UNDP-World Bank and Sanitation Program Regional Water and Sanitation Group-Eastern and Southern Africa

An Analysis of the Impact of Institutional Rules on Rural Water Sustainability

A

By

Narathius ASingwiire Denis ~uhangi

July, 1997

UGANDA COUNTRY REPORT

. In Collaboration with:

REPUBLIC OF UGANDA ........ T4. --..-......

Ministry of Natural Resources RUWASA Project .

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

wb350881Typewritten Text71963

-

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I ..I

I Acknowledgements

I We wish to thank the following persons for their keen involvement in this study, support and comments made on the draft reports: I Messrs~ Sam Mutono, Tom Mugoya and Jan-Erik Engstron (RUWASA). Ms. Enid Kansiime and

I Ms. Josephine Andama (RUWASA). Ms. Rose Lidonde (World Bank Office, Nairobi), Jennifer Sara and Travis Katz of World Bank, Washington and Charles Pendley. Messrs. Ibrahim Lutalo and Joseph Tumushabe of the Institute of Statistics and Applied Economics, Makerere University are greatly ackno'v'/Iedged for their statistical input and secretarial work respectively.

I All the following Research Assistants for their commendable work in data collection and processing:

Nazarius Byaruhanga

I George Mukamba

I Mathias Ofumbi

Doreen Kiconco

Barbara Bamanya

Alice Ssenkula

Jane Nyangure.

I I I I I I I I I I

I.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I I

ii

I Table of Contents Page

I Background and Study Objectives .................................................................................. 1

II Definition of Terms .............................................................................................................. 2

I

I III Study Methodology .............................................................................................................. 3

IV The Water Sector in Uganda ............................................................................................... 5

V Project Descriptions ............................................................................................................ 8

I VI The Uganda Study Findings .............................................................................................. 11

I

VII Background Information .................................................................................................... 12

The Communities .............................................................................................................. 12

I The Households ................................................................................................................ 13

The Water Systems ........................................................................................................... 13

I

I VIII Project Rules/Guidelines ................................................................................................... 15

IX Rules for Implementation and Sustainability ..................................................................... 23

X Indicators of Sustainability ............................ : .................................................................... 27

I XI The Impact of Institutional Rules on RWS Sustainability ................................................... 34

I

XII Conclusions and Policy Recommendations ...................................................................... 37

List of Annexes .............................................................................................................................. 39

I Annex 1: Questionnaires .................................................................................................. 39

Annex 2: Sample Selection ............................................................................................... 66

I

I Annex 3: Indicator Categories and Methodologies ............................................................ 67

Annex 4: Data Tables ........................................................................................................ 74

Annex 5: Summaries of FGDs ......................................................................................... 79

I Annex 6: References ......................................................................................................... 95

I

I

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CBMS

DWD

FGDs

HPMs

LCs

MNR

O&M

RUWASA

RWS

VWSCs

WUC

I

I

iii

I

I

Community Based Maintenance System

IDirectorate of Water Development Focus Group Discussions I

Hand Pump Mechanics

Local Councils I

Ministry of Natural Resources I

Operations and Maintenan.ce

Rural Water and Sanitation Eastern Uganda Project I

Rural Water Supply

IVillage Water & Sanitation Committee Water User Committee I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

http:Maintenan.ce

I I ...

iv

I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I The RWS Global study was launched by the UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program to

analyze the impact of institutional rules on rural water supply and sustainability in six countries including Uganda. The Uganda country study was launched in November 1996 taking RUWASA

I I as a case study. The general objective of the study was "to evaluate the comparative impact of RUWASA rules,

I guidelines and applications, in terms of their responsiveness to demand, on the sustainability of rural water supply (RWS) at community level". I The Uganda study sample was selected from 16 communities/LC 1 s using a two-stage cluster sampling technique in the 2 districts of Kamuli and Mukono which are part of RUWASA I

catchment area.

I I In each community, 16 households were systematically sampled from which 16 household

interviews were conducted. A group interview was conducted in each community with members of WUC, while 16 water points were technically assessed using a Water Technical Evaluation questionnaire. Two FGDs; 1 female and 1 male were organized in each community, and key

I informant interviews were conducted with project and sector staff. Each community was qualitatively assessed using a Qualitative Assessment Questionnaire. Finally, project documents were consulted to obtain information on project rules, while sector documents provided insights about the context RUWASA operates.

I Quantitative data were entered into ACCESS Software and converted into SPSS for DOS for further analysis. To establish the relationship between project rules application and demand responsiveness, and sustainability of water sources, responses under each indicator were scored

I on a 10 point scale. The major findings of this study were:

I RUWASA I (1991-1995) did not have a set of formal rules that were strictly adhered to. Thus, in general terms, RUWASA I was not implemented on the basis of a demand

I responsive approach as currently defined. All communities in the project area were

I eligible to get a water source and the initiative to build the water system largely emanated outside the communities. At some point (1992), RUWASA I set a pre-condition for latrine construction to precede water supply so as to encourage proper sanitation practices and behaviors.

Community members did not make a choice between technology options. The technology

I option for each community was determined by RUWASA taking into account costs, 0 & M costs, ease of maintenance, scope of community involvement, technical quality of the source and best use of the eXisting investment resources (i.e springs).

I Whereas communities participated in choosing the location for the facility. they did not choose between different levels of service.

I Although communities contributed in-kind (labour and materials) during the construction of the water points, RUWASA I did not demand for cash contribution up-front.

I

I v I

o & M are the responsibility of the users ensured through a system of locally elected

caretakers. RUWASA 1 was very effective in implementing its software which involved Imobilization and training of both households and WUCs

inO& M.

IIn relation to the indicators of sustainability, the following were evident: Most of the water systems had not failed, and the quality of service was considered good. However, one-third C13) of the systems had failed possibly due I to defects in the nature of technology. Consumer satisfaction was generally high in all communities. 0 & M practices were also adequate as reflected by the low frequency in system failures. I Financial management of the water system was overall poor in all communities as reflected by absence of operational bank accounts, fixed tariffs levied on water I users and savings.

Although the willingness to sustain the system was generally high, the ability to do I so was questionable as majority communities reported no capacity to replace their systems once they became obsolete. There was no eVidence of capacity to deal' with major breakdowns. I In terms of overall sustainability, the study results indicate a high level of sustainability of the water points at an average of 6.2 points out of the 10 point Iscale.

In the final analysis, this study investigated the relationship between the project rules applied in RUWASA I and the indicators of sustainability using the Pearson Correlation I Coefficients at a confidence interval of 99%. The results revealed positive significant correlation between overall sustainability and project initiation, informed choice, contribution of cash, training at household level. I

On the other hand, the results revealed a negative relationship between contribution of labour ad overall sustainability. I AriSing out of the study findings, the following are the recommendations:

I Although the overall sustainability was found to be high, it could possibly have been much higher if communities had on their own demanded for the service. It is in this regard that Iwe recommend that certain rules which constitute a demand-driven approach need to be put in place to guide RUWASA II to ensure high sustainability of the systems. These rules include, among others, communities initiating requests for the service, 0 & M guidelines preceding water construction, provision of information to communities on different I technology options and their costs.

Communities ought to be assisted in developing and implementing clear financial rules. I Ad hocism in tariff payment as it is the case in RUWASA I need to be replaced with a regularized system.

I The caretakers who perform routine maintenance, but get poor remuneration or work on voluntary basis need to be formally contracted and remunerated for their work.

I

I vi I There is need for RUWASA to keep its monitoring presence in the communities that were served under RUWASA I, until local governments are ready to take up the challenge. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

-

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I 1

I I. Background and Study Objectives I 1.1 Background

I The RWS Global Study was launched by the UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program to analyze the impact of institutional rules on rural water supply and sustainability in six countries: Bolivia, Honduras, Indonesia, Pakistan, Benin and Uganda. The study was conceptualized on the

I premises that rural water and sanitation projects that respond to community-demand have a greater chance of being sustained by their intended beneficiaries.

Although demand-driven projects appear to have greater prospects for sustainability, in many countries, government support to the RWS sector has often focussed on designing and

I constructing systems based on prescribed needs, with little consideration given to demand or sustainability of services (UNDP-World Bank, 1996). Consequently, many governments have been pre-occupied with constructing new facilities than to ensuring the use and sustainability of

I the existing facilities. It is against this background that this study was commissioned.

