for another (a multiple-useservice versus a single-use service) if the utilityderived from the former is higher than thatderived from the latter. Moreover, “domestic”schemes that shift to domestic-plus and multiple-use designs also enhance the ability to pay usingincome from the additional productive activities.

This merit of mus is closely linked to perhapsthe thorniest issue in the public water sector,

12

where tariffs and fees either in domestic orirrigation schemes seldom cover even basicoperational costs—let alone capital costs (WHO/UNICEF 2000). The higher willingness and abilityto pay for schemes that better meet one’s needscan be harnessed to attain a better level of oreven full cost-recovery and, thus, higher financialand technical scheme sustainability. Moreover,own investments and fully self-financing ofschemes through loans become feasible, at leastif appropriate mid-term private- and public-sectorloan facilities become available at much largerscales than they are now. However, for makingwater available to the poor and certainly to thepoorest in areas where incomes from water-related production are low, well-targeted subsidiesand cross-subsidies are needed (Kouassi-Komlanand Fonseca 2004; Savage 2003). This issue isespecially important if domestic-plus systemsdeliver greater per-capita quantities of water athigher capital costs.

Higher Water Productivity

The additional benefits from multiple uses ofwater compared to single uses of largely thesame water resources imply a higher waterproductivity (value created per unit of water), forexample in optimizing crop-fish-duck systems.More studies of the implications of “more use perdrop” for water productivity are warranted. Suchresearch will be using the traditional strengths ofthe sector-based approaches, that is, thedisciplinary expertise on how to ensure that watersuits the very specific needs of people, animalsand crops best. By acknowledging that there areother uses beyond the single use of a field ofexpertise and looking into existing and possiblenew synergies to improve productivity, suchexpertise will be even more valuable.

Ownership by Water Users

The concept, technologies and institutions ofmultiple uses of water are rooted in the holistic

local practices of agrarian communities. As longas history recalls, when communities themselvesdeveloped their own water supplies, they cateredto multiple uses (often drawing on different watersources) (Moriarty et al. 2004b). This is illustratedby the centuries-old village tanks in India and SriLanka used for paddy cultivation, livestock anddomestic uses (Palanisami and Meinzen-Dick2001; Somaratne et al. 2005); the sophisticatedsurface and underground rainwater-harvestingstructures in arid areas in the Middle East usedfor people, animals and crops alike (Yoder 1983);or the streams in the mountains of Tanzania,Nepal and the Andes used for domesticpurposes, livestock and cropping. Water sourcesnear to, or within, homesteads, including shallowdug wells, boreholes with rope-pumps ormechanized pumps, ponds, homestead tanks forharvesting roof water and runoff are mostintensively used and invariably also reused tomeet a range of requirements. Local community-based water institutions reflect that integration(Van Koppen et al. 2005).

By recognizing and building upon thestrengths of communities’ own integrated waterarrangements, while seeking to addressweaknesses such as intra-community hierarchies,mus approaches are bottom-up and owned bycommunities. This avoids external agencies fromeroding precious social capital. It also avoids theturf wars that are bound to emerge when theirrigation association (created by the IrrigationDepartments) and the domestic water committee(created by the Domestic Water Departments) aresupposed to function in parallel but governconnected water resources and overlapping usesand users (Sokile 2005).

Reduced Costs of Improper Use

Damage to infrastructure, disruption of allocationschedules and deprivation of the tail endersthrough the de facto multiple uses of single-useplanned schemes constitute a widely reportedproblem (Schouten and Moriarty 2003). Bydesigning services from the outset to meet all

13

reasonable demands of all water users thisdamage can be reduced or eliminated. Byinvolving all water users within the planningprocess, and ensuring that their voices are heard,it can be hypothesized that even where it isimpossible to meet all users’ demands, there willbe more general acceptance of rules and normsthat restrict use to certain groups or uses.

Dealing with Water Quality

A strong barrier to greater integration of servicedelivery in the past has been concernssurrounding water quality. As early as 1977, thisissue emerged in the irrigation sector during theMar del Plata UN Water Conference of 1977:

“.. the large supplies needed for irrigatedcrops ensure that the much smaller humanneeds are satisfied without difficulty, almostas a by-product. .....and the big problembecomes not the difficulty of provision but theneed for unpolluted water for humanconsumption, which is rarely obtainable fromthe canals and the ditches” (UN/FAO 1977:10, cited in Yoder 1983, our italics).

So although it was realized that, in areaswithout alternative domestic water supplies, theuse of irrigation water for drinking purposesimproved livelihoods the quality was a concern.However, as Yoder (1983) warned, generalizationsabout unacceptable water-quality risks for drinkingwater are often too sweeping. In the manysituations in which groundwater and even surfacestreams are used, the water quality is acceptablefor domestic uses other than drinking and inspecific cases also for drinking. Later studiesconfirmed that regardless of its sometimesdisputable quality, the availability of any additionalquantities of water has a beneficial impact onpeople’s health (Esrey et al. 1991; Jensen et al.2001; Van der Hoek et al. 2001; Howard andBartram 2003). Access to increased quantities ofwater for cooking and consumption, combinedwith improved hygienic behavior was found tosignificantly diminish fecal-oral diseases (Van derHoek et al. 2002b). So within reason, water

quantity is more important than water quality, andother alternatives such as various point-of-usetreatments exist for the small quantities neededfor actual drinking. It should be noted that verysmall children are something of a special caseas, though they also benefit from water forbathing and health, for them the low quality ofwater remains a major risk for diarrhea (Hebert1985; Clasen and Cairncross 2004).

Moreover, indirect effects of using irrigationwater may be more important: irrigation waterseeping from canals and feeding domestic wellscan provide the best-quality drinking water in thearea (Meinzen-Dick 1997; Shortt et al. 2003).However, in other cases chemicals for agricultureare major polluters.

For the domestic water sector, water qualityfor drinking was initially the single most importantconcern. This is related to the history of thedevelopment of sanitary engineering in thenineteenth century Europe and the replication ofthis model in creating domestic water sectors inthe Southern nations. The sector’s emphasis onreaching “all with some high-quality water” led tohigh investments in centralized treatment ofwater. This in turn became the major argumentagainst the inevitable use of domestic water forlivestock or homestead gardening or otherproductive uses around the homestead: it was tooexpensive to use treated water for uses that donot require such high quality (Moriarty andButterworth 2003).

However, again this argument is something ofa generalization. Where treatment exists and canbe maintained at low incremental costs and higheconomies of scale, treated water may well becheap on a volumetric basis, and can be usedeconomically for productive uses. More often inthe reality of many developing countries,centralized water treatment is itself ineffective inensuring water quality. Even where the treatmentfacilities deliver the required quality, water oftengets polluted during transmission along leaky andunder-pressurized pipes, at the standpipe, andduring transport in containers and storage inhouses (Jensen et al. 2002; Clasen and Bastable2003; Clasen and Cairncross 2004; Scheelbeek2006).

14

The most important point to address for allwater intended for drinking purposes is that onlysmall quantities of high-quality water are needed,typically not more than 2-4 lpd depending on theclimate (Howard and Bartram 2003). Hence, point-of-use treatment through affordable filtrationtechniques or boiling, and backed up by hygieniceducation and behavior change are increasinglyseen as more appropriate options in the domesticsector (Mahfouz et al. 1995; Mintz et al. 1995;Quick et al. 1999, 2002; Reller et al. 2003;Roberts 2003), particularly in dispersed ordifficult-to-reach areas. This also solves thewater-quality concern for those using groundwaterwells that may be contaminated with arsenic orfluoride, for those using productive-plus schemesfor drinking and, moreover, for the millions whohave no access to improved supplies anyhow.This said, the costs of chemical treatment, filtersor boiling, and the time that point-of-use treatmenttakes, may render this treatment beyond thereach of the poorest, and where integrated as partof a mus approach this would become a highpriority for the use of subsidy. In any case,imposing unrealistically high water-qualitystandards is now recognized to be of little use inthe search for incremental improvements to dealwith health hazards. The World HealthOrganization recently also changed its focus fromfixed water-quality standards to more flexibleguidelines (WHO 2004).

Lastly, drinking water quality while a crucialissue is not the only health-related benefit orhazard related to increased access to water.Malaria and other water-related diseases needattention as well (Oomen et al. 1988, 1990;Bolton 1992; Hunter et al. 1993; Steele et al.1997; Erlanger et al. 2005; Keiser et al. 2005a, b,c). Multiple-use services which take people’s well-being, that is a balance of benefits, costs andrisks, as a starting point, need to deal with thesevarious risks in an integrated livelihood-basedway (see box 1).

Equitable Access to Water, andEnvironmental Sustainability

The notion of multiple concurrent water needsallows for clarifying and quantifying the issues atstake in debates around the allocation of scarcewater and financial resources to different usesand users, including the environment. This canlead to unambiguous policy recommendations forachieving the Millennium Development Goals. Therecognition of multiple needs clarifies thereasoning that can be summed up as “some forall before more for some.” This says that whenthere are limited water resources and inadequatefinancing available to develop water infrastructurefor all, it is inequitable and anti-poor to use whatmoney or water there is in providing high volumeservices to a few. This legitimate concern forproper targeting of public funds is much strongerin the domestic sector, with its explicit target oftotal coverage, than in the irrigation sector.Indeed, although the concentration of newlydeveloped irrigation and land resources in thehands of the few is well documented, the variousways to better target services are hardlymainstreamed (Chambers et al. 1989; VanKoppen 1999; Hussain 2005).

While a powerful message on the equitabledevelopment of scarce water resources, the“some for all” should not, as is sometimes thecase, be confounded with domestic access only.It is rather an argument for the equitabledistribution of access to water resources, and assuch is not a reason to brand as “illegal” thesmall-scale productive uses of poor families. Ingeneral, both international and national norms for“basic needs” and “basic human rights” are basedon access to water for drinking, cooking andpersonal hygiene only, typically in the range of25-40 lpd. However, many more small-scale wateruses, in particular subsistence agriculture, needto be catered for to fulfill basic human (andanimal) water needs below and around the

15

poverty line. This is recognized under the UNEconomic and Social Council’s Covenant onEconomic, Social, and Cultural Rights GeneralComment No. 15 (2002) (Derman et al. 2005).The above-mentioned international symposium on“Productive uses of water at the household level”in South Africa estimated that quantities of waterin the range of 50-200 lpd are closest to meetingmultiple basic human needs (Butterworth et al.2003; www.irc.nl/page/9077). This is of the sameorder of magnitude as exclusively domesticwater uses by the urban middle-class.Therefore, in order to protect these basichuman water needs to achieve the MilleniumDevelopment Goals, use- or sector-basedprioritization of water allocations, so ranking,for example, all domestic uses first, then allagricultural uses, then all environmental uses,

Box 1: Water-related diseases.

Relationships between human disease and use of water are complex and not always obvious.Incidence of some diseases tends to increase with water-resources development, while others tend toreduce. Different groups of people may be at risk of disease or, contrarily, able to improve their health.Three groups of water-related diseases are commonly distinguished by their transmission pathway(adapted from Cairncross and Feachem 1993).

a. Fecally-orally transmitted diseases. This group of diseases is transmitted if people ingest fecallycontaminated water or food, and usually the main symptom is diarrhea. Examples are cholera,typhoid, dysentery, poliomyelitis and hepatitis-A. Diarrhea kills about 2.2 million people per year,most of whom are children under five (JMP 2005). Palliative measures to be undertaken as part ofmus approaches are ensuring that drinking water is not polluted, constructing sanitary facilities andproviding health and hygienic education.

b. Water-based and vector-borne diseases. This group of diseases is transmitted through vectors orintermediate hosts who spend some or all of their lives in water; they include malaria, riverblindness, yellow fever, guinea worm, filariasis and schistosomiasis. Dam reservoirs, small ponds,canals and drains may create ideal breeding sites for mosquitoes, flies, or snails, bringing both thevectors and the disease closer to people. The most promising preventive approaches includedesigning water systems that avoid stagnant water or render open water bodies hostile for breedingof mosquitoes, flies and snails (see, e.g., Speelman and Van den Top 1986; Pike 1987; Oomen etal. 1990; Cooper-Weil et al. 1990; Tiffen 1991; Hunter et al. 1993; Slootweg 1994; Keiser et al.2005a, b, c; Erlanger et al. 2005). Additional preventive measures are the use of bed nets to protectpeople from infectious mosquito bites or, in the case of schistosomiasis, sanitation and reduction ofwater contact. Infections with guinea worm can be prevented by filtering water through a clothbefore it is consumed.

c. Water-washed diseases such as eye and skin infections. They are generally largely reduced by

increased availability of water for bathing, regardless of the quality.

which, unfortunately, is also most common inthe formal water laws, needs to be replaced bypeople-based prioritization of the range of basicwater needs catering to everybody getting at leasta basic minimum.

