AMHARA REGION Ahmed A. Muhumed Bachelor thesis research Hamk - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SUSTAINABILITY OF WATER SERVICES IMPLEMENTED USING COMMUNITY MANAGED PROJECT (CMP) APPROACH IN AMHARA REGION

Ahmed A. Muhumed Bachelor thesis research Hamk University of Applied Sciences Supervisor: Dr. Harri Mattila

Objectives & Research Questions

 Main objectives  To examine the sustainability of CMP approach in rural water

services

 To observe factors and issues affecting and undermining

sustainability &

 To find solutions for those factors threatening sustainability  Specific Objectives  To ensure whether the sustainability of CMP approach is above

90 %.

 To find mechanisms and strategies to improve sustainability of

water schemes implemented using the CMP approach.

Research Questions

1.

Is sustainability of CMP approach of water service system really above 90%? If yes what is the reason? If not what went wrong in previous findings?

2.

How CMP approach affect sustainability of water services in rural areas? And what kind of effects sustainability have on beneficiaries?

3.

What are the mechanisms and strategies needed to improve the sustainability of CMP’s water service system?

Methodology

 Qualitative

 Is all about exploring issues, and understanding phenomena and

answering questions like why and how, rather than what, when and where

 Quantitative

 It refers to systematic empirical investigation of social phenomena via

statistical, methamatical or computational techniques

 Data Collection

 Interview of stakeholder and locals  Data recieved from the field visit

 Data analysis

 Is aprocess of inspecting, cleaning, transforming and modelling of data

with the aim of highlighting useful information and making a final conclusion

Area of Research

 Five Woredas were chosen purposely

 Fogera & Guangua (CMP woredas)  Farta & East Estie (Both CMP & non-CMP woredas)  Libo kemkem (non-CMP woreda)

 Total number of 33 Water points were chosen

randomly

 16 CMP and 17 non-CMP water schemes  4 non-functional CMPs and 4 non-funtional non-CMPs

FINDINGS & DISCUSSIONS

Sustainability as a concept

 As a definition sustainability might mean:-  As a social definition: The continued satisfaction of basic human

needs- food, water, shelter, as well as higher-level social and cultural necessities such as security, freedom, education, employment, and recreation ( Maslow 1970)

 As Environmental Science

definition: The quality of not being harmful to the environment

• r depleting natural resources, and thereby supporting long-

term ecological balance (Dictionary.com)

 As a water service definition: This would mean that water continues to

be available for the period for which it was designed in the same quantity and at the same quality as it was designed. (Abrams, L. (1998)

Motivation Maintenance Cost Recovery Continuing Support

Figure 1: The sustainability chain, Carter et al 1999

Motivation: This means the motivation of beneficiaries in taking part in pre and post construction of the project. Cost Recovery: This means contribution of user groups for future new scheme construction if major break down or failure happens. Continuing Support: This means beneficiaries’ full support everlastingly. Maintenance: This means having all capabilities and techniques to main the system constructed and preparing all necessary maintenance materials.

Sustainability in former WaSH projects

 According to Zemenu Awoke’s Master’s thesis work of Assessment

• f challenges of sustainable rural water supply conducted in Quarit

Woreda in Amhara region was discussed the following factors to undermine sustainability in that area

 Low community participation in design phase  Poor construction quality  No demand-driven and this causes dissatisfaction and then

resulted low ownership feeling

 Uganda According to (Uganda’s Ministry of Water and

Environment, Brecht Mommen, Jacinta Nekesa) sustainability of rural areas is undermined by:

 Technical issues ( spare parts supply, mechanics) &  Social ones (users role).

Factors affecting sustainability of water services in rural areas

 The main findings of this research is categorised into

4 different categories

 Social factor (Community participation, Ownership

feeling & Gender equity)

 Technical factor (Maintenance & Spare part

availability, Local contractors (artisans) & techical capabilities (training)

 Financial factor(O & M fee, Recovery cost and

willingness to pay)&

 Environmental factor (environmental sustainability)

SOCIAL FACTORS

Social factors

Community participation

Social Factors

Ownership feeling Community 95 % Woreda 5 % CMP

Social factors

Gender equity

 Improvement of scheme management regarding majority of WaSHCOs

gender combination of 3 females and 2 males plus chairperson

 Unlike non-CMPs

59 % 29 % 12 %

WaSHCO Gender Composition

3F & 2M 2F & 3M Others

Artisans’ male and female gender combination

41 40 41 25 4 8 4 11 Farta Fogera East Estie Guangua

Gender distribution of artisans

Male Female

FINANCIAL FACTORS

Financial factors

Operation and Maintenance fee

 Majority pay 1 birr/HH/M  Compensation money from federal government  Money from communal land grass  Not enough comparing to dynamic price of spare

parts

Financial factors

Schemes’ financial savings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 300-500 Birr 600-800 Birr >1000 Birr No savings