I This report presents the findings of the Uganda country report. Rural Water and Sanitation East Uganda Project (RUWASA) was selected as a focus of the study.

I 1.2 Study Objectives

I The general objective of the study was "to evaluate the comparative impact of different RUWASA rules, guidelines and applications, in terms of their responsiveness to demand, on the sustainability of rural water supply project at community level".

The specific objectives included the following:

I 1. To assess the impact of project rules on the sustainability of rural water supply and contribute to defining better sets of rules for future projects and policy design.

I 2. To utilize the results of the study in shaping and monitoring RUWASA Phase II and make an input to sector policy.

I 3. . To contribute globally to a better understanding of the nature of demand and linkages to sustainability, and facilitating the improved design of future RWS Projects.

I I I I I

I

I2

II. Definition of Terms I The following constituted the major terms/concepts in this study:

Demand: I "The level of service - quantity and quality for which people will pay". I

Informed Decision:

"A choice made by a group or individual with a clear understanding of the implications of Ithat choice". The implications as conceived in this study may be in terms of:

investment of recurrent costs. I expected participation in planning and implementation.

responsibility for operation and maintenance of the water system. I Project Rules I

"The formal prescriptions which guide the operation of a project and may establish a framework through which demand can be expressed and interpreted". Examples: I

Eligibility criteria.

Technology and level of service option

Financial policy IOwnership rights

Procedures for project implementation, operation and maintenance (0 & M).

ISustainability "The maintenance of an acceptable level of water supply services throughout the desiGn life of the water supply system". I

2.2 Basis for Project Selection I RUWASA was selected on the basis of:

The project is assisting rural communities in Uganda to increase access to improved water I supply and sanitation.

Communities in RUWASA I-participated in project implementation. I The use of participatory methodologies and promotion of sanitation as a precondition for

water services in some communities formed the basis of project implementation. I Draw lessons from RUWASA Phase I and generate recommendations for integration in

RUWASA Phase II. I Interest of project management in the study and hence their readiness to participate in the

execution of the study. I

I 3

I III. Study Methodology 3.1 Sampling Procedures and Data Collection

I Using a two-stage cluster sampling, 16 communities both preconditioned' and nonpreconditioned2 were selected in the 2 districts of Kamuli and Mukono, 8 from each district.

I I Although it can be recognized that the sample was rather small, it has to be noted that the

geographical distribution was quite even, representing the major socio-economic peculiarities of all places. The scientific methods adopted in selecting both communities and households render the selected sample representative of the project area.

I 3.2 Data for the Study

I 1. Household Level: Using a systematic sampling design with a random start, 16

households were selected in each of the 16 sampled communities. In all. 256 household interviews were conducted. Household interviews sought to elicit data on community role in the project, participation in project implementation. awareness and knowledge of project rules, extent of satisfaction with the service, ability and willingness to sustain the water

I system. 2. Water Committee: In each of the 16 communities, a group interview was conducted with

I members of the water committee to unravel their understanding of project rules/guidelines, O&M practices as well as sustainability issues. I 3. Water Technical Evaluation: All the 16 water points in selected communities were technically assessed by a trained member of the study team. Salient issues of the

evaluation included the construction aspects, functionality of the system, system caretaker

I and financial managerrient of the system.

I 4. Project and Sector Staff: These acted as key informants and provided information on

project rules/guidelines.

5. Secondary Sources: Project documents provided information on project rules while sector documents obtained from DWD provided insights about the context RUWASA

I operates. 6. Focus Group Discussions: In every community, 2 FGDs; 1 female and 1 male were

I organized. FGDs covered such issues as community involvement/participation in the

I various stages of project cycle on the basis of gender, willingness and ability to sustain the water facilities and socio-cultural beliefs and practices that affect sustainability of water sources. Care was taken to exclude members of WUCs since these had been covered under Water Committee Group interviews.

I I Communities where construction of latrine was required for eligibility of water system. I

2 Communities where construction of latrine was not required for eligibility of a water

system .

I

I

4

7. Qualitative Assessment Questionnaire: A qualitative assessment questionnaire was I

administered for every community. It broadly covered the sustainability of the water system.

I

3.3 Data Management and Analysis

All the quantitative data were entered into ACCESS software and converted into SPSS for DOS. ITo establish the relationship between project rules/guidelines application and demand responsiveness, and sustainability of water sources, responses under each indicator were scored on a 10 point scale3 ~esponse categories which contributed positively to an indicator were awarded 2 points, those that contributed neither negatively nor positively were awarded 1 point, I

and those that were negative were awarded no point. To obtain a total score of a particular indicator, scores of responses of individual questions for that indicator were added up. I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

.3 The Scoring Scheme was Provided by 1WUWS (World Bank, Washington) I

I

I

5

I IV. The Water Sector in Uganda I The Water sector in Uganda falls under the Ministry of Natural Resources. The Ministry's Directorate of Water Development (DWD) is the agency charged with the overall responsibility for

water resources and supplies in rural areas and small urban centers, while the National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC) is responsible for the major urban areas in the country (i.e.

I Kampala, Jinja, Masaka, Mbale, Mbarara, Entebbe, Tororo, "Gulu, and Lira). Goals and Objectives

I The Uganda government's overall policy objective for the water sector as stated in the Draft National Water Policy (1997) is:

I To manage and develop water resources of Uganda in an integrated and sustainable manner so as to secure and provide water of adequate quantity and

I quality for all social and economic needs, with the full participation of all stakeholders so as not to leave the future generations any worse off than ourselves(MNRlDWD. 1996: 6).

I The new Water Policy was guided by principles derived from Global Policy Declarations to which I

Uganda subscribes. The guiding principles include among others; recognizing the role of government as an enabler in a participatory demand-driven approach. the recognition of water as both a social and economic good, and the essential role of women in the provision. management, and safeguarding of water.

I Domestic Water Supply Policy Objective The Government stated policy objective in the water supply and sanitation sector is:

I I Provision of safe water within acceptable reach and hygienic sanitation facilities, based on

management responsibility and ownership by users, to 75% of the population in rural areas and 100% of the urban population by the year 2000 with an 80% - 90% effective use and functionality of facilities (MNRlDWD. 1996).

I The implementation of sector programmes for the rural areas is targeted at the following goals which reflect service level criteria: I

Provision of a basic water supply of 20 - 25 litres of safe and clean water per capita per day within reasonable walking distance, preferably within 1.5 kms of all rural households from a public water point.

I Achievement of a source-man ratio of 1 :300 for hand pump supplies and 1:150 for protected springs/wells in rural areas. I A demand-driven negotiation approach to guide provision of rural water.

I If the required services are above the basic levels, water users have to pay for the services.

I Whereas the first two criteria were applied in RUWASA 1, the last two did not guide project implementation.

I

6 I

Sectoral Legal Issues I A recent feature of Uganda's Water Sector's legal aspects has been the enactment of The 1995 Water Statute. For many years the legislation regarding the water sector was inadequate, Ioutmoded - having been of colonial origin - and scattered under different laws, decrees and Acts. Both the segmented nature of laws as well as their content posed a constraint to the implementation of vital changes that have been initiated since 1986. The lack of clearly defined sector laws (an.d policies) was noted as one of the major drawbacks in the Sector's Development I Strategy and Action Plan of 1989. The institutional restructuring which was proposed at that time could not be accommodated in the legal and policy framework that was in place. For instance, while Water Committees began to be formed in some areas as early as 1986, these had no legal I identity. These and other shortcomings prompted a water sector legislation study which led to the preparation of the new Water Statute that was enacted in November 1995 (MNRlDWD, 1996). I The mission which the Statute is meant to serve is stated as facilitating the devolution of water supply and sewerage undertakings to communities and community institutions such as Water . User Groups (The Water Statute, 1995;7). The Statute (7.50 [1-3]) provides for the formation of IWater User Groups (WUGs) by a set of individuals or households for the purpose of collectively planning and managing point source water supply system in their area. Such a user group is also empowered to collect revenue from persons using the water supply system for the maintenance of the system4 The Water User Group may operate through a Water and Sanitation Committee I (WSC) which would be the executive organ of the group. Where a water supply system is established by and is serving more than one user group, the Statute provides for the formation of a Water User Association (WUA) from Water and Sanitation Committees of several user groups I (The Water Statute, 1995 Div.6, Art.51 [1]).