The issue whether one person is deprivinganother person of access to water when usingwater for basic needs, or whether environmentalsustainability is at stake, can be viewed from twoperspectives, which are often confused: anoverall water-resources perspective or theperspective of access to infrastructure thatmakes water actually available. From a water-resources perspective, in all but the mostextreme cases, the relative quantities that arevital for livelihoods are minor, if not negligible,and in most cases far below an “equitable share”(see box 2).

16

Indeed, for the target group of the MillenniumDevelopment Goals, the issue is not a physicallack of water resources, but economic waterscarcity: the lack of financial, technical andinstitutional resources to install and maintain theinfrastructure required, in particular, storage, toovercome the dry season. If viewed from thissecond perspective, dimensioning hardware onthe basis of lowest survival norms for domesticwater only is only very partially addressing thoseneeds. This insensitive scheme design causesvandalism and deprivation to the tail enders.

Incremental Costs of Meeting MultipleNeeds

Meeting multiple needs does incur additionalcosts (expressed in terms of cost per unit waterdelivered) to service providers and users. Thehighest costs of water services provision ingeneral are related to the hardware: infrastructuralconstruction, operation, and maintenance, and therequired engineering skills, which are usuallythree quarters or more of overall project budgets.There are also software costs, such astransaction costs, especially for planning,institution building and backstopping, and costsfor other skill development. How do the costs fordesigns that better accommodate for people’smultiple needs compare to single-use planningand designs? What are incremental costs?

In the case of the de facto multiple uses ofsingle-use planned systems, there are noincremental costs whatsoever. Even if designedfor only one use and its related benefits, water is

Box 2. An example from the Olifants basin in South Africa.

The Gini-coefficient for (blue) rural water uses in the Olifants basin, South Africa, is 0.96. In otherwords, 0.5 percent of the population controls the access to 95 percent of the (blue) water resources. Ifthe majority of the population were to double its current water use, the few large users would have toshare only 6 percent of what they use now (Cullis and Van Koppen 2005). The situation in thisclosing basin, where all water has already been committed, is not an “environmental crisis,” but ahighly inequitable socioeconomic distribution of water resources requiring a redistributive water

allocation reform, as the Government of South Africa has recently launched (RSA 2005).

used for more uses with more benefits. Asmentioned above, during the Mar del Plata WaterConference, all merits came “almost as abyproduct,” an unexpected bonus (UN/FAO 1977:10, cited in Yoder 1983). In the case of domestic-plus, productive-plus schemes, and multiple-usehousehold technologies, incremental hardwarecosts such as adding washing steps and cattleentry points, or channels for municipal watersupply, or wells and pipes with larger diameters orsomewhat larger village reservoirs or medium-sized dams are generally modest. According toexpert opinions for larger schemes, they mayhave added 10–15 percent to the infrastructuralcosts. Moreover, the add-ons save the costs ofrepairing damage and preventing vandalism oreven scheme collapse.

One exception to this rule is the case whereshifting from single to multiple use implies a newservice model. This is, for example, the casewhen moving from a minimal domestic servicebased on hand-pumps to a piped service. In thiscase, the cost implications can be important—representing a doubling or more of per-capitainvestment (Moriarty et al. 2004b). Nonetheless,while viewed from the point of view of per-capitacosts, a considerably higher level of investmentis required even if in this case the per-liter costof water supplied may actually be lower. Theissue therefore is to look carefully at costs andbenefits.

With regard to the technical skills to designthe add-ons and multiple-use schemes, they arenot new or special. Technologies for meetingmultiple water needs and reducing health risksare not basically different from conventional ones,

17

but the components are reassembled in newways. The skills required are conventional basicengineering. The difference is the engineer’sclient-oriented creativity beyond single-use boxesand his or her building upon communities’ ownexpertise on multiple-use technologies.

The evidence so far with regard to theincremental software costs is sketchy. Use-specific expertise needs to be brought in, forexample, for fish-friendly “irrigation” infrastructure,but the more important issue appeared doing soin time, during the planning phase (Nguyen-Khoaet al 2005). Consultations with the population todesign domestic uses in the irrigation scheme inSri Lanka added to the transaction costs. For theestablishment of self-financing supply chains foraffordable pumps, however, transaction costswere not only relatively low but also largely borneby users themselves (Shah et al. 2000; Albertsand Van der Zee 2004; Polak et al. 2004).

What does appear to have considerabletransaction costs is the effort to integrateplanning of multiple-use water services intobroader local government planning processes, asfound in the above-mentioned case of SouthAfrica (Maluleke et al. 2005). This is partlybecause local governments themselves were onlyintroduced since 1994 in South Africa’s formerhomelands. Yet, in many other developingcountries the transaction costs for bottom-upplanning for people’s multiple water needs willalso largely depend on general bottom-up planningprocesses on the long road towardsdecentralization. Costs should decline once theearly learning-by-doing stages have generatedworkable methodologies that can be replicatedelsewhere.

Conclusion: An Opportunity toImplement IWRM and to Advance theMillennium Development Goals

In sum, past evidence of the various ways oftaking poor people’s multiple water needs betterinto account suggests that mus approaches haveconsiderable payoffs at acceptable additional

costs. Mus approaches show a number ofpromising ways in which they can improve oncurrent single-use approaches, including thefollowing:

• Impacting on more dimensions of well-beingand, hence, if well targeted to the poor,reducing poverty more effectively.

• Being implicitly gender-friendly.

• Enhancing willingness and ability to pay,which is vital for improved financing of publicschemes and upscaling of self-financedschemes.

• Improving water productivity through “moreuse per drop.”

• Increasing ownership by building upon localintegrated water arrangements.

• Anticipating all uses, and so avoidingdamage, conflicts, or scheme abandonment.

• Addressing water-quality needs for all risksand all water uses, also beyond publicschemes.

• Allowing for transparent, equitable andenvironmentally sustainable sharing of scarcewater and financial resources, and protectingpeople’s domestic and productive basicneeds.

Current experience also suggests that musapproaches do not bring with them unsupportableadditional costs: that sometimes they come as afree bonus in the form of recognizing de factomultiple uses of single-use planned schemes; ata low incremental cost if designed as domestic-plus or productive-plus or multiple-use scheme;and adding the benefit of the productive potentialof additional water.

Although still at the level of case studyand anecdote, these merits seem generic.Also, they do not depend upon exceptionalconditions that cannot be replicated elsewhere.Hence, while more work needs to be done onbetter understanding, testing and quantifyingsome of the key relationships observed, thebalance of evidence seems to support the

18

conclusion that mus approaches, by takingpoor people’s integrated water needs as astarting point and integrating the services thatprovide water to them, are important forms ofIWRM to advance the Millennium DevelopmentGoals.

This conclusion also supports a shift inemphasis from documenting and exploring

existing examples of mus to a more concertedaction aimed at developing properly upscaledexamples; together with the evident learning thatwill need to accompany such efforts. Theremainder of the research report presents aconceptual framework within which to develop anddocument such an effort at upscaling multiple-usewater services.

How would the water sector in poor rural and peri-urban areas look like if it systematicallyconsidered people’s multiple water needs? Whatwould this imply at community level and amongthe range of intermediate and national-levelwater services providers? How to develop anintegrated social, economic, institutional,hydrological and technical methodology forwater services provision that meets, at leastcosts, people’s multiple water needs in asustainable way? What action is needed forstep-by-step change for realizing that vision—well knowing that once one issue is taken up andworked through, other and new issues willimmediately emerge? How feasible is upscaling?What may be key obstacles, including itsfinancial costs?

A method to answer these questions is thecompilation of a “Learning Wheel” as a commonframework for joint learning, action and knowledgemanagement (Hagmann 2005). Factors that wejudge as central to successfully going to scale ofmultiple-use water services at community,intermediate and national level are clustered intoso-called “principles” within three wheels for thethree institutional levels. Each of these principlesneeds to be addressed, if not already in place, asotherwise the weakest one becomes a threat toupscaling as a whole. Representation in wheelsunderlines that there is no priority or ranking. Inthis sense the Learning Wheel serves as a

Envisioning Upscaled Multiple-Use Water Services

“checklist” for the design of massively upscalingof multiple-use water services, and can be usedfor evaluation after implementation of any stepand further learning (Hagmann 2005). In otherwords, the Learning Wheel and its principles are aset of working hypotheses for action-research thatshould lead to both better insights and betteraction (O’Brien 1998). It is as relevant forimplementers as for researchers or anyone elseinterested in realizing the potential of multiple-usewater services to advance the MillenniumDevelopment Goals. Future learning-by-doingaccording to this Learning Wheel will also furthercorroborate, or refute the merits distilled frompast experience.

In the visioning of “upscaled multiple-usewater services,” the concept of “water services” iscentral. A water service is defined as theprovision of water of a given quality and quantitywith a given reliability at a given place. Thisdefinition emphasizes the outputs—what peoplereceive—rather than the inputs: the hardware (ortechnology, or scheme; all used interchangeablyhere) and the software (skills, capacities andinstitutions required to manage hardware andwater resources) that are implied in terms suchas “water supply system” or “irrigation scheme.”However, a number of important assumptions areincluded in the use of this term when referring tothe vision of upscaled multiple-use waterservices:

19

• A service should be reliable and constant or,for seasonal uses, predictable. Therefore, aservice implies infinite sustainability.Individual components of the service mayneed to be replaced or upgraded—but theservice itself should remain.

• A service implies the existence of (public,private or, most commonly, combined) serviceproviders, and service users—and of agreedor formalized relationships between them. Italso implies specialization and separation ofroles, responsibilities and relationships amonga range of actors from the national to thelocal level. There are a wide range offunctions necessary to ensure that a serviceis sustainable, and an equally wide range ofactors (governments, NGOs, Community-Based Organizations [CBOs], privatecompanies, ranging from an individual villagebailiff to a large water company or utility) whomay take on some or all of these roles(Schouten and Moriarty 2003; Lockwood2002). Only in the very simplest or mosttraditional cases can a service be maintainedentirely at the local level. In all other situations,services are provided by stakeholders atintermediate and national levels.

• Finally, and critically to the purpose here, aservice-based approach has inherent within itthe means for going to scale. By looking notonly at the skills and functions necessary formultiple-use services at the level of anindividual project or scheme, but also at thewider enabling environment for serviceprovision from local to national level, some ofthe most intractable barriers to scaling up areaddressed. Upscaling of mus approachesimplies supplanting the isolated project-basedapproaches by intermediate and national-levelreform in service delivery. Rural communitiesand their management and support needs areno longer viewed in isolation but are at thebasis of an enabling environment of servicesmanagement.

A weak intermediate level (local governmentand line agencies, farmer associations, the

private sector, NGOs, and others) will meanthat the pattern of adoption of multiple-useservices continues to be one of “islands ofsuccess in an ocean of misery” —with progressslow and patchy. However, a strengthened andempowered intermediate level consisting ofagencies and individuals able to supportcommunities with finance, advice,encouragement, technical backstopping,strategic planning and a range of other servicescan lead to rapid rollout of improved services toentire populations.

At the national level of central government,private sector, financiers, NGOs, CBOs,educational and research organizations, andrepresentatives of international organizations,policy, legislation and support are able toeffectively block most progress, if it is weak.However, good policy, legislation and financingmechanisms have the potential to significantlyincrease the speed at which successfulapproaches are identified, developed andupscaled. National-level stakeholders need tosupport effective intermediate-level serviceprovision to end users, and certainly not interferewith that by imposing unnecessary formalisticrequirements.

In figure 1, these different challenges arerepresented in a three-tier “mus action-researchframework.” Ten principles are distinguished,which are valid at one level only or at morelevels, as follows.

Principles at community-level

• A thorough understanding of water-relatedlivelihoods.

• Efficient, equitable, and sustainable use ofwater resources.

• Appropriate technologies.

• Inclusive institutions.

• Adequate financing.

Principles at intermediate level

• Coordination amongst sectors and actors.

• Long-term support (to communities).

20

FIGURE 1.Three-tiered action-research framework for implementing and upscaling mus approaches.

• Adaptive management.

• Participatory strategic management.

• Adequate financing.

Principles at national level

• Coordination amongst sectors and actors:devolving decision making.

National

Intermediate

Community

Flows of information, support,financing and other resources

Flows of information, support,financing and other resources

• Long-term support (to intermediate level).

• Adequate financing.

• Enabling policy and legislation.

The following sections discuss theseinstitutional levels and the principles.

Empowering the Poor at Community Level

What Is the Community Level and HowCan Water Be Used Most Effectively toAlleviate Poverty and Enhance GenderEquity?

The community level focuses on the end users,living in one or more communities linked through

a larger-scale scheme or even a sharedwatershed. End users’ needs, in particular thoseof poor women and men, are at the basis ofintegrated needs-based planning processes thatare costs-effective, socially equitable andenvironmentally sustainable, whether in a newcollective scheme, an extension, rehabilitation,

21

individual technologies, or a combination of them.“Community” is the collective noun for oftenheterogeneous groups and subgroups, who canbe divided in different ways according to wealth,gender, and water-using activities—to name thethree most important here. As depicted in figure2, five principles have been identified asimportant for needs-based planning and designprocesses that are at the heart of mus:

• A thorough understanding of water-relatedlivelihoods.

• Efficient, equitable and sustainable use ofwater resources.

• Appropriate technologies.

• Inclusive institutions.

• Adequate financing.

These comprehensive participatory planningand design processes replace conventionalpractice, in which external agencies bring single-use fixed support packages and work to tightschedules, often only “informing” community(male) leaders, and lacking the time andresources to engage in true consultation andcapacity development. Because of the need forwidespread involvement, transaction costs forvillagers and service providers are likely to be

considerably higher, certainly in the initialpioneering stage of methodology and skilldevelopment. However, good investment incapacity building at this stage has been widelydemonstrated to bring benefits in terms ofincreased ownership and sustainablemanagement.

Livelihoods-Based Services: AThorough Understanding of theMultiple Roles of Water in People’sLivelihoods

This principle emphasizes the need for servicesand the planning and design of services to beresponsive to, and based upon, a thoroughunderstanding of people’s livelihoods, in particularpoor women’s and men’s livelihoods. Needs-based planning encompasses the followingissues.

• Identifying current and potential water usesand users, ensuring that women’s and men’sdomestic and productive water needs areequally articulated and incorporated into thedesign.

• Identifying the scope to build upon the localsocioeconomic drivers to use water mostoptimally to create wealth, recognizing thatwater is only one (critical) input.

• Translating future needs into “water demandcharacteristics” for technical design: quantity,quality, site (near homestead, in-field, sitesfor reservoirs, etc.), timing/period (year-roundor seasonal), and accompanying demandcharacteristics (e.g., cattle trampling andpollution of soils and water).

• Understanding and allowing the articulation ofdifferent end users’ real and perceivedbenefits, costs and risks.

• Ensuring that service levels are affordable toall and are not too costly for the poorest, oralternatively introducing differential servicelevels and well-targeted subsidies.

FIGURE 2.Community-level principles.

Livelihoods-based

services

Sustainablemus leadingto improvedlivelihoods

Adequatefinancing

Sustainablewater

use

Inclusiveinstitutions

Appropriatetechnology

22

• Identifying potential health risks for usersthemselves and for others and their causes,and initiating measures for mitigation from theoutset.

• Soliciting the support of other relevantstakeholders (health, agriculture andlivestock, rural development) to use watermore effectively for health, food and income.

Sustainable Water Use: Efficient,Equitable and SustainableDevelopment and Management ofWater Resources

This principle refers to the efficient, equitable andsustainable development and management ofnaturally available water resources: rainfall,groundwater, surface lakes and streams, ponds,springs, wetlands, and water from man-madestorage, reservoirs, conveyance canals, pumps,reticulation networks, abstractions and takeoffpoints for end uses, drains, return flows andgroundwater recharge. Water from multiple andconjunctive sources is used and reused to meetmultiple needs.

Efficient, equitable and sustainable use ofwater resources entails:

• Exploring the possible synergies for meetingmultiple water needs simultaneously by “moreuse per drop” as well as actively stimulatingreuse.

• Incrementally improving communities’ andservice providers’ knowledge about, andmonitoring of, water resources: quantity,quality, variability, reliability, sustainable yield,water quality, and the relevantinterconnections between different parts ofthe hydrological system.

• Tapping the comparative suitability of waterresources for certain uses (easy accessibility,year-round availability, site, quality orpredictability), for example, prioritizing morereliable and higher-quality sources year-round

for domestic uses; using roof water andrunoff during the rainy season; using slightlyorganically polluted water for irrigation.

• Identifying sites and periods of competitionand negotiating the absolute protection ofbasic human, domestic and productiveneeds (50–200 lpd), and ensuringrepresentation at intermediate leveldecision-making bodies to that end.

• Assessing already prevailing uses, if not atthe individual level, at least at the level ofthe user group and tracing prior claims toaccess water or to pollute it, whetherembedded in traditional legal systems orformal systems, or both, and negotiatingnew use rights.

Appropriate Technologies: Selectionand Use of Technologies Based onPeople’s Needs and Abilities

This principle considers the selection ofappropriate technologies and collection oftechnologies to store, distribute, protect and treatwater for multiple uses. It is closely related to theother principles because technology comes with arange of hardware and software requirements forfunding, know-how, institutions and environment.The scale of technologies can range fromhousehold-level technology to medium-sizeddams and systems. The siting of waterinfrastructure is important: homestead-basedtechnologies tend to be used most intensively formultiple uses. This principle seeks ways to realizeimproved access to water and lower health risks:

Improved access to water

• Reassembling existing technologycomponents to allow for multiple uses and tomitigate health risks, fitting the locallyspecific conditions, financial and institutionalcapacities, ability and willingness to pay andpreferences of the end users.

23

• Ensuring users’ participation in finding thebest match, building upon local technicalexpertise and innovation strategies, andstimulating users’ own experimentation andfield-testing of technologies.

• Paying special attention to storage (surfacewater reservoirs, groundwater recharge) toenable water use during longer periods of theyear.

• Lowering technology costs and ensuringquality-construction implementation so thattechnologies become more affordable for thepoor and the poorest, including women, eventhough subsidies to reach them are stillrequired.

• Enhancing women’s access to technologiesand breaking taboos against women’s controlover water technologies, and therefore overwater resources, including basic technologiessuch as donkey transport, bicycle riding andwell digging.

• Under dry-season scarcity, ensuring thattechnologies allow transparent apportionmentand sharing of water resources and protectionof basic human water needs (Lankford andMwaruvanda 2005).

Lower health risks

• Designing systems so as to prevent orminimize breeding of mosquitoes, snails andflies in surface water bodies; ensuring properdrainage and sanitation to avoid unsanitaryconditions.

• Protecting water sources from (upstream)pollution and contamination through fencing,shielding, and separating uses (e.g., separatecattle troughs or washing places withindependent drains).

• Fencing and covering of small-scale water-storage facilities to prevent pollution andreduce risk of drowning.

• Treating water of unacceptable quality (e.g.,arsenic or fluoride, or other pollution), inparticular through point-of-use treatment.

Inclusive Institutions: InformedDecision Making and TransparentManagement by Institutions ThatInvolve the Poor

This principle highlights the importance ofinclusive institutions: sets of structures and rulesthat arrange informed decision making andenforcement. Internal divisions of roles andresponsibilities usually stipulate membership,governance and operational execution (Shah1996). Integrated community-based waterinstitutions holistically govern conjunctive waterresources for the range of water needs of allcommunity members, and build on existing waterarrangements. These “unified” water institutionscan be either one institution, or differentinstitutions with effective coordinationarrangements. Institution building from theplanning phase onwards integrates all otherprinciples: livelihoods-based priority water needs,conjunctive water resources, informed technologychoices, adapting existing governance structuresto new management requirements, and ensuringfinancial sustainability. Institutions deal with waterinfrastructural construction, operation andmaintenance (O&M) and with water resourcesmanagement and regulation issues, inparticular allocation and pollution fromhousehold to basin scales, including theprotection of basic livelihood needs. In order toaddress larger-scale issues nested watergovernance is required.

Institutions that accommodate people’smultiple water needs are characterized by:

• Planning in a participatory way, integratingcommunity-level principles from the outset,with particular measures to include the poorand women.

24

• Selecting sites and scheme layouts that suitthe needs of all, and—in the case of largerschemes—also satisfactorily settling landexpropriation and compensation issues.

• Unifying local water governance, whileaccommodating for different payment andother obligations attached to different uses,with particular consideration of the abilitiesand needs of the poor.

• Integrating the strengths of existing localintegrated water management institutions intonew institutions.

• Identifying key gaps in communities’ abilitiesand communicating to intermediate-levelservice providers for soliciting their supportduring planning, construction and use phasewhere necessary and agreed to fill gaps (forexample, transparent financial management;managing hydraulic infrastructure;monitoring abstractions and quality;facilitating negotiation over water rights anduse within and between communities anduser groups).

• Harnessing the higher willingness to pay fromthe outset through transparency andconsultation on important decisions and rolessuch as tariff setting, arbitration in disputes,and enforcement of regulations and bylaws.

• Dealing effectively with the high transactioncosts of participatory planning processes,especially for the poor and women.

• Ensuring effective representation ofcommunities and user groups at higherlevels, where necessary, for example,decision making over bulk water allocations.

• Protecting basic human water needs andensuring equitable allocation across thedifferent uses, from community level to higheraggregate levels.

• Mitigating health and other risks throughtechnological and institutional measures.

Adequate Financing: Matched toPeople’s Ability and Willingness to Pay

The principle of adequate financing refers to thechallenge to enhance cost recovery by end users,without excluding the poor from improved accessto water. As partly already mentioned before,adequate financing encompasses:

• Harnessing the higher willingness to pay fromthe outset through transparency andconsultation on important decisions and rolessuch as tariff setting, arbitration in disputes,and enforcement of regulations and bylaws.

• Ensuring that improved access toinfrastructure is not too costly for the poorand poorest or, otherwise, introducingdifferential service levels and well-targetedsubsidies.

• Adjusting current and introducing newsubsidization and credit models that are moreappropriate for communities’ and individuals’self- or co-financing of water systems.

• Soliciting the support of other relevantstakeholders (agriculture and livestock, ruraldevelopment) to use water more effectivelyfor food and income.

A more general issue is the overall cost-benefit analysis at community level. The benefitsand technology costs envisioned in this sectionseem similar to those identified in the sectionunder "Merits and Drawbacks...." However, thetransaction costs for villagers (and serviceproviders) for participatory planning processes arehigher compared to conventional approaches,especially those typically used by government.The required skills also need to be developed.This implies the need for:

• Further assessing and quantifying thebenefits and costs of mus systems.

• Exploring ways to further augment thebenefits and reduce the costs for users (andpublic- and private-service providers), inparticular, transaction costs.

25

What Is the Intermediate Level, andWhat Is an Enabling Environment forService Delivery and Upscaling ofMUS?

