U nsafe water and inadequate sanitation and hygiene in small rural communities throughout the developing world are some of the world’s most important, timely chal- lenges. This review of small-scale and rural water, sanitation, and hygiene projects incorporates case studies that highlight best, worst, and emerging practices in the sector. Based on research and inter- views with senior leaders at leading NGOs, this report recounts lessons learned primarily over the past two decades; illustrates these lessons by using case studies from the surveyed organizations; and concludes with a brief discussion of breakthrough practices identified by the surveyed NGOs. Although the environments, villages, and projects examined differ widely, initial findings reveal: • Community-based small-scale solutions work well if designed, built, and maintained effectively; • The most successful projects (measured pri- marily by time saved and health benefits to communities) focus not just on supplying water, but also on sanitation and hygiene, which often are more immediate causes of death or illness; • Social marketing—deploying commercial mar- keting tools to promote habit change and health benefits—often reduces the time neces- sary to change poor health habits; • The projects and their results often do not meet the initial expectations of the communities, donors, or NGOs (but this does not necessarily reflect project success or failure); • Project management and ownership—includ- ing financial management—should be decen- tralized as much as possible; • Government involvement, although frequently not necessary in small rural projects, becomes essential—and potentially beneficial—when NGOs scale their work up or move into peri- urban or urban areas; • Substantial women’s involvement is important to project success, particularly for sanitation and hygiene programs; • Lack of financial support, caused by a lack of political will (in both the developed and devel- oping world), is slowing progress; and • It is not easy: Sustainable development for water, sanitation, and hygiene requires thought- ful design, well-managed project implementa- tion, and extensive local capacity building. METHODOLOGY This report’s findings are built on two primary sources of information: COMMUNITY-BASED APPROACHES TO WATER AND SANITATION 39 COMMUNITY-BASED APPROACHES TO WATER AND SANITATION: A SURVEY OF BEST, WORST, AND EMERGING PRACTICES
Transcript
Unsafe water and inadequate sanitation andhygiene in small rural communitiesthroughout the developing world are
some of the world’s most important, timely chal-lenges. This review of small-scale and rural water,sanitation, and hygiene projects incorporates casestudies that highlight best, worst, and emergingpractices in the sector. Based on research and inter-views with senior leaders at leading NGOs, thisreport recounts lessons learned primarily over thepast two decades; illustrates these lessons by usingcase studies from the surveyed organizations; andconcludes with a brief discussion of breakthroughpractices identified by the surveyed NGOs.Although the environments, villages, and projectsexamined differ widely, initial findings reveal:
• Community-based small-scale solutions work well if designed, built, and maintainedeffectively;
• The most successful projects (measured pri-marily by time saved and health benefits tocommunities) focus not just on supplyingwater, but also on sanitation and hygiene,which often are more immediate causes ofdeath or illness;
• Social marketing—deploying commercial mar-keting tools to promote habit change and
health benefits—often reduces the time neces-sary to change poor health habits;
• The projects and their results often do not meetthe initial expectations of the communities,donors, or NGOs (but this does not necessarilyreflect project success or failure);
• Project management and ownership—includ-ing financial management—should be decen-tralized as much as possible;
• Government involvement, although frequentlynot necessary in small rural projects, becomesessential—and potentially beneficial—whenNGOs scale their work up or move into peri-urban or urban areas;
• Substantial women’s involvement is importantto project success, particularly for sanitationand hygiene programs;
• Lack of financial support, caused by a lack ofpolitical will (in both the developed and devel-oping world), is slowing progress; and
• It is not easy: Sustainable development forwater, sanitation, and hygiene requires thought-ful design, well-managed project implementa-tion, and extensive local capacity building.
METHODOLOGYThis report’s findings are built on two primarysources of information:
CO
MM
UNITY-B
ASEDA
PPROAC
HES
TOW
ATERAN
DS
ANITATIO
N
39
COMMUNITY-BASED APPROACHES TO WATER AND SANITATION: A SURVEY OF BEST,
WORST, AND EMERGING PRACTICES
By John Oldfield
1. Literature Review: I reviewed relevant litera-ture, primarily online. While a great deal ofliterature addresses the challenges of small-scale, rural projects on water, sanitation, and hygiene, there is a dearth of accessibleresearch bringing together the work of multiple organizations, highlighting thestrengths and weaknesses of differingapproaches to the task; and
2. Phone Interviews: I surveyed leaders from sixnonprofit NGOs (five in the United States,one in the United Kingdom) over a period ofthree months from late 2004 to early 2005.The interviews began with a standard set ofquestions, and I gave each respondent theopportunity to comment on related issues.
I selected WaterPartners International, Water ForPeople, WaterAid, Living Water International,CARE (see Box A), and the Hilton Foundationdue to their current leadership positions in the fieldand because they have operated for at least 15years, thus facilitating a longer-term look at opera-tional practices.1
Much of this research is anecdotal, as I did nothave the resources to investigate these claims onthe ground. Also, it is difficult to gather accuratedata in this sector, as definitions vary, and coun-tries use different sets of indicators. As WaterAid(n.d.) notes on one of its factsheets, “statistics tend to understate the extent of water and sanita-tion problems, sometimes by a large factor. Thereare not sufficient resources available for accurate
monitoring of either population or coverage”(page 1).