Three outstanding accomplishments of the new statute can be noted. namely, (i) bringing together I all the relevant legislation affecting the sector under one comprehensive document for the easy accessibility to all the interested parties in the sector, (ii) establishing a legal identity for WUGs, WSCs, and WUAs, and finally, (iii) providing for the devolution of authority over and responsibility I for water supply to communities.

What has to be noted. however, is that the Water Statute is silent on whether WUCs can sue or be Isued. Neither does the water statute indicate whether WUCs have collective responsibility or limited liability with regard to funds they collect.

, IFinancial Policy The 1996 National Water Policy also covers the sector's financial aspects. It stresses that public utilities should be finanCially viable. In large urban schemes (utility-operated), the tariff structure is I supposed to be designed such that it covers capital, operation and maintenance costs. It also recommends a progressive tariff structure to discourage wastage and excessive consumption. Further, that mechanisms for varying tariffs with rises in costs of provision should be in place. I Whereas in urban areas the tariffs should cover total capital costs, in rural and peri-urban areas, they should cover only part of the capital costs depending on the technology used. Meanwhile, all the costs of maintenance in rural and peri-urban areas are borne by the users. I

I4 The statute does not mention whether or not the WUGs own the water supply system or the facilities thereof. However, the National Water Policy does (see section 4.4.2a). I

I

I 7 I In addition, since the decentralization of water responsibilities and the devolution of financial

I powers to districts, lower Local Council (LC) levels and communities, financial resources for the development of water supplies are also supposed to come from the budgets of LCs. The budgeting rules of districts are now such that they have to include in their budgets, the resources accruing from external sources, such as donors.

I Technology Issues

I Government Policy for water provision encourages the use of appropriate low-cost technologies which offer good possibilities for community participation. It recommends for rural and peri-urban areas, the use of point sources such as protected springs, hand-pump equipped shallow wells,

I boreholes and gravity-fed piped schemes, leaving engine driven pumps for urban areas where regular power and trained staff can be ensured.

An important policy prescription is that technologies should be standardized to safeguard the community-based maintenance system, but that the technical specifications of technologies

I should be available in the 'public domain' to avoid monopoly situations and over-dependence on

I donor standards (MNRlOWO, 1996). Government Programmes in the sector are now using an approach by which communities decide the type of water facility they want. Communities are provided with information on different possible options of water facilities/technologies, indicating

I their advantages, disadvantages, and the costs. The communities are guided by technicians and local extension personnel to understand the working of different options, but are left to make the final selection (OWO, 1994:6).

Management and Sustainability Aspects

I The government's policy for water emphasizes capacity-building particularly at district and lower I

levels in tune with the decentralization process, equal opportunities for women's participation in community management activities, and participation of the private sector in construction and actual provision of services. The Community-based maintenance system (CBMS) is qualified as the principle operation system for rural and peri-urban areas.

I The Role of Women Involving women in the execution of water programmes has been increasingly recognized as an

I important ingredient of promoting community management of water services. Government

I programmes and others have attempted to go beyond merely involving community members as an undifferentiated group, to ensuring that the participation of women in the planning and making decisions about water activities is raised. This is based on the increasing recognition that women,

I as the primary users and collectors of water, have a big stake in the quality and reliability of water supply. In some water programmes in the country, it is a requirement that at least half of all committee members should be women. Attempts have further been made to involve women in O&M, and also in the technical aspects of it, such as caretaking and repairing.

I I I

I

I

I

I

I

I

.1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I I I

8

V. Project Descriptions

I The Rural Water and Sanitation East Uganda Project (RUWASA)

I As mentioned on page 1. RUWASA was selected for inclusion into the Global Study to represent Uganda. This section presents a brief description of the project. I Project Background I RUWASA Project was launched in 1991 as a stand-alone project (providing water and sanitation). It was established as a government project under the then Water Development Department

(WDD) of the Ministry of Mineral and Water Resources (now Ministry of Natural Resources). Funding for the project came from DAN IDA which committed a sum of 209 million DKK (approx.

I U.S $ 35 million) for the project's first phase of five years. On its part, the Uganda government's contribution which was estimated at 6% of the total project cost included staff salaries and allowances, drilling equipment, workshop facilities and office space. It was planned that the

I project would continue for a second five-year phase upon the decision of the Danish and Ugandan governments. This has already started as RUWASA II. I RUWASA I covered eight districts with an area of 21,500 sq.kms, and a population of approximately 4.18 million (about 25% of the country's total population). I Project Goal and Objectives

I The project was set up with a long-term goal of improving the quality of life of rural communities in the project area through a sustainable reduction in water and sanitation related diseases.

The Immediate Objectives:

I a) To establish protected water sources, sanitation facilities, and hygiene awareness in the project area, I b) To reduce the burden of work involved in collecting water,

c) To improve health,

I d) To strengthen water and sanitation sector institutions, I Underpinning these objectives was the concern for sustainability which in the RUWASA project was defined as "the ability of the project outputs and objectives to be maintained after project

completion".

I A number of strategies were adopted in order to ensure sustainability. These included: I

Emphasis on O&M right from the start,

Using and developing existing institutions,

I Promoting community involvement and a sense of ownership, Promoting the role of W0men,

I

9 I IUsing affordable and maintainable technology,

Using an objective oriented approach (working towards the ultimate purpose than Ifocussing too much on inputs and activities) IInstitutional Arrangements

While the Ministry of Natural Resources is the lead Ministry, the implementation of the Project also involves other related ministries namely, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Women in Development, I Youth and Culture, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, and Ministry of Local Government. I At the lower levels, such as the sub-county and community levels, the institutional set up was designed to strongly embody the concept of community participation. All Water users sharing a common water source are organized into a Water user group with an elected executive, the Water IUser Committee. There is also a sub-county water and sanitation committee. There are two caretakers per water source, and HPMs trained after nomination by the sub-county committees.

IThe caretakers are trained and charged with routine 0 & M. Specifically, the caretakers perform the following: .

I Carry out simple repairs Check the water systems joints for fitness and greasing I Keep the water source environs clean

Report major breakdowns for the attention of the Committee and the HPMs . I The HPMs are trained and equipped to handle major repairs, beyond the care taker's ability, and carry out servicing and check ups once every 3 months for the boreholes. I The project makes use of already existing institutions such as the Local Councils and the government extension system. In the case of the later, Government Community Development IWorkers and Health extension staff at district, county and sub-county levels are used as part of the RUWASA team in mobilization activities, education and monitoring.

Project Activities and Outputs. I Several activities have been undertaken by the project in pursuit of its objectives. This includes the

drilling of deep boreholes, rehabilitation of existing boreholes, excavation of dug wells, hand I auguring of boreholes, protection of natural springs, construction of rainwater collection units,

construction of institutional pit latrines, and production and distribution of san plats for household

latrines. In all, a total of 2,757 water sources had been constructed by June 1996. This is in Iaddition to the less tangible activities such as health and hygiene education, training of water user

committees, caretakers and HPMs. More than 2700 VWSCs, 67 sub-county committees, 3990

caretakers, and 28 HPMs were trained. I RUWASA Policy changes over time.

I

I

I 10 I Up to 1992, RUWASA's I policy was to provide water without setting any condition to the

I communities. Between 1992-1995, communities were required to have latrines before water could be provided. Although RUWASA I (1991-1995) did not demand for up-front payment from water users, the policy has been changed in RUWASA II (1996-2001). In RUWASA II communities will make a financial contribution (up-front payment) before a water source is constructed.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

-

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

11

VI The Uganda Study Findings

I The Uganda country study was launched in November 1996 after an agreement between the UNDP-World Bank RWS and the Directorate of Water Development (DWD) was concluded. I A two-phase training workshop was organized for the study team. Thirteen participants including the Uganda Lead Consultant on the study, 7 enumerators, an International Consultant, Task

Leader RWSG- ESA, staff from RWSG - WA, a Monitoring Specialist and the Socio-economic Adviser (Norconsult) from RUWASA attended the first phase workshop held in Jinja between I November 27 - 3D, 1996. This was followed by a non-residential 2 days workshop for the enumerators held in Kampala.

I During the first phase, the team was introduced to various aspects of the study, and research instruments were pretested and modified to suit the local circumstances.

I Fieldwork was carried out in the 2 districts of Kamuli and Mukono that form part of the areas that RUWASA 1 covered between 1991- 1995. In all, 16 communities were randomly selected, 8 in Kamuli and 8 in Mukono.

I I The findings presented in this report are based on 256 household interviews, 16 water

committees, 16 technical assessment instruments, Focus Group Discussions with water users, officials of RUWASA and the Water Sector. Data collection lasted approximately 4 weeks.

I I I I I I I I I

VII

12

Background Information

1. THE COMMUNITIES

All the 16 communities sampled in this study were rural, predominantly agricultural, without electricity and several of them far from the main towns. All the communities can be categorized as poor with 66.0% of the interviewed respondents asserting that their main occupation was cultivation (i.e on very small scale). Several of these communities had a very poor road network. Arising out of FGDs, majority households had a monthly per capita income of less than Ug.Shs.10,OOO (Le. US$9.5) and lacked adequate food and hence could not afford the required calorie intake. With low incomes, majority households face difficulties in meeting essential basics of life such as health care and education of children. The rest of the main characteristics of the communities are shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Community Data

Community Pop. #Households # of Household s using the system

Concentration 1 = Concentrated 2 = Semi

dispersed 3 = Very

dispersed

Distance to major city (Km)

Electricity N=No Y=Yes

Bugabo 70 139 11 2 . 36 N Bugeywa 400 100 100 2 11 N Bukumbi 360 28 55 3 50 N Bulondo 400 180 180 3 11 N Bwigule 260 52 52 3 38 N Galiraya 190 40 40 2 46 N Kabula 160 80 80 2 15 N

. KanansaikKi 400 70 70 3 56 N risiru 450 .74 74 3 63 N Kyamabale 360 100 100 2 20 N Lwamba 260 40 40 1 48 N Muli 700 116 116 2 v 16 N Nalya 270 150 150 3 8 N Namalere 205 40 40 2 46 N Namavund 615 120 120 3 56 N Namayand 450 70 70 3 9 N

-

Table 1 shows that in majority of communities the number of persons (i.e. Pop) using the system did not compare with the official target of 300 and 150 persons per hand pump and protected spring respectively. It was clear in this study, that a single water source would be serving other neighbouring communities which did not have a protected source.

On the other hand, the criteria for household concentration was based on the number of households using a water source in relation to approximate distance. Thus, majority households within a distance of

I

I

13

I 2. THE HOUSEHOLDS I At the household level, 52.3% were females and 47.7% were males. Majority of the interviewed persons (67.6%) reported to be the heads of the household. The most highly educated members

of the household were reported to be fathers/heads (40.6%), followed by household sons (15.6%), then mothers (14.5%), and daughters occupying the last position (7.4%). This is typical of

I Uganda rural communities where gender discrepancies in education exist with many more males accessing formal education than females.

I Table 2: Households Descriptive Data

I Highest Level of Education Achieved by f

Member of Household

I Head of HouseholdMaleFemale None Attended CompletedAttended Completed Attended

Primary Secondary SecondaryPrimary University

I 82 32173 31 53 55 3134 122 (12.5%)(67.6%) (12.1%) (32.0%) (20.7%) (21.5%) (1.2%)(47.7%)(52.3%) I

I Majority households (87.9%) reported having at least a member who had attended primary and above. Only 12.1 % of the households reported no member who had ever attended

I school.

I 3. THE WATER SYSTEMS

I The study findings reveal that RUWASA's intervention in providing water responded to the rural communities priority need for safe water. Before project implementation, 65.6% of the

I sampled population collected their drinking water from a traiditional source (non-improved public well) and 16.8% collected water from rivers, unprotected springs and swamps. Only 9.8% collected water from a protected source (an improved public well). After project implementation, majority (87.7%)collected their drinking water from protected sources. All the water systems in selected communities were functioning.

I I I I I

Table 3: Water System Description

Community Age (Years)

Bugabo Bugeywa Bukumbi Bulondo Bwigule Galiraya Kabula Kanansaike Kirisiru Kyamabale Lwamba Muli Nalya Namalere Namavundu Namayandha

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3

SG - Spring BH - Borehole OW - Dug well

I I

14

I Description of

System Type #HH using

the source I Repaired

New New

SG BH BH

11 100 55

I New New New

BH BH BH

180 52 40 I

Repaired OW 18 New New

BH BH

70 124 I

Repaired SG 15 New New

BH BH

40 116 I

Repaired SG 50 New New New

BH BH OW 70

40 120 I

I I

All the boreholes had been installed by RUWASA and were relatively new while the springs had been newly rehabilitated. This could therefore have implications on a study of Ithis nature (i.e sustainability) since not much time has elapsed to clearly assess community ability to sustain the water systems. It has to be noted that RUWASA 1 officially closed at the end of 1995. I

I I I I I I

I I I

15

VIII Project RuleslGuidelines

I In this section, we discuss whether and how the project rules of demand-responsiveness

I and those of implementation and sustainability were applied in RUWASA I. One important observation that needs to be mentioned at the outset is that RUWASA I did not have a set of formal rules that were strictly adhered to. Only latrine construction (discussed in the

I sub-section on eligibility) was at some point used as a precondition for eligibility. The rest of the requirements were initiated during project implementation and can best be described as guidelines whose absence did not mean denial of service.

Rules of Responsiveness to Demand

I Three categories of rules relating to demand responsiveness are considered; community I

selection and prioritization criteria, technical options and service levels, and financial policy. The discussion of each starts with the basic principle underlying the rule, as stipulated by UNOP - World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, then a description of the official rules/guidelines and the scores for each community in relation to demand and sustainability aspects.

I 1. Community Selection and Prioritization Criteria I "Eligibility rules for participation in the project should be broad enough that eligibility does not, by itself, guarantee that every eligible community will receive service during

that particular period. II

I "Services should follow, not precede, community initiative in seeking the improvement. "

I Eligibility I In RUWASA 1, all communities in the project area were eligible to get a water source. At the same time communities were being mobilized by the project to adopt proper sanitation

practices especially latrine construction. Thus, in the initial days of project implementation, RUWASA 1 simultaneously provided water and mobilized communities to construct

I latrines. However, latrine construction did not pick up as required by RUWASA. As a result, RUWASA I changed its approach for the communities that had not been covered, and set a pre-condition whereby sanitation had to precede water construction. The

I minimum latrine requirements for a community to be availed safe water were:

I At least 1 0% observed increase in latrine coverage with sanplats at the household

level for community members.

I At least 70% observed increase in latrine coverage with sanplats at the household

level for community leaders.

I Communities where the sanitation condition was set were thereafter referred to as "preconditioned" communities. It has to be noted that the latrine condition was not linked to the sustainability of the water sources, but rather to stimulate increased latrine coverage in the

I area with an anticipation of reducing sanitation related diseases. . Before the construction of water facilities would start, mobilization and sanitation promotion would take an average of six months, and the indicator of readiness was the sanitation coverage .

1 ,... 1

16

In both non-preconditioned and preconditioned communities, RUWASA 1 initiated 1 guidelines for the benificiary communities to ensure proper 0 & M of the systems and hence sustainability. As reported in the interviews with the project staff, the guidelines included: 1 Formation of a Water User Committee (WUC)

1 Selection of caretakers (1 male and 1 female) to ensure routine maintenance of the source

Setting of by-laws to ensure proper use and maintenance and guard against 1 mismanagement of the facility.

.1 Signing of agreement with a hand pump mechanic who would carry out the repairs and servicing of the water system.

Practice of proper hygiene behaviour to avoid disease transmission. 1 In addition to the above guidelines, RUWASA 1 asked communities to participate in the project by meeting certain requirements such as providing locally available materials and 1 labor. Majority households (78.5%) and 68.8% of community water committees reported that construction of latrines, collection of funds, collection af materials, provision of labor where necessary, were required by RUWASA during the implementation of the project. 1Females FGDs similarly pointed to participation of community members in project implementation.