• No. Of water points

5 7 3 1 Amount of money in Birr

Financial savings for O & M

Financial factor

Willingess to pay 91 % 9 %

CMP

Yes No

TECHNICAL FACTORS

Maintenance and spare parts availability

 Two different local spare parts suppliers

 RWSEP (Finnida) furnished spare part stores &  Private owned spare parts suppliers

 Some areas like Fogera woreda some artisans

already started delivering spare parts to locals and at the same time changing the defected parts

 Delivery time of one week to one month  Increasing spare part price & static O & M fee

Afridev hand pump spare parts price change between 2008-2012 (average price of suppliers)

Bush biring U-seal Bobin O-ring Rod centralizer 2008 unit price (Birr) 30 27 27 27 31 2012 unit price (Birr) 51 35 45 43 48 price increase (%) 70,0 29,6 66,7 59,3 54,8 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Axis Title

Spare parts price distribution between 2008-2012

RWSEP (Finnida) stores complaints

 Money devaluation (revolving fund)  Selling non-profitable spare parts  No potential NGO to finance furnishing stores  Lack of sufficient space in stores (multi-purpose

store is currently used in some areas)

Local contractors (Artisans)

 They had 2 months of both theory and practical training and

finally were certified to dig one HDW and one SPD

 Their duty is to construct, maintain and install schemes and

hand pumps

 Their are paid on work done basis.  Missing of good co-operation between beneficiaries and

artisan during scheme development.

Artisien complaints

2000 4000 6000 9000 HDW SPD Comparison of artisans payment of current & previous CMP artisans CMP (Now) CMP (Previously)

Artisien complaints

Artisien payment guideline

No. Description of activity 2003 EFY(old payment amount 2004 EFY(new payment amount) 1 Well digging to depth of 15 meters including dewatering 1361 560 2 Cylinder production and installation 1364 1920 3 Well head construction 851.24 1243.2 Total 3576.2 3723.2

COMPARISON OF CMP AND NON-CMP

Comparison of contribution of CMP & non-CMP beneficiaries

25 5 5 12 4 13 16 6 5 7 Cash, Labour work and natural construction material Labour work Natural construction material Cash and Labour work No contribution

Beneficiary constribution

CMP Non-CMP

Social Factors

Ownership feeling Commu nity 95 % Wored a 5 %

CMP

Who owns the scheme?.. By CMP resondents Who owns the scheme?.. By non- CMP respondents

80 % 20 %

Non-CMP

Community Woreda

Comparison of payments of CMP and non-CMP artisans

2000 4000 6000 9000 2500 7000 HDW SPD Comparison of artisans payment of current & previous with Care artisans CMP (Now) CMP (Previously) Care International

Conclusion

60 % 10 % 10 % 5 % 10 % 5 %

Scheme challenges

Shortage of water Low water quality & sanitation Flooding Technical problems users increase logistics

Conclusion

 Having an average functionality rate of over 98.6%.  Having Ownership feeling of 95%.  Having a community contribution of 92%.  Willingness to pay of 91%.  Participation in the planning (site selection & technology

type) of 87%

 Having saved money for O & M for schemes under the

control of beneficiaries of 100%.

 Having almost a gender balance in scheme management of

59% of females in WaSHCO committee and 16 % of females in local contractors (artisans).

 According all those above mentioned data this study

strongly supports that sustainability of CMP approach is

• ver 90%.

Recommendations



There should be well organized systematic data saving in all levels: starting from kebelle and woreda. Majority of woreda offices have no reliable inventory data.



Solving local contractors (artisans) payment cuts complaints: Though Amhara zone advisor justified for payment cuts, they are not happy with that and if this is not solved this would be a major threat in scheme maintenances and implementation of new schemes as well since some of them already shifted to different work places and others moved to other areas for better payment.



Encouraging foreign spare part factories to open local branches in order to cope up growing needs and costs of spare parts.



To upgrade and enhance technical and capacity building trainings of WaSHCOs and local contractors (artisans): Some artisans lack sufficient knowledge in construction and maintenance and ask other artisans for assistance and giving trainings to WaSHCOs to learn how to preserve environmental sustainability like flooding prevention.



Dynamic water tariff rate to cope up with the dynamic price of spare parts to prevent devaluation of money.

Recommendations

 Improving co-operations and experience sharing between schemes: There

is no idea or experience sharing between WaSHCOs and beneficiaries of different schemes

 Encouraging cost recovery strategy among scheme beneficiaries to lower

their dependence on foreign assistance if major scheme failures happen.

 Encouraging water tariffs for all schemes for prevention of other

beneficiaries discourage: Some schemes already saved amount of money and stopped paying service fee and this could be a problem to them if service fee is needed to collect again and to other beneficiaries of other schemes as well.

 Improving social awareness of beneficiaries: Some do not know about CMP

, where others still stick to older NGO names like Finnida and CDF.

 Increasing number of Woreda WaSH Team (WWT): In some woredas, it is

difficult to see or meet with WWT. In some schemes they are rarely seen or never seen WWT. One major reason is their small number of members of seven and the big tasks under way like construction.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION!