What makes them Sustainable? Ryan Schweitzer Doctoral Student - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

May 03, 2023 166 likes •318 views

Community Managed Rural Water Systems: What makes them Sustainable? Ryan Schweitzer Doctoral Student University of South Florida-Tampa Civil and Environmental Eng. rschweit@mail.usf.edu James R. Mihelcic, PhD Professor University of South

SLIDE 1

6th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29th Nov-1st Dec 2011

Community Managed Rural Water Systems: What makes them Sustainable?

Ryan Schweitzer Doctoral Student University of South Florida-Tampa Civil and Environmental Eng. rschweit@mail.usf.edu James R. Mihelcic, PhD Professor University of South Florida-Tampa Civil and Environmental Eng. jm41@eng.usf.edu

SLIDE 2

6th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29th Nov-1st Dec 2011

Outline

1. Context: Dominican Republic

1. RWS Sector 2. Other Factors

2. Community Management Case Study
3. Overview Sustainability Assessment Tool
4. Results

1. Sustainability Assessment 2. Correlation Analysis

5. Conclusions

SLIDE 3

6th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29th Nov-1st Dec 2011

Dominican Republic

Rural Water Sector* 84% population access (2008) (≤ 15 min walk, including tankered and bottled water) Gravity 43% Grid Electric 31% Diesel Generator 5% Solar 1% Hand pumps 10% Mixed 7% Windmill <1% RWH ??? Community Level Systems† 87%

*ENHOGAR (2008)

† Schweitzer (2009)

SLIDE 4

6th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29th Nov-1st Dec 2011

Other Factors

Centralized Management*

National Water Institute (INAPA) - 71%
Corporations - 10%
Community Managed - 19%

Urbanization†

Urban: $17.35/person
Rural: $4.38/person

Income Disparity (25th/136)‡

* Rodriguez (2008) † Abreu (1999) ‡ CIA world factbook (2010)

SLIDE 5

6th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29th Nov-1st Dec 2011

Case Study

Sample Database Cohort: 185

≤2,000 population
CM training
Functioning w/in past yr

Sample: 64 (23 INAPA, 41 Peace Corps) Geographically Stratified Random Sampling

SLIDE 6

6th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29th Nov-1st Dec 2011

Data Collection

 61 Water committee Focus Groups  75 Plumber/Operator Interviews  25 External Stakeholders Interviews  ~1200 User Surveys (10% households)  Observation/Secondary Data Sources

SLIDE 7

6th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29th Nov-1st Dec 2011

“ASOCAR” –Rural Water Associations The Directive --“La Directiva” 7-10 Members 7-10 Members 18+, read/write, current w/ tariff, Dominican No requirements 1-2 month process 1-2 year process INAPA retains ownership of infrastructure Community Ownership Incorporation of ASOCAR In Kind Contribution (labor, materials, equipment, and transportation Institutional Support Mechanisms

Monthly visits (2 years) INAPA Social Promotions division

Institutional Support Mechanisms

Biennial follow up (average) Follow up volunteer (9/40)

SLIDE 8

6th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29th Nov-1st Dec 2011

SLIDE 9

6th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29th Nov-1st Dec 2011

Indicator Measures (reference) Targets Sustainability Unlikely (SU) Sustainability Possible (SP) Sustainability Likely (SL) Activity Level

1. Active water committee

members (Yanore 1995) 1 person or less 2 people 3 people or more Participation

2. Average percent attendance

at community meetings (Narayan2002;Prokopy 2002 ) Less than 50% 50% ≤ X < 66.6% 66.6% or greater Governance

3. Decision making process

(Hodgkin 1994; INAPA 2008) Minority decision No transparency Majority decision Transparent but Arbitrary process Democratic decision Community discussion Water committee facilitates Tariff Payment

4. Percent debtors

(Sara & Katz 1997; Fragano et al. 2001) Greater than 80% 80 ≥ X >10% 10% or less Accounting Transparency

5. Accounting ledger
6. Report Frequency

(Prokopy 2002; INAPA 2008) Do not use ledger AND Report less than

nce a year

Use ledger OR Report at least

nce a year

Use ledger AND Report at least once a year Financial Durability

7. Wages 8. Costs 9. Tariff
10. Average level payment
11. Connections, 12. Savings

(Lockwood 2004; Dayal et al. 2000). Income ≤ O&M AND Less than "significant savings" Income > O&M OR "significant savings" Income > O&M AND "significant savings” Repair service

13. Downtime (Carter et al.

1999; Tynan & Kingdom 2002). More than 5 days 1 to 5 days Less than a day System Function

14. Average Hours/Day
15. Average Days/Week

(Fragano et al. 2001; Tynan & Kingdom 2002) Both Less than 8 hrs Pump System 8 ≤ X<12 Gravity Systems 8 ≤ X<16 Pump System 12 hrs or more Gravity Systems 16 hrs or more

SLIDE 10

6th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29th Nov-1st Dec 2011

Sustainability Assessment

SLIDE 11

6th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29th Nov-1st Dec 2011

Correlations

Tariff Payment (% hh complying) System Age (negatively correlated to…)

maintenance activities
money spent on wages (for

plumbers, operators and tariff collectors

Accounting Transparency
Financial Durability
Activity Level (# active individuals)
1. Increased maintenance correlated to preventative maintenance
2. Results independent of tariff amount (i.e.-better to have a lower tariff if higher

compliance)

3. Communities reported loosing motivation or enthusiasm (“animo”) with time.
4. How to improve? Response: Increased visitation by support institutions

SLIDE 12

6th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29th Nov-1st Dec 2011

More Correlations

Activity Level
More systematic and inclusive

decision making process

Accounting Transparency
Institutional Support
Younger systems
Higher service level (less

shared taps)

Water Committee Meeting

Attendance

More frequent water

committee meetings

More frequent elections
Tariff Compliance
System Function
Financial durability
Community Participation

SLIDE 13

6th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29th Nov-1st Dec 2011

Conclusions

Reliance on a few motivated individuals

“Charismatic Individual Effect”

Kayser (2010), Rivera (2010), Lockwood

(2003/2004) demonstrated importance PCS---- “Animo effect”

Importance of “unquantifiables” participation,

social cohesion, etc.

Intuitive findings (accounting transparency, system

age, financial aspects)

SLIDE 14

6th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29th Nov-1st Dec 2011

Acknowledgments

Funding support from State of Florida 21st Century World Class Scholars Program Critical Input:

Harold Lockwood (Aquaconsult)
Marcos Rodriguez (INAPA)

Logistics Support/Data Collection

Esther Reyes (AECID)
Mary Dominguez, Alejandrina Rosa, Nelly , Carlos Rodriguez, Maximo ,

Carmen, Juan Toledo, Jose Santana (INAPA-AR)

Margo Mullinax, Charlie Requatt, Bobby Lehman, Joel Alex , Meredith

Camp, Jay Thrash (Peace Corps-Dominican Republic)

Ernesto dos Santos and Clara María Mosquea Jiménez
Peace Corps-Dominican Republic Staff
INAPA-Rural Aqueducts Staff

SLIDE 15

6th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29th Nov-1st Dec 2011 CESDEM 2007 República Dominicana Encuesta Demográfica y de Salud. National Health Census. Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. Fragano, F., Linares, C., Lockwood, H., Rivera, D., Trevett, A., Yepes, G. & Rosensweig, F. 2001 Case studies on decentralization of water supply and sanitation services in Latin America. Environmental Health Project Strategic Paper No. 1. USAID Washington, D.C INAPA 2008 Proyecto decentralization de acueductos rurales-reglamentos para la interrelacion del INAPA con las ASOCARs. INAPA internal publication. Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. Kayser, G., Griffiths, J., Moomaw, W., Schaffner, J. & Rogers, B. 2009 Assessing the impact of post-construction support on system performance & sustainability in community managed water supply. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rural Water Services. (ed. S. Smits, H.Lockwood, K. Danert, C. Pezon, A. Kabirizi, R. Carter & R. Rop). Kampala, Uganda. Karp, A. & Daane, J. 1999 Dominican Republic: Evaluation of rural water and sanitation infrastructure construction. Environmental Health Project Activity Report No.70. USAID Washington, D.C Lockwood, H., Bakalian, A. & Wakeman,W. 2003 Assessing sustainability in rural water supply: the role of follow-up support to communities. Bank-Netherlands Water Partnership. Delft, Netherlands. Lockwood, H. 2004 Scaling up the community management of rural water supply. The Hague, Netherlands. ONE 2010 Población rural estimadas y proyectadas (1990-2020). Oficina Nacional de Estadisticas. Available at http://www.one.gob.do/ Rodriguez, M. 2008 PERFIL INAPA 2008. Presentation to the National Congress April 24, 2008. Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. RTI International 2006 Evaluation of USAID strategy to increase potable water access and sanitation in rural areas of the Dominican Republic. Research Triangle Park, NC. Rivera, J. 2010 Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rural Water Services. (ed. S. Smits, H.Lockwood, K. Danert, C. Pezon, A. Kabirizi, R. Carter &

R. Rop). Kampala, Uganda

Sara, J. & Katz, T. 1997 Making Rural Water Supply Sustainable: Report on the Impact of Project Rules. Water and Sanitation Program, Washington, D.C. Schouten, T. 2005 Scaling up rural water supply: A framework for achieving sustainable universal coverage through community management. The Hague, Netherlands. Schweitzer, R. 2009 Community managed rural water supply systems in the Dominican Republic. Thesis Available at http://usfmi.weebly.com/thesesreports.html Sugden, S. 2003 Indicators for the water sector: examples from Malawi. WaterAID Report. London, United Kingdom.