1Project Initiative In practice, communities did not apply for the water systems. The study findings indicate that only 12.9% thought that the idea to build a water system was from the community (a 1 committee, neighbor, or community group), compared to 27.7% and 25.0% who thought it was from RUWASA and LCI/III officials respectively. Similarly, 50.0% of water committees contended that the initiative to build the water systems originated from RUWASA. 1 However, 59.0% of the households reported that they, or a member of their households took part in the decision to build a water system. This implies that while the project idea did not originate from the community, community members were invited to participate, and or 1 decide whether to take the project or not.

When cornmunities were scored for project initiation, the resulting scores also show that 1the source of the project idea came from outside the community, with the highest

community score being only 6.71.

I Table 4: Score of Project Initiation (SPI)

1Community SPI *Bugabo 4.06 Bugeywa 4.45 1

5.23*Bukumbi Bulondo 6.56

5.15Bwigule I Galiraya 2.73

I

I

17

I I I I

Kabula 6.71 *Kanansaike 5.93 Kirisiru 2.10

*Kyamabale 2.73 *Lwamba 5.70 *Muli 5.31 Nalya 5.93 Namalere 5.00 Namavundu 3.51 Namayandha 5.85

I * Non-Preconditioned Communities

I It has to be noted that although the idea to build the water systems was external to the communities, RUWASA devoted much time and resources in the early stages of project implementation sensitizing and mobilizing the people. The low SPI scores notwithstanding,

I all communities expressed that water was their most priority need at the inception of the project.

Prioritization Between Sub-projects

I The findings show that no other kind of projects besides water were offered to the people

I as reported by 74.4% of the household respondents. This is expected since RUWASA is a stand-alone project, in which case the question of prioritization between sub-projects could not arise. Nonetheless, majority from both the household and community interviews

I (84.8% and 75.0% respectively) reported that water supply was their most pressing need before RUWASA's intervention, a factor that would positively influence sustainability of the water sources.

1.2 Analysis - Eligibility and Prioritization

I In all, it is clear that RUWASA 1 was not directly guided by consumer-demand during I

project implementation. However, the intensive mobilization and sensitization campaigns, which took, six months could have generated demand for the service among communities.

2. Choice of Technical Options and Service Levels

I I

"Communities should be actively involved in selecting service levels. A range of technical options and service levels should be offered to communities, and their related cost implications made clear. "

Choice of Technical Options

I I I Community members did not make a choice between technology options. The technology

option in each commllnity was determined by RUWASA depending on the costs involved and the hydrogeology of the area. Thus, only 19.5% and 16.4% of the households and communities reported choosing between alternative water sources/systems and alternative technology options respectively. FGDs for both males and females also indicated that no choice was made between technical options by community members. According to the project officials, the selection of technical options by the project took into account costs, 0 & M costs, ease of maintenance, scope of community involvement in

18

both construction and 0 & M, technical quality of the source and best use of the existing investment resources, i.e. the protected sources.

While the current water policy emphasizes that communities should be served with a technical option of their choice, this was not a rule in RUWASAI since the water policy had not been formulated by then, nor has it been passed by parliament.

Choice of the Location for the Facility

Majority community members (81.3%) contended that they were involved in choosing the location for the facility. Similarly, 92.3% of community committees indicated that community members had participated in choosing the location of the water facility. FGDs similarly indicated that community members were involved by the project in siting especially for the borehole. However, the final decision would' rest with the project technicians depending on the hydrogeology of the area. With regard to springs, communities would only select between the existing springs on which one to be protected. Determination of Service Level

Majority (76.2%) reported that their communities did not choose between different levels of service compared to 16.8% who claimed that they did. Service levels were determined oli the basis of domestic water supply policy whereby a borehole is ideally meant to serve 300 people, and a protected spring 150 people. The population of consumers in some communities exceeded the designated one because of people from neighboring communities without a protected source drawing water from the source constructed by the project.

There was evidently a low degree of demand-responsiveness in relation to technical options and levels of service and hence very little indication of community decision-making based on informed choice. A big number (70.7%) reported that they were not informed about the costs involved, and 24.5% did not know whether they were informed, compared to only 4.8% who claimed that they were informed. Results from FGDs for both males and females clearly indicated that communities did not have a choice regarding the type of system design. Similarly, the indicator scores for informed choice as shown in Table 5 are very low. .

Table 5: Indicator Scores: Informed Choice {SIC)

Community SIC

Bugabo 3.54 Bugeywa 2.91 Bukumbi 3.50 Bulanda 4.58 Bwigule 4.58 Galiraya 4.27 Kabula 4.93 Kanansaike 4.51 Kirisiru 3.57 Kyamabale 3.95 Lwamba 4.61 Muli 4.89 Nalya 5.31

1

1

1

1

1

1

.1

1

1

1 1 1 1 1

1

1

I

I

I

I I I

Namalere 4.54 Namavundu 5.17 Namayandha 4.30

19

I I 3. Financial Policy

"Principles of cost-sharing should be specified and community

I responsibility for costs made clear at the outset. These principles should aim at negotiated cost-sharing arrangements in which the community chooses the levels ofservice for which it is willing to pay."

I I In RUWASA I. communities contributed in-kind (labour and materials). RUWASA did not

require cash contribution up-front which could have been a plausible indicator for measuring communities demand for the water service. However, the community's responsibilities for operation and maintenance costs were made clear from the beginning.

I as reported by 68.8% of the communities. Consequently. RUWASA's financial policy did not have a bearing on the determination of the service levels nor the technology options. The contributions in cash mentioned by households and communities were not meant for construction. The funds raised were channelled into buying food for feeding the project staff during construction while the balance would be reserved for subsequent 0 &M. Table

I 6 shows the approximate amount paid by each household in different communities.

I Table 6: Contribution to Capital Investment, by Community Community **Cash Ug.Shs. Labour (Days)

I Household *Bugabo 3-

I 2Bugeywa 2500 *Bukumbi 300 6 Bulondo 2000 3

I Bwigule 7-Galiraya 500 7 30Kabula -

I 4*Kanansaike 500 14Kirisiru 1000 21*Kyamabale -

*Lwamba 3-3*Muli 1000I

Nalya 30-Namalere 30300

I Namavundu 3500 Namayandha 2-I

** Exchange Rate: 1 US $ =UG. Shs 1050 (July, 1997)

I The varied cash contributions made by the communities is a reflection of non-official financial policy by the project concerning the water users. Similarly. where cash and labor

I

I

20

contributions were made, they were not standardized and hence the variations from I community to community. In most of the non-preconditioned communities no cash was contributed. It should also be noted that material contributions would at times be commuted to cash contributions. I System Costs I System costs varied on the basis of the technology options with the biggest part coverd by the project Table 7 shows the system costs per technology and contributions made by the Icommunities. Table 7: System Costs and

Costs (Hardware)

Total cost of water system construction (Hardware) (Ug.Shs)

Project contribution (%) of the total construction cost

Community Contribuiton (%) of total cost

Cost of construction. per capita (based on the No. of people connected to the system),

Borehole

7,352,000/=

96.0%

4.0%

24,506/=

Source: Project Staff/Project Records

Percentage Contribution of Total Construction I Technology Option

IProtected Spring Dug Well I

1,042,200/= 3,212,000/=

I 91.9%74.86%

I 8.1%25.14%

I 6,9481= 10,758/= I

IThe borehole technology was the most costly. and attracted least contribution from the community. This least contribuiotn as regards the borehole was expected as most of the materials to construct a borehole could not be mobilized locally in the communities. Even Ithe manual labour that is often available in communities was not very much required in the construction of the boreholes. In the case of springs, we note that communities contributed a quarter of the total costs in form of sand, stones and labour, a fact also revealed in both female and male FGDs. Female community members reportedly contributed more than I males. The contribution was possible since all materials were available in the communities. Details of community contribution are shown in Table 8 below. I

I

I

I

I

I

11,1

~ Table 8:

I

I

I

I

I

I

21

Details of the Community Contribution to Construction Costs

Technology Option

T23 - T25 Borehole Protected Spring

Drug Well

Percentage of the total cost 4.0 25.14 8.1

Contribution

Cash Unskilled labor

Local materials Others ~

-70% 20% 10%

-30% 60% 10%

-60% 30% 10% .

