Dafili socio economic & tariff study & management structure

Presentation on 19th June 2013 at CMP meeting, Dukem

By Mike Wood, WASH Adviser, Finn WASH BG Programme

2

Acknowledgements

• Ato, Abieneh Teschale, the vice Kebelle administrator and chairman of the Water Users Association Executive Committee, Jigda Selassie Kebelle for his tireless efforts in assisting with the Dafili Water Scheme. We would also like to thank the people of Dafili for cooperating during the socio economic & tariff study.

3

Objectives of the study

• To gather important socio economic and demographic data

• To establish the communities ability to pay for water• To establish the communities willingness to pay for

water• To recommend an affordable tariff• To establish households’ attitude and knowledge of

sanitation and hygiene at household and community levels

4

Purpose of the study

• The purpose of the study is to inform the Dafili Water Users Association and the Mandura Woreda Water Office on people’s willingness and ability to pay for operation and maintenance costs of the system and also to inform the Mandura Health Office on people’s attitudes to sanitation and hygiene and the opinion of households towards Health Extension Workers working in the community.

5

Methods

• Observations by the study team by walking around the village

• Focus Group Discussions• Household interviews• Analysis of data using SPSS software• Drawing conclusions from the analysis and

making recommendations and including them in this report

6

Household survey

• Conducted 17th – 20th February 2011• 5% of households surveyed; 30 houses• Divided into poor, medium & rich households• Four enumerators were trained• Gumuz and Agaw are the main ethnic groups

living peacefully together

7

Introduction• Dafili’s population in 2011 was • Households: 324• Population 2011 1,782• Population projected 2026 1,980• Upfront contribution 5,000 birr (2010)• Protected Spring 44 %• Hand pump 12%• Stream 44%• Spring water was only available near Takele Sefer• Before the system was built, people were not paying for water

8

Villages within Dafili Kebele

• Ankoha• Genanaw• Kach Sefer• Tekele Sefer• Alemtsehaye

9

Sanitation

• 20% of houses have a pit latrine• No public latrines• Few hand washing facilities• Hardly anyone uses soap• Soap said to be expensive• Hand washing with soap not common

10

Community contribution

• In February 2013 the members of the WUA contributed 3,100 birr as 2012 tariff to buy gate valves and taps which had broken.

• 310 of the 324 hh contributed• Very poor households did not contribute

11

Focus Group Discussions

• Everyone was very enthusiastic about having a piped water supply.

• Only 20% of households was reported to have a latrine.

• Only 17% of hh have hand washing facilities at their latrine. Only 4% use soap!

• Households prefer to pay a monthly tariff to cover O&M costs

12

FGD results

• 80% of households use 80 lt water/day• 20% use more than 80 lt /day• Only 5% said water supply was adequate• Lack of water supply and lack of electricity were cited

as the major socio economic problems by most respondents

• The project will have significant positive impacts by stimulating the economy and improving the social and health status of women and children in particular and the target beneficiaries in general.

13

Household survey results

• Average amount water used per hh/day is 80 lt.

• No payment for water before scheme started• 80% willing to pay for safe water from taps• Those not willing to pay live above the spring

so will not see an improvement to the existing situation but they do now have a two shower rooms down from the spring.

14

Affordability

• 60% said they can afford to pay 5 cents/jc• 40% said they can afford to pay 10 cents/jc• 75% of hh prefer to pay monthly• 50% can afford to pay 1 birr/month• 35% can afford 2 birr/month• 16% can afford to pay 5 birr/month

15

Estimated Annual O&M cost

• Because it is a gravity scheme there are not many O&M costs

• Estimated O&M cost is 5,000 birr/year• WUA is not employing any workers• To cover this cost hh would have to contribute

1 birr/hh/month.• Does not include income from showers (50

cents/shower)

16

Examples of other tariffs

• Gilgel Beles, people pay 20 cents/jerry can or 8 birr/cu.m

• Debre Zeit, Wombera, people are paying 50 cents/jerrycan

17

Tariff recommendations per jerry can; Dafili

• To cover O&M costs• Paying 5 cents/jc x 4 jc/day = 20 cents x 310 hh

= 62 birr x 30 = 1,860 birr/month• 22,320 birr/year • Would cover O&M costs and create savings.• 5 c/jc same as paying 6 birr/hh/month

18

Recommended tariff for Dafili users

• 5 cents/jc• Or 6 birr/month• This is affordable to all but the poorest

households.

19

Dafili WUA

• They held a General Assembly meeting of all user household heads and discussed byelaws in September 2012

• Byelaws include rules and regulations on how the scheme should be run.

• Tariff for domestic water set at• Tariff for animals drinking at animal troughs:• Tariff for irrigation water:• Tariff for showers:

20

Tariff in byelaws• WUA general assembly decided on the following tariff in their byelaws:• A) Association members• Domestic use 10 cents/ jerry can• Showers 50 cents per person• Cattle 50 cents per head• Irrigation 5 birr per night• B) Non members• Domestic use 50 cents/ jerry can• Showers 1 birr per person• Cattle 50 cents per head• 14 hh are exempted because unable to pay.

21

Actual tariff

• Although byelaws state the above tariff, users decided the actual tariff should be 10 birr/hh/year from the 310 hh who can pay.

• This is 83 cents/hh per month• In February 2013 users contributed 3,100 birr as

their 2012 payment. Used to buy gate valves and taps which had broken.

• They can only pay once a year after harvest as they don’t have money at other times.

22

Opening of Dafili Scheme13th February 2012

23

Byelaws

• Reason for low tariff was that poor households said they could not pay more

• The community has not had to pay for water before; not used to paying for something they consider should be free (God given)

• Awareness campaign was conducted by Mandura Woreda Water office to convince users that water supplied near to their homes had a cost and therefore had economic value which should be paid for.

24

25

Management OrganogrammeMandura Woreda Water

OfficeJigda Selassie Kebele

WASH Team

Dafili Water Users Association General Assembly

Teklay Sefer WASHCO

Teklay Sefer WASHCO

Alemtshay Sefer

WASHCO

Genanaw SeferWASHCO

KachSeferWASHCO Ankoha

WASHCO

Genanaw SeferWASHCO

T.A.

Mandura Woreda

Health Office

WUA Executive Water &

Sanitation Committee

WSG

26

Challenges

• WUA executive committee does not meet regularly as stated in the byelaws but it meets when there is a need to.

• Executive committee needs more training on management issues and tariff setting

• The actual O&M cost has to be worked out (the WUA are not employing anyone).

• Still need practical training in how to maintain the system

27

Challenges continued

• Need to assist WUA Executive Committee in having an agreement with local artisan to provide plumbing services to maintain the system e.g. replacing gate valves & taps

• Need to better regulate use of water for irrigation during dry season

• More awareness on sanitation and hygiene issues like hand washing with soap

28

One of the five water points

29

Thanks for your attention!