Figure 3 illustrates the five principles identified atthe intermediate level that allow achieving theobjective of an enabling environment forsupporting the implementation of multiple-usewater services. But what is meant by the“intermediate level?” While both “national” and“community” levels are fairly clear, intermediate isless so. This is because it is something of acatch-all phrase intended to identify a set ofactors, functions and required capacity that donot exist at either the community or nationallevel, but somewhere in between. These are theservice providers who construct and maintainsystems; who provide finance; who traincommunities; and who carry out audits. Whetherthere are one or several intermediate levels, theparticular roles and responsibilities of differentactors at each level depend on the context in aparticular area.

Key sets of intermediate-level actors includelocal government, sectoral line departments, localpublic and private service providers, irrigationcommittees of larger schemes, donors, financiers,local NGOs and CBOs like associations or farmernetworks. Particularly important is the district ormunicipality level at which local civil servants andelected officials work and plan together (Schoutenand Moriarty 2004).

The intermediate level is also crucial forwater resources management. It is an aggregatinglevel that allows for planning, priority setting, andresource identification at a scale that will capturemany of the externalities missed whenconcentrating on individual villages alone, but thatremains close enough to the community to allowfor meaningful participation in planning andmanagement, as well as the local adaptationessential for sustainability. The establishment ofsubnational catchment or watershed coordinationor decision-making bodies in some countries isimportant within this context, as these are bymandate empowered to coordinate and negotiatebetween agricultural, industrial and municipal ordomestic sectors. Typically, this levelcorresponds to a population of some hundreds ofthousands of people.

The importance of the intermediate levelcannot be overemphasized. The reason that, atany one time in much of the developing world, alarge proportion of domestic water supplyinfrastructure is out of order (WHO/UNICEF 2000)has much to do with the problems at theintermediate level (Schouten and Moriarty 2003).Similarly, many smallholder irrigation schemescollapsed after the sudden withdrawal ofintermediate-level public support under the nameof “irrigation management transfer.” Although theirrigation bureaucracies had many weaknesses,the absence of any support for institution building,refurbishing infrastructure, facilitating inputprovision or ensuring market channels is worse(Shah et al. 2002).

Enhancing Service Delivery at Intermediate Level

FIGURE 3.Principles at intermediate level.

Communitymus enabled

andsupported

Participatorystrategic

management

CoordinationLong-term

support

Adaptivemanagement

Adequatefinancing

26

Decentralization to the intermediate leveloffers an opening to systematize servicedelivery—moving away from many scatteredindividual projects delivered by different agencies,and to provide an overall environment forstrategic management of human and naturalresources at scale. Within the new understandingof the role of local governments that are beingdeveloped as part of wider decentralizationpolicies, it is perhaps this role of strategic plannerand regulator that is most critical for bothsustainability and scaling up—also with respect tomultiple-use water services. This also gives theopportunity to break through rigid sectoralboundaries and to achieve integrated waterdevelopment at the district level.

Within any district or village there willtypically be a range of needs for water, and alsoa range of resource options, and a range ofinfrastructure and institutional choices. A criticalfunction is to ensure integration of management(strategic planning and action) of the human,financial, physical and natural resources in theoptimum way to meet people’s needs for waterservices. It requires a unique mixture ofhardware, software and financial solutions. Theintermediate level has an important role to play insupporting this integration within communities, butit has a crucial and irreplaceable role to play indoing so between communities. In practice, thisrole means having the capacity to pose andanswer a range of questions, such as: What mixof boreholes, small dams and roof-top waterharvesting is most appropriate to the needs of acommunity? Does it make most sense to meetall needs from a single borehole and electricpump? Does it make more sense to use hand-pumps for domestic purposes and roof-toprainwater harvesting for productive uses? At thescale of the district, it means answeringquestions such as: Should domestic needs bemet by a large reticulation system, whileproductive use is catered to by village-levelboreholes and dams? Is there an impact ondownstream users of large-scale adoption ofrainwater harvesting technologies by upstreamcommunities? An enabling environment at this

level means the ability to support strategicplanning, negotiation and decision making in theessentially political processes that surround waterresources management and water servicedelivery. What is more, resources to meet hugedemands are extremely scarce, so intermediate-level actors need the tools (policies, legislation,enforcement tools, decision-making framework)and skills (facilitation, planning, negotiation) toeffectively prioritize investment and waterresources allocation in a way that is equitableand transparent.

A first step in supporting multiple-use waterservices is simply avoiding intermediate-levelstakeholders acting as a barrier, so allowing local-level experimentation by NGOs, donor projectsand communities. However, on its own this is notenough to lead to upscaled service delivery.Without an effective intermediate-level ofgovernment, the private sector, associations ofcommunities and, most likely combinations of allthese, there is no prospect of significantly andsustainably upscaling of multiple-use waterservices or of dealing with scale-relatedexternalities.

An effective enabling environment atintermediate level is difficult and time-consumingto create and requires new skills, even if thenational-level stakeholders fully supportsystematic decentralization, which they often donot as yet. The efforts required will be centeredon the following five principles:

• Coordination amongst sectors and actors.

• Long-term support to communities.

• Adaptive management.

• Adequate financing.

• Participatory strategic management.

Coordination amongst Sectors andActors: Integrated Service Delivery

The principle of coordination between the widerange of stakeholders at the intermediate leveladdresses the problem that, regardless of how

27

much communities may want multiple useservices, they are unlikely to get those servicesif intermediate-level stakeholders have to workwithin the organizational limits of vertical-sectoragencies. In many districts in the developingworld three or four NGOs will be working side byside providing services to different villages usingdifferent approaches, with different hardware andsoftware and financial approaches. In addition,and despite decentralization of power to localgovernments, at least in theory, there still tendsto be a split between elected representativeswhose focus really is at their own level; and civilservants who often nominally serve the localgovernment but, in fact, report to and getfinancing from national ministries. NGOs are oftenmore flexible but their failure to coordinate withthe local and national governments and theirsometimes relatively costly interventions lead tosystems that are often not officially recognized—and therefore these systems remain islands ofsuccess. Even if “best practice” planningframeworks exist, such as South Africa’s above-mentioned Integrated Development Plans, whichbring together not only water services but alsoelectricity, transport, health, etc., (RSA 2000a, b)implementation is often slow and plagued by lackof capacity.

Against this background, key issues forbetter coordinating sectors and actors towards anenabling environment include:

• Removing sector-based limitations andrestrictions from above and encouragingexisting multiple-water use initiatives.

• Facilitating effective communication andsharing of information and skills, not onlybetween government actors from differentsectors but between all actors involved inlocal water service delivery or resourcesmanagement.

• Gradually moving to common vision building,integrated planning, implementation, and jointmanagement of finances by those involved inwater-related service provision.

• Forging effective links between (sub-)catchment agencies and sectoral serviceproviders and local governments to implementsustainable mus.

Adaptive Management: Capacity and“Space” to Follow a Learning-BasedApproach

The ability to learn and adapt based onexperience is key to developing locallyappropriate models for service provision includingmus. Rapid and effective piloting and upscaling ofmultiple-use water services require a flexible andpragmatic “learning by doing” environment(sometimes called adaptive management), inwhich approaches can be developed and tailoredto local reality, based on participatoryexperimentation. In a sense, that is all there is tomus—the tailoring of services provision to meetthe real needs of people, and to take into accountthe real constraints they face—natural andhuman.

The amount of information required to planfully integrated resources and services fromscratch is typically far beyond the means of localgovernment or other intermediate actors.Therefore, an adaptive “learning by doing”approach is normally the best way forward. So,for example, farm-ponds may be an approach thathas been tried elsewhere in a country with goodsuccess. Should they now be adopted in anotherdistrict? Classic planning approaches would callfor hydrological, social and financial studies,supported by data-gathering and modeling. Suchplanning requirements may even be imposedthrough policies and legal frameworks. However, alearning approach would involve identifying two orthree “pilot” sites within a district, implementingsome ponds, and then critically examining theresults. Only when all involved are convinced asto the utility of the approach should it be scaledup within the district. “Learning by doing” can alsobe based on communities’ own knowledge,

28

experimentation and networking as, for example,implemented by the Local Wisdom Network inThailand (Ruaysoongnern and Penning de Vries2005). Evidently, learning-by-doing requires verydifferent attitudes and skills.

Issues to focus on through action-researchrelating to this principle include:

• Using the opportunities provided bydecentralization processes to create thepolicy and legal space for intermediate actorsto adopt an adaptive management approachfor implementing multiple-use water serviceswhile maintaining controls on quality,transparency and equity.

• Developing the skills, capacity and attitudeamongst intermediate actors to plan,implement, monitor, analyze, document, drawlessons, and build upon these lessons.

• Using the skills of existing actors, e.g., fromnational level, NGOs, and CBOs to supportother intermediate-level actors in adoptingadaptive management-based approaches forimplementing and upscaling of mus.

Participatory Strategic Management:Involving Stakeholders and End Usersin Strategic Management

This principle articulates two linked concerns.First, that management (the programming and theimplementation of services) follows a strategicapproach (such as a program cycle)3 and second,that such approaches are participatory—that isbased on the inputs of all stakeholders includingcommunities. In this way, communities’ specificmultiple water needs can be channeled intobroader planning processes which also regard themany other needs like housing, education,electricity, etc. Neither assumption can be takenfor granted. The extent to which most localauthorities really engage in a structured or

strategic management is minimal. The reality ismore often one of annual planning based ontroubleshooting and unintegrated, uncoordinatedimplementation of once-off projects. Often, theseare driven by donors or international NGOs withthe acquiescence rather than collaboration of thegovernment (see for example Moriarty et al.2005). Adopting a structured and strategicapproach assumes that, while not losing sight oftheir essentially political nature, planning anddecision making are: objective and logical;proceed on the basis of an assessment of needsand resources; and take a medium- (or long-)term and integrated approach.

Similarly, while there is reasonableacceptance of participation in the implementationof projects at the grass roots in NGO-fundedprojects, this may not be the case within largerprograms. Improving participation has at leastfour aspects, whether concerning the broaderneeds or focusing on multiple-use water services,which would be based on a thoroughunderstanding of people’s livelihoods and whichwould use water resources equitably andsustainably, select appropriate technologies, buildinclusive institutions and ensure adequatefinancing. The first, and most obvious, iscapacity at the intermediate level to interact withstakeholders and to facilitate their involvement.Providing this capacity can be an appropriate rolefor NGOs and CBOs to fulfill. The seconddimension regards clear and transparent decision-making procedures, preferably backed up bypolicy or legal requirements for stakeholderinvolvement. The sort of mechanism that can beuseful in this regard is a requirement to developlong-term village, town or district waterdevelopment plans that user groups and otherkey stakeholders explicitly sign up to. The third isthat, better legal recognition given to stakeholdergroups, such as CBOs or water userassociations, makes it more difficult to excludethem from decision-making processes. Last, the

3By cycle we mean a set of linked activities, typically involving planning, implementation, monitoring and lesson learning, leading toadjusted planning.

29

most important challenge to participation is thetransaction cost related to it. To involvecommunities either you have to travel to them, orthey have to come to you. This costs money,time and effort, and needs both facilitation, interms of providing the time, transport and offeringthe skills of facilitation, etc., and incentives.

Key issues to enhance strategic andparticipatory management, also with regard tointegrated water services, include:

• Encouraging managers and decision makersat the intermediate level to adopt a morestrategic approach to management ofservices and resources (as opposed tocurrent fire-fighting) and developing theircapacity to that end in the short and longerterm.

• Ensuring that (genuine representatives of) endusers, including the poor and women, areactively involved in planning processes atboth the community and the intermediatelevel, and that their opinions on musapproaches are taken into account whenmaking decisions.

Long-Term Support: To CommunityMultiple Use Systems

The principle of long-term support addressesperhaps the most important lesson of the lastdecade of “community management” and“management transfer” of collective schemes.This is that most community- or farmer-managedsystems that are not provided with adequateexternal support are no more sustainable thanthose without community involvement (Shah et al.2002; Schouten and Moriarty 2004). Communitiesrequire long-term support for sustainable multiple-use water systems and this support needs to beconceived holistically, without sector-basedrestrictions attached to them.

Technical capacity needs to be built;manufacturing or importation and dissemination oftechnologies and spare parts to reassemble formultiple uses need to be facilitated and promoted;regular refresher trainings organized; or help given

in negotiation contracts with the private sector.Less visible tasks include maintaining institutionalcapacity (chairpersons, treasurers, pump-mechanics, water bailiffs) in the face of constantturnover of the people who fulfill these posts;backstopping to communities on how to handlethe finances for construction, O&M and how tohandle public subsidies and grants; auditing; ormid-term loan facilities, and so on.

Regulatory support may be needed,particularly with regards to water resourcesmanagement, where it is crucial to have somemechanism for ensuring that allocations arerespected and that the poor and marginalized arenot discriminated against. Support may also beneeded for other factors that determine theultimate benefits of using water for multiplepurposes, for example, market development,agricultural training or sanitation and hygienecampaigns. Regulation can avoid the health risksof water development.

Issues that need special attention to developsupport to communities by intermediate-levelstakeholders include:

• Developing the capacity and means ofintermediate-level stakeholders to fulfill keysupport roles.

• Removing existing sector-based restrictionsand limitations so that the support providedstimulates multiple-use systems.

Adequate Financing: Access toFinancing to Fund Integrated Multiple-Use Services

This principle seeks to meet the requirement ofdecentralized service provision: to providesufficient financial support and services in theappropriate form to communities. Externalinjections of finance, in the form of grants andsubsidies and soft loans from government ordonors, or commercial banking are essential, inparticular for infrastructural construction or repaircosts. However, financing facilities for rural mid-term loans are almost absent. Moreover, thevarious small funding streams available,

30

especially subsidies, are typically earmarked forone single water use and have other conditionswhich hinder the financing of integrated activitiessuch as multiple-use systems. This implies thatcommunities that want to pool different incomesources have to worry about different budgets,reporting rules and auditing requirements fromdifferent government and non-governmentagencies. Financing is also required forintermediate-level institutions to fund planning andsupport functions. In many cases, this will bethrough government or donor subsidies. Manylimiting conditions are the result of national-leveldecision making, but there is room for maneuverand piloting.

Key issues related to supporting this principleinclude:

• Negotiating and piloting with national-levelstakeholders to adapt their financing models

to the integrated needs and activities atintermediate and community level, forexample, based on integrated planning ofmultiple-use water systems through “villagewater development plans.”

• Developing lending and other financingmodels so that they become more appropriateto fund intermediate-level actors, especiallylocal governments and the local privatesector and local groups in undertaking mid-term integrated activities such as developingmus systems.

• Developing appropriate revenue-collectionmechanisms, tariff setting, also for cross-subsidization.

• Developing transparent, accountable modelsto speed up disbursement of financing forservice provision.

Ensuring an Enabling Environment at National Level

National-level players create the enablingenvironment and are the “gatekeepers” forimplementing mus approaches at any significantscale. Government departments and nationalprograms, private-sector companies, banks,national NGOs, universities and researchinstitutes, media, political parties, and countrydelegations of international governmental andnongovermental organizations decide over internalstructuring and important resources. Resourcesare financial (treasury, national banking, corporatesector, and international grant and loan provision);technical know-how, (e.g., through the nation’seducation and training systems and public andprivate sectors); and institutional knowledge andskills.

As is the case for the intermediate level, thefirst step in creating a more enabling environmentis a passive one: dissolving barriers to local

initiative and experimentation in multiple-usewater services. However, for mainstreaming andupscaling of multiple-use water servicescountrywide, pro-active national support is pivotal.

The enabling national environment envisionedis based on four principles (see figure 4). Threeprinciples are shared with the intermediate leveland address national-level stakeholders’ roles inenabling the intermediate-level stakeholders toeffectively address the same principles. Thefourth principle, policy and legislation, is typicalfor the national government:

• Coordination amongst sectors and actors:devolving decision making.

• Long-term support.

• Adequate financing.

• Enabling policy and legislation.

31

Coordination amongst Sectors andActors: Devolving Decision Making

The principle “coordination amongst sectors andactors” for mus echoes international and nationalinitiatives towards IWRM, which aim at betterhorizontal and vertical integration while devolvingdecision making to the lowest appropriate levels.Institutional innovation is necessary to overcomethe multiplicity of uncoordinated actions for waterservices provision by national and internationalactors, each with its own particular take on howdevelopment should be approached and usuallyalso promoting top-down single-use waterservices delivery. The structuring into “silos” ismanifest in sector-based mandates and jobdescriptions; in upward reporting requirements; inparallel planning cycles; in rigid one-size-fits-alltechnical standards; or in single-use earmarkingof financing streams. The design of systems thatmeets the locally specific multiple water-relatedneeds of the poor, in ways that are least costly,socially equitable and environmentallysustainable, requires a bottom-up integratedapproach across all levels, in which decisionmaking on integrated priorities is to take place atthe community and intermediate levels, not at thenational level.

Important coordinating roles for national-levelplayers are: to devolve integrative decisionmaking to intermediate and community levels;coordinate the support and backstopping required,as discussed in the next principles; andcoordinate with international donors, NGOs andfinanciers so that they harmonize their supportaccording to these decentralized services. Keyissues for coordination and devolution are:

• Enabling coordination at intermediate andcommunity levels by devolving decisionmaking for integrated planning of waterservices provision to the lowest appropriatelevel, including basin and watershed leveldecision-making fora.

• Loosening or removing elements of nationalplanning that tend towards top-down single-use or otherwise fragmentary planning (e.g.,earmarked financing streams, upwardreporting and accountability, narrow mandatesand job descriptions).

• Sharing of information and expertise bothhorizontally and vertically.

• Coordinating with international ruraldevelopment, water, and financing agenciesto pool and channel support for multiple-usewater services that are needs-driven,sustainable, replicable, and embedded in thecountry’s planning processes, so that theycan be taken to scale.

Long-Term Support: To Intermediate-Level Players

The principle of substantive and well-coordinatednational support expresses that decentralizationcan only work if it comes with the requiredresources and capacity building—otherwise“decentralization” translates into little more thanweakening of central government's functionswhile shifting their obligations to unprepared oreven nonexistent intermediate-level stakeholders:a mismatch between functional responsibility andfinancial discretion. Technical public- and private-sector support to the intermediate and community

Coordinationof sectorsand actors

Adequatefinancing

Long-termsupport

Enablingpolicy andlegislation

Musupscaled

nationally

FIGURE 4.Principles at national level.

32

levels can entail the promotion of appropriatemicro-scale, medium-scale and sometimes nation-scale infrastructure from both within and outsidethe country—requiring entrepreneurs, engineers,researchers, social scientists, economists andothers to work together in an open and learningmode to identify appropriate models and tosupport intermediate and community-level actorsin implementing and modifying them.

Key to developing a supportive nationalenvironment is:

• Identifying and building new competenciesand mind-sets required among national-levelindividuals to support needs-basedapproaches.

• Enhancing the availability of appropriateindividual and collective technologies andbuilding the capacity to reassemble these ininnovative ways to support mus.

• Designing innovative institutions for bottom-upnested integrated water management that isneeds-based and inclusive, and building thecapacities for intermediate- and community-level stakeholders to implement those.

• Adopting multidisciplinary curricula thatintegrate domestic and productive wateruses.

Adequate Financing: To Upscale MUSNationwide

The principle of “adequate financing” addressesthe need for adequate financing throughnational budgeting of large-scale investmentsas loans and subsidies or grants (budget-support; sectoral programs, projects), and hasthe same two aspects as at intermediate level:the overall amount available and the models bywhich it is made available. Even if the totalsum of the various sector-based investmentsremained the same, multiple-use waterservices are already promoted by relaxing orremoving single-use tags of financing streamsand allowing for pooling of grants and loans by

local governments and other intermediate-levelservice providers and communities. Proactiveredesign of financing structures, includingcommercial banking, that empower theintermediate levels can do more, and is alsoneeded to ensure that the poorest get access tominimum levels of water for basic domestic andproductive needs.

Key issues related to meeting thesechallenges are:

• In setting the conditions of subsidies andgrants: relaxing or removing labels or bindingpriorities or restrictions focusing on one wateruse only.

• Devolving authority by public (and private)financing agencies to intermediate- andcommunity-level stakeholders to enable themto coordinate between, and pool financingsources from, “domestic” and “productive”sectors, while maintaining sufficientaccountability and transparency.

• Devolving authority for revenue collection,and otherwise assisting in cost-recovery atcommunity and intermediate level.

• Designing, piloting and upscaling innovativemid-term loan facilities (soft; equity; partialgrants) by government and banks that willencourage intermediate-level players andcommunities to invest in mus schemes.

• Designing a financial strategy that combinesthe goals of economic efficiency and socialequity and designing (cross-) subsidyschemes that better reach the poorest andpoor.

Taking mus to scale will involve investmentsto meet transaction and technology costs atcommunity level and especially the building of aneffective intermediate level. The costs will largelydepend on the success of decentralization ingeneral. However, if the promotion of multiple-usewater services is accompanied by more rigorouscost-recovery from the income gained from theproductive activities and more opportunities forself-financing through loans, funds would be freed

33

up at the medium term that could specifically beused for subsidized targeting of the poor. The realquestion is therefore whether these short-terminvestments are worth the expected longer-termbenefits.

Enabling Policy and Legislation

Policy and legislation reflect the nation’s priorityin allocating scarce resources and supportprovision and entail the cross-linkages betweeninternational Millennium Development Goals andnational poverty reduction and gender equitystrategies and mus approaches as forms ofIWRM to achieve those goals. Good policy andlegislation not only enable the upscaling ofmultiple-use water services by removing currentrestrictive elements but are also an importantstimulus for all parties concerned to takeresponsibility for new approaches. However,formal policy and legislative frameworks tend towork best for the formal urbanized andindustrialized segments of societies, which oftenalso become the reference points for uniformityand standardization. National policy andlegislation often lack the flexibility toaccommodate the very different andintrinsically informal settings found in rural andperi-urban poor areas. Norms and proceduralrequirements for business plans, environmentalimpact assessments, or registration and feepayment of water uses are hardly ever a localpriority, or indeed even realistic. Bureaucracywithout effective enforcement even leads tobribery and corruption by “street-level”bureaucrats. Formalization can easily createmore problems than it can solve in the informaleconomies of the rural and peri-urban poor(Shah 2005; Van Koppen et al. 2005). Indeed,various current formal norms and standardscontribute to the shortcomings of single-useplanning and design.

On the other hand, bottom-up planning anddecision making on public resources require clear,transparent and enforceable division ofresponsibilities and rules with regard to financialmanagement and auditing of public funds,election and representation, procurement andtendering procedures, quality delivery, legal statusof groupings in their interactions with third parties,rules to adhere to during conflict resolution at thedifferent levels, measures to deal withexternalities, to name a few.

Policies and legislation to enable musapproaches revolve around the followingissues:

• Highlighting multiple-use water servicesprovision as practical forms of IWRM suitablefor advancing the Millennium DevelopmentGoals in national-poverty reduction andgender-equity strategies and in national water-efficiency strategies and plans, called for bythe World Summit of SustainableDevelopment 2002.

• In particular, by law, prioritizing basic humanwater needs that include both domestic andproductive uses by the poor (50-200 lpd) innational water policy, water strategies andallocation plans.

• Loosening, removing or replacing currentrestrictions in policies and laws that, inpractice, discourage the adoption of musapproaches in rural and peri-urban areas,such as “one-size-fits-all” norms forconstruction, dam safety, spare parts andtechnical expertise.

• Designing policies and laws that enabletransparent, participatory and accountableplanning and public-fund management bycommunities and intermediate-level serviceproviders.

• Testing draft legislations in informal settingsbefore promulgation.