Value of total Community contribution, per capita serviced. 9801= 1,737/= 8601=

Source:

I Table 9:

I I I I I

CalculatIons by Project OffiCIals

Total Costs of the System (Hardware & Software)

Technology Option

T24 - T25 Borehole Protected Spring

Drug Well

Total cost of the system (including administration overhead, software, hardware) 9,587,0001= 1,182,400/= 5,085,0001=

Total cost of the system, per capita serviced including adminstration overhead, software, hardware 31,956/= 7,8821= 16,950/=

I I

Although all communities contributed in form of materials and labor, not all contributed in form of cash. As earlier noted, even where cash contributions were involved they were not meant for physical construction. As Table 10 shows, scores for cash contributions were very low, and even then not in all communities. It must be emphasised that this could have been as a result of RUWASA's policy not to require any up-front payment from the communities, but not absolute community failure to contribute cash towards the construction.

I

I

22

Table 10: Score of Cash Contributions (SCOC)

Community SCOC

Bugeywa 2.00 Bulondo 2.00 Bwigule 3.00 Galiraya 3.00 Kabula 3.00 Kirisiru 3.00 Kyamabale 2.00 Nalya 2.00 Namalere 3.00 Namayandha 3.00

Although the community cash contributions were low especi.ally for boreholes, it must be recognized that they require much more attention and high costs to maintain on the part of the communities.

In relation to labor contributions, all communities made contributions during the construction of the water sources. Since there was no policy by the project on the amount of labor to be contributed, there were variations in labor contributions by different communities, and in low proportions as Table 11 shows.

Table 11: Score of labour Contribution (SCOl)

Community SCOl

Bugabo 2.00 4.00

Bugeywa 4.00 Bukumbi 3.00 Bulondo 4.00 Bwigule 1.00 Galiraya 1.00 Kabula 4.00 Kanansaike 1.00 Kirisiru 2.00 Kyamabale 4.00 lwamba 4.00 Muli 3.00 Nalya 1.00 Namalere 3.00 Namavundu 1.00 Namayandha

Both Tables 10 and 11 indicate low scores, i.e. all communities scored less than 5 out of the maximum 10 point score. However, it can be noted that although the labor scores are low, it is still encouraging that communities still contributed during construction and hence a possibility that they can be called upon to contribute whenever need arises.

I

I

I

I

I

I

.1

I

'1

I I I I I I I I I I

I

I

I

23

IX Rules For Implementation and Sustainability

I Construction and Supervision

I I All construction work in RUWASA I was initially (for about the first three years out of the

five) undertaken by the project staff. In the latter years, however, a system of subcontracting to private firms was adopted. This was, however, only limited to the construction of protected springs.

I From the community interviews, 68.8% reported that their communities/committees participated in the "supervision" of the construction work against 31.3% who said they did I

not. In actual sense, the "supervision" reported by communities merely referred to observation of work in progress.

Operations and Maintenance

I Operations and Maintenance are the responsibility of the users. The performance of these responsibilities is ensured through a system of locally elected caretakers who carry out routine maintenance, including greasing of the pump, and cleaning the water environs, a

I committee which supervises the caretakers and collects the contributions, and area-based hand-pump mechanics who are called upon to take care of breakdowns. RUWASA I required communities that were to be assisted to first elect water committees.

I I It was found out in household interviews that RUWASA had sensitized the users about

their roles in 0 & M. Majority (83.6%) reported that they knew what their responsibilities for 0 & M entailed. The responsibilities included gentle pumping of the water, i.e. not to bang the handle, keep the source free of animal use, not to allow children to play at the

I water source, general cleaning of the water environs. The caretakers ensure that these responsibilities are adhered to. There was no difference in the proportions of males and females with regard to what their responsibilities for 0 &M entailed

Backstopping support was provided by RUWASA staff, district staff and social mobilisers

I (extension staff) to communities in form of household and water source visits, as well as during community and WUC meetings. This kind of support continued after construction in form of monitoring visits.

I Community Development and Training

I Training in RUWASA I was provided at two levels; I At the community level where training was open to all adult community members.

At the committee level where all the 6 WUCs members were trained.

I I- With regard to the community level, a half (50.4%) of the household respondents reported

that they, or their family member participated in training sessions related to the water system, with 89.9% of those who attended, asserting that they remembered the topics covered in the training. and majority (95.3%) rating the training sessions as useful.

I

I

24

Table 12: Training I I I I I I

Water Committee

Received Training (# of communities) 16

# Members Trained 96

Household

Received Training (% of Household) 50.4

Remember Topics (% of HH Receiving Training) 89.9

On all water committees, both males and females were represented with exception of Namayandha where all members were females. I All communities were, therefore, required to have a water committee with a mandatory requirement of having women on such committees. Community level training/information dissemination was carried out through drama, home visits, and community meetings. I Specific to the training of committees, the training themes were: I Identification of community problems

Sanitation issues (Faecal disposal) I Hygiene education which included: faecal disease transmission, the faecal

barriers, the safe water chain. I Gender issues

I Operation and maintenance (prevention of breakdown, maintenance of cleanliness)

I User committee roles and responsibilities Planning I Training of committees was carried out in a two day training session facilitated by the sub

county social mobilisers, with support from district staff. Study results indicate that all

committees (100%) were trained. This is corroborated by the scores of training of water Icommittees where all communities except 1 scored the maximum of 10 points.

I

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

25

Table 13: Score of Training, Water Committee (STC)

Community STC

Bugabo 10,00 10,00

Bugeywa 10,00 Bukumbi 10,00 Bulondo 10,00 Bwigule 10,00 Galiraya 10.00 Kabula 7.50 Kanansaike 10.00 Kirisiru 10.00 Kyamabale 10.00 Lwamba 10,00 Muli 10.00 Nalya 10.00 Namalere 10.00 Namavundu 10.00 Namayandha

Results of the study indicate that all members of the committees (100%) were trained in O&M as compared to 41% households, Similarly, 87,5% committees were trained in administration and financial management as opposed to 28.5% households. Whereas 100% of committees were trained in sanitation and hygiene education, only 44.1 % of households claimed so. A half of the committees (50%) were trained in organization and leadership, while 25% claimed to have been trained in design and construction. Scores for training of households were generally low for all communities as Table 14 shows.

Table 14: Score of Training Household (5TH)

Community STH

Bugabo

Bugeywa

Bukumbi

Bulondo

Bwigule

. Galiraya Kabula Kanansaike Kirisiru Kyamabale Lwamba Muli Nalya Namalere Namavundu Namayandha

4.60 1.95 4.53 4.06 3.82 1.87 6.25 3.43 2.42 4.84 5.39 4.14 5.85 3,35 5.39 3.43

1

I

26

I

Asset Ownership I

RUWASA has as one of its strategies, promoting a sense of ownership among the user communities. The questions about the users' perception of asset ownership revealed a high feeling of 'sense of ownership' from both the household and the community I

interviews. All communities (100.0%) and 80.9% of the household respondents thought that the water system belonged to them, i.e. the users. This sense of ownership apparently referred to the responsibilities of 0 & M of the system. I

.1

1

1

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

27

X Indicators of Sustainability

I In this section, the findings relating to the five indicators of sustainability that were used in the study are discussed. The discussion of each indicator is preceded by a statement of the rationale for the particular indicator. The five indicators are;

I Physical condition of the water source and quality of service, I

Consumer satisfaction,

Operation and maintenance practices,

I Financial management, and Ability and willingness to sustain the water supply system.

I Physical Condition and Quality of SelVice

I Rationale: I A water system kept in poor physical condition and delivering a poor service is less likely to be sustained over its design life than one kept in good physical condition and

delivering a good service.

I Results: The questions about the quality of service offered by the improved water systems

I generally pointed to a good performance. Most of the water systems (62.5%) had not

I failed in the one year preceding the study, compared to 37.5% which had failed between once and three times, majority of which were boreholes. Given the fact that almost onethird C13 ) of the systems had failed, and that these were relatively new systems, it could

I imply some defects in the nature of the technology. None of the systems had failed up to four or more times. In all, 38.5% rated the performance of their systems as good, compared to 53.8% who rated them fair, and only 7.7% rated them as bad. The physical condition scores are also on the higher side of the scale as shown in Table 15.

I I I I I

28

Table 15: Physical Condition Scores (SPC)

Community

Bugabo

Bugeywa Bukumbi Bulondo Bwigule Galiraya Kabula Kanansaike Kirisiru Kyamabale Lwamba Muli Nalya Namalere Namavundu Namayandha

The environs/surroundings of protected springs and

I

I

I

SPC I 6.00 4.00 6.00 I6.00 8.00 8.00 I4.00 6.00 8.00 I4.00 6.00 8.00 I8.00 8.00 8.00 6.00 I

I dug wells tended to be poorly

maintained than for the boreholes. Women being the active members in cleaning water sources are culturally prevented from stepping in the water source (spring). According to I FGDs, there is a cultural belief especially among the Baganda (Le. the region where Mukono is located) that women are not supposed to step in the drainage and waste water as to prevent their menstrual blood from leaking into the water which is abominable in the IKiganda culture. This could possibly explain why most protected springs are not kept clean as boreholes.

IConsumer Satisfaction Rationale: I

It is expected that consumers highly satisfied with their water system will be more

willing to sustain it than those that are dissatisfied. I

Results:

The household interviews and FGDs revealed a high level of user satisfaction with the Iwater systems. Majority of the households (70.3%) had since the installation of the water system not used any other source, or if at all, only irregularly, compared to 18.4% who used some other source regularly, and 7.0% seasonally. Of those who continued using Iother sources, long distances to the improved source (40.6%) and problems of water quality (24.6%) were the most frequently given reasons for the continued use of alternative sources. I A big percentage of the households (77.7%) reported that they were very satisfied with the water yield at their sources, and equally high proportions rated the water color (84.0%) and I

I

I

I

29

water taste/flavor (78.1 %) as good. Isolated cases of dissatisfaction were reported in Bugeywa where water users complained of being too many for the only water source

I Table 16: Consumer Satisfaction Scores (SCS)

I I I I I I I

Community SCS

Bugabo 7.34 2.34

Bugeywa 6.91 Bukumbi 7.69 Bulondo 5.58 Bwigule 6.87 Galiraya 8.39 Kabula 8.35 Kanansaike 5.85 Kirisiru 7.57 Kyamabale 8.35 Lwamba 8.78 Muli 8.04 Nalya 6.40 Namalere 8.32 Namavundu 7.89 Namayandha

I Operation and Maintenance Practices Rationale:

I Good Operation and Maintenance practices are considered essential requirements for system sustainability.

I Results: The communities and households surveyed were found to have reasonably good O&M

I practices reflected by the low frequency of system failures, quick response to repair breakdowns, presence of O&M personnel and easy access to tools, spare parts and accessories.

I Of those who reported failed system in the last one year, half (50.0%) reported that breakdowns took only one day to repair, compared to 16.7% that took two to five days, and 33.3% took six or more days. Only one community (7.7%) was unable to undertake

I I all the required repairs during the past year. With the exception of two communities, the

rest of the communities (87.5) had a caretaker and a treasurer/administrator, and 75.0% of the communities thought their caretakers were sufficiently trained to undertake their job. Majority communities (93.8%) reported that the perspnnel needed for technical assistance to repair the system was usually available when needed, and claimed to have never had problems in getting spare-parts.

I

I

30

Table 17: Operations and Maintenance Scores (SOM) I Community SOM

Bugabo 6.95 3.47

Bugeywa 4.78. Bukumbi 1.95 Bulondo 7.60 Bwigule 7.82 Galiraya 8.91 Kabula 3.69 Kanansaike 7.39 Kirisiru 5.86 Kyamabale 5.00 Lwamba 6.30 Muli 6.30 Nalya 7.82 Namalere 6.73 Namavundu 7.39 Namayandha

I I I

.1 I I I

Financial Management

Rationale: I It is expected that strong financial management (i.e. setting appropriate and flexible

tariff levels, ensuring adequate collection rates) will increase system sustainability. I Results and Analysis:

Financial management of the water systems was overall poor with majority of non I preconditioned communities scoring poorer than the preconditioned communities. The results of the study further reveal the following common features among communities: I

There were no operational bank accounts for the water systems, although there was a treasurer on each committee. Bank accounts were opened in the early days that followed the commissioning of the project, but have since become dormant. I There was no fixed tariff levied on water users over a defined period. Tariffs are only levied when there is a breakdown of the system. The amount paid by users in Isuch circumstances is dependent on the amount of money that has to be incurred in repairs. From both interviews and FGDs it was clear that tariffs can only cover minor repairs. For major repairs, communities thought that the project will always intervene. I There were no savings as funds are only collected whenever there is a breakdown, or need to have the system serviced. I

In light of the above, it is, therefore, not surprising that the Financial Management

scores (SFI) were generally low as Table 18 shows. I

I

I

I

31

I Table 18: Financial Management Scores (SFI) Community SFI

I Bugabo 6.15 Bugeywa

I 4.23

Bukumbi 1.53 Bulondo 4.23 Bwigule 5.76

I Galiraya 4.23 Kabula 5.38 Kanansaike .00

I Kirisiru 3.46 Kyamabale 4.23 Lwamba .76 I'vluli 1.53

I Nalya 4.23 Namalere 6.92 Namavundu .00

I Namayandha 5.00 I Ability and Willingness to Sustain System

Rationale:

The user-community's ability and willingness to keep the system in good working condition is central to achieving this objective.

I Results: I The questions regaraing the consumers' ability and willingness to sustain their water

I systems yielded mixed results. Overall, 38.3% of the households had never paid anything. Of those who paid, majority (56.3%) rated the price they contribute for the maintenance of the system as fair, 24.3% thought it was expensive, compared to 19.4% who thought it was inexpensive.

Majority of those who had ever paid, 70.8% reported having never had difficulty in paying

I the contributions, while 26.4% had experienced difficulties. Regarding the community's financial capacity to maintain the system over the next ten years, the household interviews yielded different results from the community interviews, with the majority in the former

I (57.4%) contending that they had the capacity, while 43.8% in the latter thought they did

I not. These findings have to be taken with care as the users could have had insufficient knowledge of possible costs over 10 years to judge meaningfully whether or not they have the capacity to sustain the system.

I

In both household and community interviews, majority (56.3%) and (75.0%) respectively thought their communities had no capacity to replace their systems once they became obsolete. A high proportion (66.0%) of the households expressed willingness to pay more than they were paying in order to finance improved service. In relation to what the money

I

I

32

paid was used for. 91.6% of the household respondents asserted that it was used for O&M I expenses.

Analysis I Willingness to sustain the system was generally higher in communities with protected springs or dug wells than those with boreholes. Only Kyamabale as Table 19 shows Ipresented an exceptional case. Willingness to sustain a given technology option seems to be influenced by the costs of the technology in question. Most communities thought that sustenance of the borehole technology would be beyond their reach especially where major repairs are involved or complete replacement, if the system became obsolete. I Table 19: Willingness to Sustain the System Scores

Community SWL

Bugabo 5.84 2.90

Bugeywa 5.00 Bukumbi 6.00 Bulondo 2.59 Bwigule 2.53 Galiraya 6.28 Kabula 5.00 Kanansaike 2.37 Kirisiru 3.81 Ky'amabale 6.40 Lwamba 6.18 Muli 7.15 Nalya 5.12 Namalere 6.00 Namavundu 6.34 Namayandha

.1 I I I I I I

OVerall Sustainability I Overall, the study results indicate a high level of sustainability of the water pOints. Surprisingly when overall sustainability was scored (See Taole 20), preconditioned I communities had a low score compared to non-preconditioned communities. Whereas all communities reported water as their priority need, it could also be possible that the magnitude of need differed among communities which could have an influence on the Ioverall sustainability.