34

Multiple-use water services provision in poor ruraland peri-urban areas, in which water is betterused to reduce poverty and enhance genderequity, was presented from three angles in thisresearch report.

First, we presented empirical evidence from arange of sources, dating back to the 1980s,describing efforts to overcome the shortcomingsof conventional single-use planning and design.These shortcomings were, above all, manifest inthe universal transformation of single-use plannedschemes, whether domestic or productiveschemes, into de facto multiple-use waterschemes. Worldwide, “domestic-plus,” “productive-plus” and “multiple-use” water services provisionshowed effective solutions, which are gainingmomentum and align well with global efforts todecentralize decision making to the lowestappropriate levels, in particular local governments,and with more holistic thinking in the water sectorthrough IWRM.

Second, generic merits and drawbacks ofthese past efforts towards multiple-use waterservices provision were identified. At lowincremental costs, the benefits include, in brief:

• Addressing simultaneously a broader set ofdimensions of well-being than conventionalapproaches.

• Offering a more gender-equitable approach toservice provision.

• Enhancing both ability and willingness to payfor water services.

• Increasing water productivity through “moreuse per drop.”

• Enabling integrated water managementinstitutions owned by communities.

• Enabling design of services that will be moresustainable and less prone to illegal overuse.

• Holistically addressing the various healthrisks associated with water.

• Allowing for more equitable andenvironmentally sustainable water allocationand protection of people’s basic multiplewater needs.

This confirmed what GWP already stated:mus approaches are appropriate forms ofimplementing IWRM in poor areas with a backlogof infrastructural development and of advancingthe Millennium Development Goals (GWP 2004),Upscaling of mus approaches promisesproportionate multiplication of the benefits.

Third, therefore, a framework was provided,based on principles grouped in “Learning Wheels”at three different institutional levels to guidefuture implementation and investigation ofupscaled mus. Ten principles were brieflyelaborated: service provision based on a thoroughunderstanding of water-related livelihoods;sustainable, equitable and efficient use of waterresources; appropriate technologies; inclusiveinstitutions (at community level); adequatefinancing (crosscutting all levels); adaptive andlearning-based management (at intermediatelevel); coordination between sectors and actors;long-term support; participatory planning (at theintermediate and national levels); and enablingpolicies and legislation (by governments at thenational level).

To conclude, this vision and action plan ofupscaling multiple-use water services suggestsfour increasingly transformative ways to promotemultiple-use services provision.

• Formally recognizing existing de factomultiple-uses of single-use planned systemsas contributions to achieving the MillenniumDevelopment Goals.

• Relaxing or removing current blockages innational policies, laws and programs thathinder intermediate level service providersand communities to implement multiple-useservices (single-use mandates, financing

Conclusions

35

earmarking, upward accountability, definitionsof basic human needs and minimum survivalnorms, one-size-fits-all norms, bureaucraticrequirements, unrealistic water-qualityrequirements, etc.).

• Taking poor people’s multiple water needs(quantities, qualities) as a starting point innew public or private project-based domestic-plus, productive-plus, or multiple useschemes, rehabilitations, extensions and newtechnologies.

• Conducting pilots that can be replicated atlarge scale at intermediate and national level

(integration of needs-based water services inlocal government planning processes insynergy with intermediate-level capacitybuilding through general decentralizationprocesses; innovative loan facilities for mid-term investments in water schemes;upscaling of farmer-led experimentation atintermediate and national levels, etc.).

The documentation and critical evaluation ofthese and other future actions will further improveinsights and action with regard to the many stilloutstanding questions with regard to needs-basedintegrated water services provision.

36

37

Literature Cited

Agarwal, Anil; Sunita Narain; Indira Khurana (eds.) 2001. Making water everybody’s business. Practice andpolicy of water harvesting. New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment.

Agua. 2003. Usos multiples del Agua. 2003. International conference organized by Cinara, Universidad delValle, and International Water Association. Cali, Colombia: Cinara, Universidad del Valle.

Alberts, H.; van der Zee, J. J. 2004. A multi-sectoral approach to sustainable rural water supply: The role of therope pump in Nicaragua. In Beyond domestic. Case studies on poverty and productive uses of water at thehousehold level, ed., P. Moriarty, J. Butterworth, and B. van Koppen. IRC Technical Papers Series 41. Delft:IRC, NRI, and IWMI.

ApproTEC. 2004. Annual report 2003/2004. Nairobi: Appropriate Technologies for Enterprise Creation.

Ault, S. K. 1981. Expanding non-agricultural uses of irrigation water for the disadvantaged: Health aspects.New York: The Agricultural Development Council, New York, USA and Washington, D. C.: Agency forInternational Development.

Bakker, M.; Barker, R.; Meinzen-Dick, R.; Konradsen F. (eds.) 1999. Multiple uses of water in irrigated areas: Acase study from Sri Lanka. SWIM Paper 8. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.

Binswanger, H.; Nguyen, Tuu-Van. 2005. A step by step guide to scale up community driven development. InAfrican water laws: Plural legislative frameworks for rural water management in Africa. Proceedings of aworkshop held in Johannesburg, South Africa. 26-28 January 2005, ed. B. van Koppen, J. A. Butterworthand I. Juma. Pretoria: International Water Management Institute.

Biswas, A. K. 2004. Integrated water resources management: A reassessment. Water International 29 (2): 248–256, June 2004. International Water Resources Association.

Black, M.; Talbot, R. 2005. Water a matter of life and health, water supply and sanitation in Village India. NewDelhi: UNICEF with Oxford University Press.

Boelee, E.; Huibers, F.; Laamrani, H.; Khallaayoune, K.; Debbarh, A.; Watts, S.; Gryseels, B. 1997. Multiple useof water: Prospects for an integrated approach in the Haouz plain, Morocco. In Sustainable irrigation inareas of water scarcity and drought. Proceedings of the international workshop, 11-12 September 1997, ed.J. M. De Jager, L. P. Vermes, and R. Ragab. Oxford, England.

Boelee, E.; Laamrani, H. 2004. Multiple uses of irrigation water in Northern Morocco. In Beyond domestic. Casestudies on poverty and productive uses of water at the household level, ed., P. Moriarty, J. Butterworth, andB. van Koppen. IRC Technical Papers Series 41. Delft: IRC, NRI, and IWMI.

Boelee, E.; Morardet, S.; Butterworth, J. 2004. Workshop documentation, MUS basin planning workshop held atARC, Pretoria, South Africa, 4-6 November 2004. Duplicated.

Bolton, P. 1992. Environmental and health aspects of irrigation. OD/P 116. Wallingford: Hydraulics Research.

Bustamante, R.; Butterworth, J.; Flierman, M.; Herbas, D.; Hollander, M. den; Meer, S. van der; Ravenstijn, P.;Reynaga, M.; German, Z. 2004. Livelihoods in conflict: Disputes over water for household-level productiveuses in Tarata, Bolivia. In Beyond domestic. Case studies on poverty and productive uses of water at thehousehold level, ed. P. Moriarty, J. Butterworth, and B. van Koppen. IRC Technical Papers Series 41. Delft:IRC, NRI, and IWMI.

Butterworth J. A.; Moriarty, P.B.; Venter Hildebrand, M.; van Koppen, B.; Schreiner, B.; Versfeld, D. (eds.) 2003.Proceedings of the International Symposium on Water, Poverty, and Productive Uses of Water at theHousehold Level, 21-23 January 2003, Muldersdrift, South Africa. Natural Resources Institute, IRCInternational Water and Sanitation Centre, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, International WaterManagement Institute. Delft, Netherlands: International Water and Sanitation Centre.

38

Butterworth, J.; Restrepo, I.; Bustamante, R.; Smits, S.; Dominguez, I. 2005. Utilising water supplies for multipleuses: An opportunity or a threat for sustainable services and livelihoods? Paper presented at Internationalsymposium AGUA 2005, October 2005, Colombia. www.cinara.org.co

Cairncross, S.; Feachem, R.G. 1993. Environmental health engineering in the tropics. An introductory text.Second edition. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.

Challenge Program on Water and Food; Indian Council of Agricultural Research; International WaterManagement Institute. 2005. Proceedings of International Workshop on Multiple Water Use Systems forProductivity and Livelihood Improvement in Indo-Gangetic Basin. 6-7 December 2005. Delhi: ChallengeProgram on Water and Food, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, and International Water ManagementInstitute

Chambers, Robert; Saxena, N.C.; Shah, Tushaar. 1989. To the hands of the poor. Water and trees. London:Intermediate Technology Publications.

Clasen, T. F.; Bastable, A. 2003. Faecal contamination of drinking water during collection and householdstorage: the need to extend protection to the point of use. J Water Health 1: 109-115.

Clasen, T. F.; Cairncross, S. 2004. Editorial: Household water management: Refining the dominant paradigm.Tropical Medicine and International Health 9(2): 187–191.

Cooper Weil, D. E.; Alicbusan, A. P.; Wilson, J. F.; Reich, M. R.; Bradley, D. J. 1990. The impact of developmentpolicies on health. A review of literature. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Cullis, J.; Koppen, B. van. 2005. Applying the Gini coefficient to measure inequality of water use in the Olifantsriver water management area. Pretoria: International Water Management Institute and Ninham ConsultingServices. Duplicated.

De Regt, Jacomina. 2005. Water in rural communities. In African water laws: Plural legislative frameworks forrural water management in Africa. Proceedings of a workshop held in Johannesburg, South Africa. 26-28January 2005, ed. B. van Koppen, J.A. Butterworth, and I. Juma. Pretoria: International Water ManagementInstitute.

Derman, William; Hellum, Anne; Sithole, Pinimidzai. 2005. Intersections of human rights and customs:Livelihood perspective on water laws. In African water laws: Pplural legislative frameworks for rural watermanagement in Africa. Proceedings of a workshop held in Johannesburg, South Africa. 26-28 January 2005,ed. B. van Koppen, J. A. Butterworth, and I. Juma. Pretoria: International Water Management Institute.

Duran, A.; Herbas, D.; Reynaga, M.; Butterworth, J. 2005. Planning for multiple uses of water: Livelihoodactivities and household water consumption in peri-urban Cochabamba. In Resources, energy anddevelopment. Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute TERI.

Ebato, M.; Koppen, B. van. 2005. Gender relations and management of multiple water use systems in Adidaerowatershed, Tigray region in northern Ethipia. Paper presented at the International Research Workshop on‘Gender and Collective Action’. 17 – 21 October 2005. Chiang Mai, Thailand. CG System-wide Initiative onCollective Action and Property Rights.

Ensink, J. H. J.; Aslam, M.R.; Konradsen, F.; Jensen, P.K.; der Hoek, W. van. 2002. Linkages between irrigationand drinking water in Pakistan. Working Paper 46. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water ManagementInstitute.

Erlanger, T. E. ; Keiser, J. ; Caldas de Castro, M. ; Bos, R. ; Singer, B. H. ; Tanner, M. ; Utzinger, J. 2005. Effect ofwater resource development and management on lymphatic filariasis, and estimates of populations at risk.Am J Trop Med Hyg. 73: 523-533.

Esrey, S.A. ; Potash, J. B. ; Roberts, L. ; Schiff, C. 1991. Effects of improved water supply and sanitation onascaris, diarrhoea, dracunculasis, hookworm infection, schistosomiasis and trachoma. Bulletin of the WorldHealth Organization 69(5): 609 621.

39

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations). 1986 Water for animals. AGL/MISC/4/85,Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.

GWP (Global Water Partnership) Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Integrated water resources management.TEC Background Paper No. 4. Stockholm: Global Water Partnership.

GWP. 2004. Catalyzing change: A handbook for developing integrated water resources management (IWRM)and water efficiency strategies. Technical Committee of the Global Water Partnership with support fromNorway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Stockholm: Global Water Partnership.

Hagmann, Juergen. 2005. Learning wheel - creating common frameworks for joint learning, action andknowledge management. AGREN Newsletter No. 52, July 2005, http://www.odi.org.uk/agren

Hebert, J. R. 1985. Effects of water quality and water quantity on nutritional status: Findings from a south Indiancommunity. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 63 (1): 143-155.

Howard, G.; Bartram, J. 2003. Domestic water quantity, service level and health. Informal paper WHO/SDE/WSH/03.02. UK: Water Engineering and Development Centre (WEDC), Loughborough University, andGeneva, Switzerland: Water, Sanitation and Health Programme, World Health Organization (WHO).

Hunter, J. M.; Rey, L.; Chu, K.Y.; Adekolu John, E.O.; Mott, K.E. 1993. Parasitic diseases in water resourcesdevelopment. The need for intersectoral negotiation. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Hussain, Intizar. 2005. Pro-poor intervention strategies in irrigated agriculture in Asia. Poverty in irrigatedagriculture. Issues, lessons, options and guidelines. Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan andVietnam. Final synthesis report. Manilla: Asian Development Bank and International Water ManagementInstitute.

Jehangir, W.; Madasser, M.; Ali, N. 2000. Domestic uses of irrigation water and its impact on human andlivestock health in Pakistan. In Proceedings US Committee on Irrigation and Drainage, Colorado June 2000.Colorado: US Committee on Irrigation and Drainage.

Jensen, P. K.; Ensink, J. H. J.; Jayasinghe, G.; der Hoek, W. van; Cairncross, S.; Dalsgaard, A. 2002. Domestictransmission routes of pathogens: The problem of in-house contamination of drinking water during storage indeveloping countries. Tropical Medicine and International Health 7(7): 604–609.

Jensen, P. K.; Matsuno, Y.; der Hoek, W. van; Cairncross, S. 2001. Limitations of irrigation water qualityguidelines from a multiple use perspective. Irrigation & Drainage Systems 15 (2): 117-128.

JMP (Joint Monitoring Programme). 2005. Water for life: Making it happen. WHO/UNICEF Joint MonitoringProgramme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Geneva: World Health Organization and UNICEF, 2005.

Keiser, J.; Caldas de Castro, M.; Maltese, M.F.; Bos, R.; Tanner, M. Singer, B.H.; Utzinger, J. 2005a. Effect ofirrigation and large dams on the burden of malaria on a global and regional scale. Am J Trop Med Hyg 72:392-406.

Keiser, J.; Maltese, M.F.; Erlanger, T.E.; Bos, R.; Tanner, M.; Singer, B.H.; Utzinger, J. 2005b. Effect of irrigatedrice agriculture on Japanese encephalitis, including challenges and opportunities for integrated vectormanagement. Acta Tropica 95: 40-57.

Keiser, J.; Singer, B.H.; Utzinger, J. 2005c. Reducing the burden of malaria in different eco-epidemiologicalsettings with environmental management: A systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis 5(11): 695-708.

Kgalushi, R.; Smits, S.; Eales, K. 2003. People living with HIV/AIDS in a context of rural poverty: Theimportance of water and sanitation services and hygiene education; A case study from Bolobedu (LimpopoProvince, South Africa). Delft, the Netherlands: Mvula Trust, KIT and IRC International Water and SanitationCentre.

Kouassi-Komlan, E.; Fonseca, C. 2004. Micro finance for water and sanitation in West Africa. In Proceedings30th WEDC International Conference, Vientiane, Lao PDR, 2004, People-centred approaches to water andenvironmental sanitation. Available at: http://www.irc.nl/page/459

40

Laamrani, H.; Khallaayoune, K.; Laghroubi, M.; Abdelafid, T.; Boelee, E.; Watts, S.J.; Gryseels, B. 2000.Domestic use of irrigation water: The Metfia in Central Morocco. Water International 25 (3): 410-418.

Lankford, Bruce; Mwaruvanda, Willie. 2005. A framework to integrate formal and informal water rights in riverbasin management. In African water laws: Plural legislative frameworks for rural water management inAfrica. Proceedings of a workshop held in Johannesburg, South Africa, 26-28 January 2005, ed. B. vanKoppen, J.A. Butterworth and I. Juma. Pretoria: International Water Management Institute.

Lockwood, H. 2002. Institutional support mechanisms for community-managed rural water supply and sanitationsystems in Latin America. EHP Strategic Report No. 6. Washington, D.C., USA: Environmental HealthProject. Available at: http://www.ehproject.org/PDF/Strategic_papers/SR-6.pdf

Lovell, C. 2000. Productive water points in dryland areas: Guidelines on integrated planning for rural watersupply. London, UK: ITDG Publishing.

Mahfouz, A.A.R.; Abdel-Moneim, M.; Al-Erian, R.A.G.; Al-Amari, O.M. 1995. Impact of chlorination of water indomestic storage tanks on childhood diarrhoea: A community trial in the rural areas of Saudi Arabia. J TropMed Hyg 98: 126-130.

Maluleke, T.; Thomas, V.; Cousins, T.; Smits, S.; Moriarty, P. 2005. Securing water to enhance local livelihoods(SWELL): Community-based planning of multiple uses of water in partnership with service providers.Bushbuckridge, South Africa: AWARD, CARE, IRC and MUS project. Duplicated.

Meinzen-Dick, R. 1997. Valuing the multiple uses of water. In Water: economics, management and demand, ed.Kay, M., T. Franks, and L. Smith. London: E&FN Spon.

Meinzen-Dick, R.S.; Bakker, M. 2001. Water rights and multiple water uses: Issues and examples from KirindiOya, Sri Lanka. Irrigation & Drainage Systems 15 (2): 129-148.

Meinzen-Dick, R. S.; van der Hoek, W. 2001. Multiple uses of water in irrigated areas. Irrigation & DrainageSystems 15 (2): 93-98.

Meinzen-Dick, R.; Zwarteveen, M. 1998. Gendered participation in water management: issues and illustrationsfrom water users’ associations in South Asia. In Gender analysis and reform of irrigation management:Concepts, cases and gaps in knowledge. Proceedings of the Workshop on Gender and Water. September1997, ed. D. J. Merrey and S. Baviskar. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.

Mintz, E. D.; Reiff, F. R.; Tauxe, R. V. 1995. Safe water treatment and storage in the home: A practical newstrategy to prevent waterborne disease. JAMA 273: 948-953.

Moriarty, P. 2002. Integrated catchment management and sustainable water resource development in semi-aridZimbabwe. IRC Occasional Paper Series no. 35. Delft, The Netherlands: International Water and SanitationCentre.

Moriarty, P.; Butterworth, J. 2003. The productive use of domestic water supplies: How water supplies can playa wider role in livelihood improvement and poverty reduction. IRC Thematic Overview Paper. Delft, TheNetherlands: International Water Supply and Sanitation Centre. Avaialble at: http://www.irc.nl/redir/content/download/16138/208040/file/Background%20paper%20symposium%20Learning%20Alliances.pdf

Moriarty, P.; Butterworth, J.; van Koppen, B. (eds.) 2004a. Beyond domestic. Case studies on poverty andproductive uses of water at the household level. Delft, The Netherlands. IRC International Water andSanitation Centre (IRC Technical Paper Series; no. 41).

Moriarty, P.; Butterworth, J.; van Koppen, B.; Soussan, J. 2004b. Water, poverty and productive uses of water atthe household level. In Beyond domestic. Case studies on poverty and productive uses of water at thehousehold level, ed. P. Moriarty, J. Butterworth, and B. van Koppen. IRC Technical Papers Series 41. Delft:IRC, NRI, and IWMI.

41

Moriarty, P.; Fonseca, C.; Smits, S.; Schouten, T. 2005. Background paper for the symposium: Learning alliancesfor scaling up innovative approaches in the water and sanitation sector, June 2005. Delft, The Netherlands.Available at: http://www.irc.nl/redir/content/download/16138/208040/file/Background%20paper%symposium%20Learning%20Alliances.pdf

Nepal (SIMI) Smallholder Market Initiative. 2004. Process and impact study of the multiple-use (hybrid) gravitywater supply schemes in Palpa and Syangja Districts of West Nepal. Kathmandu: Eco-Tech consult (P) Ltd. S.

Nguyen-Khoa, S.: Smith, L.; Lorenzen, K. 2005. Impacts of irrigation on inland fisheries: Appraisals in Laos andSri Lanka. Comprehensive Assessment Research Report 7. Colombo, Sri Lanka: ComprehensiveAssessment Secretariat.

O’Brien, R. 1998. An overview of the methodological approach of action research Available at: http://www.web.net/~robrien/papers/arfinal.doc

Oomen, J.M.V.; Wolf, J. De; Jobin, W. R. 1988. Health and irrigation. Incorporation of disease control measuresin irrigation, a multi faceted task in design, construction, operation. Volume 2. ILRI Publication 45.Wageningen: International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement.

Oomen, J.M.V.;Wolf, J. De; Jobin, W. R. 1990. Health and irrigation. Incorporation of disease control measuresin irrigation, a multi faceted task in design, construction, operation. Volume 1. ILRI Publication 45.Wageningen: International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement.

Palanisami, K.; Meinzen-Dick, R. 2001. Tank performance and multiple uses in Tamil Nadu, South India.Irrigation & Drainage Systems 15 (2): 173-195.

Perez de Mendiguren Castresana, J. C. 2004. Productive uses of water at the household level: evidence fromBushbuckridge, South Africa. In Beyond domestic. Case studies on poverty and productive uses of water atthe household level, ed P. Moriarty, J. Butterworth, and B. van Koppen. IRC Technical Papers Series 41.Delft: IRC, NRI, and IWMI.

Pike, E.G. 1987. Engineering against schistosomiasis/bilharzia. Guidelines towards control of the disease.London: MacMillan Publishers.

Polak, P.; Adhikari, D.; Nanes, B.; Salter, D.; Suryawanshi, S. 2004. Transforming access to rural water intoprofitable business opportunities. In Beyond domestic. Case studies on poverty and productive uses of waterat the household level, ed. P. Moriarty, J. Butterworth, and B. van Koppen. IRC Technical Papers Series 41.Delft: IRC, NRI, and IWMI.

Quick, R. E.; Kimura, A.; Thevos, A.; Tembo, M.; Shamputa, I.; Hutwagner, L.; Mintz, E. 2002. Diarrheaprevention through household-level water disinfection and safe storage in Zambia. American Journal ofTropical Medicine and Hygiene 66 (5): 584–589.

Quick, R.; Venczel, L. Mintz, E.; Soleto, L.; Aparicio, J.; Gironaz, M.; Hutwagner, L.; Greene, K.; Bopp, C.;Maloney, K.; Chavez, D.; Sobsey, M.; Tauxe, R. V. 1999. Diarrhoea prevention in Bolivia through point-of-usewater treatment and safe storage: A promising new strategy. Epidemiol Infect 122 (1): 83–90.

Ramaru, J.; Hagmann, J. 2005. Documentation of MUS review and planning workshop, held at Defltsstede,Delft, The Netherlands 1-4 June 2005. Duplicated.

Reller, M. E.; Mendoza, C.E.; Lopes, M.B.; Alvarez, M.; Hoekstra, R. M.; Olson, C. A.; Baier, K. G.; Keswisk, B.H.; Luby, S. P. 2003. A randomized controlled trial of household-based flocculant-disinfectant drinking watertreatment for diarrhea prevention in rural Guatemala. Am J Trop Med Hyg 69 (4): 411–419.

Renwick, M. E. 2001a. Valuing water in irrigated agriculture and reservoir fisheries: A multiple-use irrigationsystem in Sri Lanka. Research Report 51. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.

42

Renwick, M. E. 2001b. Valuing water in a multiple-use irrigation system: Irrigated agriculture and reservoirfisheries. Irrigation & Drainage Systems 15 (2): 149-171.

RSA (Republic of South Africa). 2000a. Local Government: Municipal Systems Bill, Government Gazette No.21071 of 13 April 2000, Republic of South Africa, South Africa Available at: http://www.info.gov.za/gazette/bills/2000/b27b-00.pdf

RSA. 2000b. The integrated sustainable rural development strategy. Government of South Africa, South AfricaAvailable at: http://www.info.gov.za/otherdocs/2000/isrds.pdf

RSA, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. 2005. A draft position paper for water allocation reform in SouthAfrica. Towards a framework for water allocation planning. Discussion document. Pretoria, South Africa:Directorate Water Allocations, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry.