In terms of overall ranking of sustainability vis-a vis technology options, the borehole Itechnology scored low compared to protected springs and dug wells. This corroborates the earlier results where majority household and community results indicated no capacity in communities to replace the w~ter systems once they became obsolete. I

I

I

I

I

33

Table 20: Overall Rankings of Sustainability (SST)

I I I I I I I

*Non-preconditioned

I I I I I I I I I

Community

Bugabo* Bugeywa Bukurnbi* Bulondo Bwigule Galiraya Kabula Kanansaike* Kirisiru Kyamabale* Lwamba* Muli* Nalya Namalere Namavundu Namayandha

Average

SST

6.57 2.73 5.80 6.61 4.35 4.87 7.23 6.38 4.31 5.61 7.09 7.30 7.48 5.93 6.97 7.03

6.02

-

I

I

I

I

I

I

.1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

34

XI. The Impact of Institutional Rules on RWS Sustainability

I The relationship between the project rules applied in RUWASA and the indicators of

I sustainability were tested using the Pearson Correlation Coefficients at a confidence interval of 99%. With the exception of "training of committees", each of the rest of the indicators of demand-responsiveness were tested against each of the indicators of

I sustainability. Training of committees was not tested because all the communities surveyed had all their committee members trained making the scores for this indicator uniform in all communities. It must be observed in this study that it may be too soon to meaningfully judge the sustainability of the water systems which are not more than five years old as was the case in RUWASA I.

I All in all, considering the overall sustainability in relation to rules, the results revealed positive significant correlation between:

I Project Initiation and Overall Sustainability Informed Choice and Overall Sustainability

I Contribution of Cash and Overall Sustainability I Training at Household level and Overall Sustainability

I On the other hand, the results revealed a negative significant relationship between contribution of labor and overall sustainability.

I The results concerning the relationship between the indicators of demand -responsiveness and individual indicators of sustainability reflect the following:

1. Project Initiation

I High scores of project initiation were found to be more likely positively related with high levels of;

I Consumer Satisfaction Willingness to Sustain water system

I I The above implies that communities where people participated in the decision to build a

water system. and where they perceived the source of the project idea as originating from within the community, they are more likely to be satisfied with their water system and hence more willing to sustain it.

I However, high scores for project initiation were negatively correlated with O&M practices. No significant relationship was found between project initiation and physical condition of the water source, as well as the financial management practices.

I 2. Informed Choice

I Among the indicators of demand-responsiveness, informed choice was found to be having the closest relationship with sustainability. positively correlating Significantly with three of

I

I

35

Ithe sustainability indicators at a level of 0.001. The three sustainability indicators that tested positively related to informed choice were;

I Physical condition of the water system Consumer Satisfaction Willingness to sustain the water system. I No significant relationship was found between informed choice and O&M practices nor with financial management practices. I 3. Contribution of Cash

Communities which scored high on the contribution of cash towards the construction and Imaintenance of the system were found to have; Better O&M practices IBetter financial management practices.

This implies that where community members are required to pay cash contributions, they are more likely to be keen to ensure that their money is put to. good use. On the other I hand, a negative relationship was found to exist between cash contribution and willingness to sustain the water system. No significant correlation was found between cash contribution and the physical condition of the water source. I 4. Contribution of Labor

ISurprisingly, an inverse relationship was found between labor contribution and sustainability both in the overall, as well as in the individual indicators of sustainability. Communities which scored highly on labor contributions were more likely to have; I

Dissatisfied consumers Poor O&M practices Poor financial management practices I Similarly, no significant correlation was found between labor contribution and physical condition of water source nor with willingness to sustain the system. I 5. Training of Committees I This was not tested as the committee training scores were uniform in all the communities studied.

I Training at Household Level

ITraining at household level was found to be positively significantly related to; Consumer satisfaction I Willingness to sustain the water system.

There was no significant relationship between communities whose members reported

more training at household level with the physical condition of their water sources, nor with I their operations and maintenance practices, nor with their financial management practices.

I

I

36

I 6. Gender Analysis .

I I Overall, results from both questionnaire interviews and FGDs indicate no significant

differences between men and women in their participation in project activities. However, women tended to contribute more than males towards building the systems, while men participated more in training sessions than women.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

-

I

I

I

I

1

I

.1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I I I

37

XII Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

I In general terms, RUWASA 1 was not implemented on the basis of a demand-responsive approach as currently defined. Eligibility was not pegged to any strictly followed rules and the idea to build the water systems largely originated from outside the community.

I I What is evidently clear in this study of 16 communities is the high sustainalibilty level

despite the fact that the project was not demand-driven. The lesson we learn in RUWASA 1 is that if water is a priority need for communities, ensuring effective software and hardware implementation by the project together with clearly thought 0 & M guidelines can contributed to high levels of sustainability.

I The ability and willingness to sustain the water systems. and the overall rankings of I

sustainability in RUWASA 1 ought to be understood in the context of the short period that the water systems have been operating (i.e all systems were relatively new), and no major breakdown had occured. Further, it oLlght to be recognized that RUWASA 1 officially closed at the end of 1995, indicating that project influence is still strong. It is, therefore. not very clear as to whether communities will sustain their systems in the next 10 years

I without external assistance. .

I In light of the study findings. recommendations have been put forward which can help RUWASA 11 in project implementation especially the sustainability of the water systems. It

I is also hoped that the recommendations can contribute globally towards a better understanding of the nature of demand and linkages to sustainability. and facilitate the improved design of future RWS projects.

Eligibility and Prioritization Criteria

I Although the overall sustainability was found to be high. it could possibly have been much higher if target communities had on their own demanded for the service. Certain rules that constitute a demand-driven approach need to be put in place to guide RUWASA II if high

I sustainability levels have to be registered. These include: Communities initiating requests for the service.

I 0 & M guidelines discussed under "Eligibility" to precede water construction I Provision of information to communities on different technology options and their costs. This would enable communities make an informed choice. I Financial Policy I Communities ought to be assisted in developing and implementing clear financial rules. Ad hocism in tariff payment i.e to pay as to when the system breaks down needs to be I

replaced with a regularised system (monthly, quarterly, bi-annully or annually. This will ensure constant savings and hence regular operation of the system. Accumulated savings can as well enable the community replace the system once it became obsolete without external support.

I

I

I

38

Operation and Maintenance I

Although most sytems were generally well maintained, others indicated deficiences in maintenance especially the cleaning of the systems environs. The routine maintenance I

had been left to caretakers who are either poorly remunerated or work on voluntary basis. Caretakers need to be formally contracted and officially remunerated for their work. A portion of tariff raised should be designated for paying the caretakers. I

Follow-up in RUWASA I

IThere is need for RUWASA to keep its monitoring presence in the communities that were served under RUWASA I, until local governments are ready to take up the challenge. In the long-run, (Le. after 5 years), RUWASA might need to carry out a study to assess how Ithe water sources are performing.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I I

'I I

I

39

ANNEX I: QUESTIONNAIRES

I HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE Name of the Interviewer

Project Name: RUWASA

Village name and water source # ---------------------

This questionnaire should be administered to one adult member of the household.

I The enumerator should introduce himself/herself to the individual and explain that you are a researcher and would like to ask them some questions about their water system. Explain that you hope that the experiences they share with you will help the people who provide these type of systems to learn how to better serve communities in future. Explain that there are no right or wrong answers for any of the questions you will be asking, and that

I you ask only that they answer the questions as best and as honestly as they can, based on their own perceptions and experiences. I GENERAL INFORMATION

Interviewee Information

I H1 Sex H2 Age --

a. female b. male

H3 Are you the head of the household? H4 How many people live in this a. Yes ---- b. No ---- household? ------

I HS What is the main occupation of the HSa Occupation of spouse

head of the household

a. Civil Service, government employee

I b. Petty trade a. Civil Service, government employee c. Cultivator (works own land) b. Petty trade d. Private company employee c. Cultivator (works own land) e. Craftsman d. Private company employee

I f. Agricultural laborer or farm worker e. Craftsman g. Pensioner f. Agricultural laborer or farm worker h. Others ---------- g. Pensioner

I i. None h. Others ------- I. None I H6 Who is the most highly educated H6a What is the highest level of education member of the house (currently living obtained?

there)? a. Did not go to school

I a. father b. Attended primary school b. Mother c. Completed primary school

c . son d. Attended secondary school

I

I

40