Roberts, M. 2003. Ceramic water purifier: Cambodja field tests. Denver, CO, USA: International DevelopmentEnterprise.

Robinson, P.; Mathew, B.; Proudfoot, D. 2004. Productive water strategies for poverty reduction in Zimbabwe. InBeyond domestic. Case studies on poverty and productive uses of water at the household level, ed. P.Moriarty, J. Butterworth, and B. van Koppen. IRC Technical Papers Series 41. Delft: IRC, NRI, and IWMI.

Ruaysoongnern, Sawaeng; de Vries, Frits Penning. 2005. Development of learning alliances for the scaling upof multi-purpose farm ponds in a semi-arid region of the Mekong basin. Paper presented at the Symposium:Learning Alliances for scaling up innovative approaches in the Water and Sanitation sector, June 2005,Delft, The Netherlands. Available at: http://www.irc.nl/redir/content/download/16138/208040/file/Background%20paper%20symposium%20Learning%20Alliances.pdf

Sánchez, A.; Smits, S. J.; Sánchez, L. D. 2003. Recognizing reality; Multiple uses of water supply systems unrural areas. Paper presented at Agua 2003, Conferencia Internacional sobre Usos Múltiples del Agua: parala vida y el desarrollo sostenible, Cartagena de Indias, Colombia.

Savage, D. 2003. Governance and financing of water supply in Ethiopia, Kenya, and South Africa: A cross-country synthesis. Sector Finance Working Papers No. 5. Nairobi, Kenya: Water and Sanitation Program –Africa Region, The World Bank.

Scheelbeek, P. 2006. Two containers a day; the search for proper water sources in Eastern Ethiopia. Waterquality and sanitation in the Lege Dini watershed area, Ethiopia Draft M. Sc. diss. in irrigation and waterengineering. Wageningen University, The Netherlands.

Schouten, T.; Moriarty, P. 2003. Community water, community management – From system to service in ruralareas. The Hague, The Netherlands: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre and ITDG.

Schouten, T.; Moriarty, P. 2004. Scaling up the community management of rural water supply. Waterlines 23 (2).

Shah, T. 1996. Catalysing cooperation. Design of self-governing organisations. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Shah, Tushaar. 2005. The new institutional economics of India’s water policy. In African water laws: Plurallegislative frameworks for rural water management in Africa. Proceedings of a workshop held inJohannesburg, South Africa. 26-28 January 2005, ed. B. van Koppen, J.A. Butterworth, and I. Juma.Pretoria: International Water Management Institute.

Shah, Tushaar; Alam, M.; Dinesh Kumar, M.; Nagar, R.K.; Singh, Mahendra. 2000. Pedaling out of poverty:Social impact of a manual irrigation technology in South Asia. Research Report 45. Colombo: InternationalWater Management Institute.

Shah, T.; van Koppen, B.; Merrey, D. J.; Lange, M. de; Samad, M. 2002. Institutional alternatives in Africansmallholder irrigation: Lessons from international experience with irrigation management transfer. ResearchReport 60. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.

43

Shortt, R.; Boelee, E.; Matsuno, Y.; Faubert, G.; Madramootoo, C.; van der Hoek, W. 2003. Evaluation ofthermotolerant coliforms and salinity in the four available water sources of an irrigated region of Southern SriLanka. Irrigation and Drainage 52: 133-146.

Silliman, J.; Lenton, R. 1985. Irrigation and the land-poor. In Water and water policy in world food supplies:Proceedings of the conference May 26 – 30 1985, ed. Jordan. Texas: A&M University Press.

Slootweg, R. 1994. A multidisciplinary approach to schistosomiasis control in northern Cameroon. With specialreference to the role of fish in snail control. Ph.D. Leiden, Netherlands: Rijkuniverstiteit Leiden.

Sokile, Charles. 2005. Analysis of institutional frameworks for local water governance in the Upper Ruahacatchment, Ph.D. thesis University of Dar-es-Salaam.

Somaratne, P. G.; Jayakody, P.; Molle, F.; Jinapala, K. 2005. Small tank cascade systems in Walawe RiverBasin. Working paper 92. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.

Speelman, J. J.; van den Top, G. M. 1986. Irrigation and vector borne diseases: A case study in Sri Lanka. pp25-46. In Annual report 1985, ed. ILRI. Wageningen: International Institute for Land Reclamation andImprovement.

Steele, P.; Konradsen, F.; Imbulana, K. A. U. S. 1997. Irrigation, health, and the environment: A literature reviewwith examples from Sri Lanka. IIMI Discussion Paper 42. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International IrrigationManagement Institute.

Thompson, J. ; Porras, I. T.; Tumwine, J. K.; Mujwahuzi, M. R.; Katui-Katua, M.; Johnstone, N.; Wood, L, 2001,Drawers of water II: 30 years of change in domestic water use and environmental health in East Africa.London, UK. IIED.

Tiffen, M. 1991. Guidelines for the incorporation of health safeguards into irrigation projects throughintersectoral cooperation with special reference to the vector borne diseases. PEEM Guidelines series 1.PEEM Secretariat. Geneva: World Health Organization.

United Nations Economic and Social Council. 2002. Substantive Issues arising in the implementation of theinternational covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights. General Comment No. 15. The right to water(Articles 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Geneva: UnitedNations.

United Nations Millennium Project Task Force on Water and Sanitation. 2005. Health, dignity and development:What will it take? Achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Stockholm: Stockholm International WaterInstitute and United Nations Millennium Project. www.unmillenniumproject.org

Upadhyah, Bhawana; Samad, Madar; Giordano, Mark. 2005. Livelihoods and gender roles in drip-irrigationtechnology: A case of Nepal. IWMI Working Paper 87. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water ManagementInstitute.

Van der Hoek, W.; Konradsen, F.; Ensink, J. H. J.; Mudasser, M.; Jensen, P. K. 2001. Irrigation water as a sourceof drinking water: Is safe use possible? Tropical Medicine and International Health 6: 46-55.

Van der Hoek, W.; Feenstra, S. G.; Konradsen, F. 2002b. Availability of irrigation water for domestic use: Impacton prevalence of diarrhea and nutritional status of children. Journal of Health, Population, and Nutrition 20:(1) 77-84.

Van Koppen, B. 2001. Gender in integrated water management: An analysis of variation. Natural ResourcesForum 25: 299-312.

Van Koppen, Barbara. 1999. Targeting irrigation support to poor women and men. International Journal ofWater Resources Development 15 (1&2): 121-140. Hants, UK: Carfax Publishing, Taylor and Francis Ltd.

44

Van Koppen, Barbara. 2002. A gender performance indicator for irrigation: Concepts, tools, and applications.Research Report 59. Colombo: International Water Management Institute.

Van Koppen, B.; Butterworth, J. A.; Juma, I. (eds.) 2005. African water laws: Plural legislative frameworks forrural water management in Africa. Proceedings of a workshop held in Johannesburg, South Africa. 26-28January 2005. Pretoria: International Water Management Institute.

Van Koppen, Barbara; van Etten, Jacobijn; Bajracharya, Prabina; Tuladhar, Amita. 2001. Women irrigators andwomen leaders in the water user association of the West Gandak large-scale canal irrigation scheme,Nepal. IWMI Working Paper 15. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.

Van Wijk-Sijbesma, C. 2001. The best of two worlds? Methodology for participatory assessment of communitywater services. IRC Technical Paper Series 38. Delft, Netherlands: IRC International Water and SanitationCenter.

WaterAid. 2001. Looking back: The long-term impacts of water and sanitation projects. London, UK: WaterAid.Available at: http://www.wateraid.org.uk/other/startdownload.asp?openType=forced&documentID=265

WHO/UNICEF (World Health Organization/United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund)). 2000.Global water supply and sanitation assessment 2000 report. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO/UNICEF JointMonitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation (ISBN 92 4 156202 1). Available at: http://www.wssinfo.org/pdf/GWSSA_2000_report.pdf

WHO. 2004. Guidelines for drinking-water quality, third edition. Volume 1 - Recommendations. Geneva: WorldHealth Organization.

Yoder, R. 1983. Non agricultural uses of irrigation systems: Past experience and implications for planning anddesign. ODI Network paper 7. London: Overseas Development Institute.

84. An Assessment of Small-scale Users’ Inclusion in Large-scale Water UserAssociations of South Africa. Nicolas Faysse. 2004.

85. The Use of Remote-Sensing Data for Drought Assessment and Monitoring in SouthwestAsia. P. S. Thenkabail, M. S. D. N. Gamage and V. U. Smakhtin, 2004.

86. Strategies for the Management of Conjuctive use of Surface Water andGroundwater Resources in Semi-arid Areas: A Case Study from Pakistan. AsadSarwar Qureshi, Hugh Turral and Ilyas Masih. 2004.

87. Economics and Politics of Water Resources Development: Uda Walawe IrrigationProject, Sri Lanka. François Molle and Mary Renwick. 2005.

88. "Bright Spots" in Uzbekistan, Reversing Land and Water Degradation WhileImproving Livelihoods: Key Developments and Sustaining Ingredients for TransitionEconomies of the former Soviet Union. Andrew Noble, Mohammed ul Hassan andJusipbek Kazbekov. 2005.

89. Planning for Environmental Water Allocations: An Example of Hydrology-basedAssessment in the East Rapti River, Nepal. V. U. Smakhtin and R. L. Shilpakar.2005.

90. Working Wetlands: Classifying Wetland Potential for Agriculture. Matthew P.McCartney, Mutsa Masiyandima and Helen A. Houghton-Carr. 2005.

91. When “Conservation” Leads to Land Degradation: Lessons from Ban Lak Sip,Laos. Guillaume Lestrelin, Mark Giordano and Bounmy Keohavong. 2005.

92. How Pro-Poor are Participatory Watershed Management Projects?—An Indian CaseStudy. Mathew Kurian and Ton Dietz. 2005.

93. Adoption and Impacts of Microirrigation Technologies: Empirical Results fromSelected Localities of Maharashtra and Gujarat States of India. Regassa E. Namara,Bhawana Upadhyay and R. K. Nagar. 2005.

94. Balancing Irrigation and Hydropower: A Case Study from Southern Sri Lanka.François Molle, Priyantha Jayakody, Ranjith Ariyaratne and H.S. Somatilake. 2005.

95. Irrigation and Water Policies in the Mekong Region: Current Discourses andPractices. François Molle. 2005.

96. Locating the Poor: Spatially Disaggregated Poverty Maps for Sri Lanka. Upali A.Amarasinghe, Madar Samad and Markandu Anputhas. 2006.

97. Strategies to Mitigate Secondary Salinization in the Indus Basin of Pakistan: ASelective Review. M. Aslam and S. A. Prathapar. (not published yet) 2006.

98. Multiple-Use Water Services to Advance the Millennium Development Goals.Barbara van Koppen, Patrick Moriarty and Eline Boelee. 2006.

Research Reports

Barbara van Koppen, Patrick Moriarty and Eline Boelee

IWMI is a Future Harvest Centersupported by the CGIAR

Multiple-Use Water Servicesto Advance the MillenniumDevelopment Goals

98

RESEARCHR E P O R T

I n t e r n a t i o n a lWater ManagementI n s t i t u t e

SM

IWMI is a Future Harvest Centersupported by the CGIAR

Postal AddressP O Box 2075ColomboSri Lanka

Location127, Sunil MawathaPelawattaBattaramullaSri Lanka

Telephone+94-11-2787404

Fax+94-11-2786854

E-mailiwmi@cgiar.org

Websitehttp://www.iwmi.org

I n t e r n a t i o n a lWater ManagementI n s t i t u t e

ISSN 1026-0862ISBN 92-9090-627-8

978-92-9090-627-8