DEFINITIONSHow much water and for what period of time: Thisreport does not address industrial or agriculturalwater usage. Although the linkages among agricul-tural, industrial, and household water usage aremanifold, I am chiefly concerned with the amountof water each person needs for daily survival: theamount of clean water necessary for drinking,cooking, and bathing without dying or becomingill from unsafe water.
Although the Millennium Development Goals(MDGs) do not explicitly define what constitutesaccess to safe drinking water, the World HealthOrganization (WHO)/UNICEF Joint Monit-oring Programme describes reasonable access as“the availability of at least 20 liters (c. five gal-lons) per person per day from a source withinone kilometer of the user’s dwelling.”2 All of theorganizations surveyed design projects to meet orexceed these basic requirements, taking intoaccount growing populations through andbeyond the life cycle of the system, ranging normally from 5 to 15 years.
Size and scope of projects: This report tackleschallenges relevant to small-scale—predominantlyrural—water, sanitation, and hygiene develop-ment projects. Projects range in size and scopefrom a $500 repair to a broken handpump inAfrica, to several hundred thousand dollars formultifaceted peri-urban activities in Latin
WAT
ERST
ORI
ES:
EXPA
ND
ING
OPP
ORT
UN
ITIE
SIN
SMAL
L-SC
ALE
WAT
ERAN
DSA
NITA
TIO
NPR
OJE
CTS
40
1. This report does not include, for the most part, the experiences of multilateral and bilateral organizations.2. For further guidance on what constitutes “improved” water supply and sanitation, please refer to “Water Supply and Sanitation
Technologies Considered to be ‘Improved’ and Those Considered To Be ‘Not Improved’” as presented by the WHO/UNICEFJoint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation (2000); see http://www.who.int/docstore/water_sanitation_health/Globassessment/Global1.2.htm#BOX%201.5
America, and from one day to 1–2 years inlength.
NGOs vs. nonprofits: Although these words areoften used interchangeably, I prefer to use NGOs.Although predominantly nonprofit, NGOs can—and do—include for-profit enterprises doingdevelopment work.
Community-based: A community-based solutioninvolves decentralized (village-level) decision-mak-ing, village-level ownership, locally appropriatetechnology, and locally sustainable business andfinancial models as much as possible. A truly successful community-based project will require noexternal inputs once the project is completed. Forthe purposes of this report, community-based proj-ects range in size from a few hundred to severalthousand individuals.
IMPACT OF SAFE WATER (RETURN ON INVESTMENT)Current research shows that the economic returnson successful water projects are very high, bothon a macroeconomic level and a project/house-hold level. Of the NGOs surveyed, WaterAid(UK) has most extensively evaluated the economicreturn on water projects. Based on an assessmentof WaterAid projects in Ethiopia, Ghana, India,and Tanzania, the economic returns range fromUS$2 to US$52 for each US$1 invested(Redhouse, Roberts, & Tukai, 2005).
Another recent evaluation by the WHO con-cluded that the returns range from US$5 to US$28,strongly stating: “The results show that all waterand sanitation improvements were found to be cost-beneficial, and this applied to all world regions”(Hutton & Haller, 2004, page 3). These resultshold steady on global, national, regional, village,and individual levels, and vary based on the design
and cost of the project and the type of benefits thataccrue (e.g., time savings, calorie-energy savings,water purchase savings, improved health, andmore). In some cases these benefits put cash directlyin people’s pockets—for example, by enhancingagricultural productivity. In other cases, the connec-tion is less direct. The biggest impact from theseprojects often comes from the time savings for vil-lagers who no longer have to walk miles to getunsafe water, then boil it to make it potable.Although there are uncertainties associated with theinitial data from which these findings are derived,the Hutton and Haller report stated that “evenunder pessimistic scenarios the potential economicbenefits generally outweighed the costs” (page 3).
WaterAid draws the following conclusions fromits research (Redhouse, Roberts, & Tukai, 2005):
• The clearest impacts were improved livelihoodsand education attendance;
• Women and children received more benefits;• There were positive and significant environ-
mental impacts;• Technical quality and effective management
were equally important in operating water systems; and
• Ongoing support for communities increasedtheir ability to sustain both supply systems andhygiene behavior changes.
THE FACETS OF SUSTAINABILITYAlthough the global drinking water, sanitation, andhygiene field continues to advance rapidly, it is nottoo early to draw some preliminary conclusionsabout best, worst, and breakthrough practices. Thisreport intends to shorten the learning curve fornew and growing water-related organizations (andtheir supporters) in both the developed and devel-oping worlds.
CO
MM
UNITY-B
ASEDA
PPROAC
HES
TOW
ATERAN
DS
ANITATIO
N
41
Handwashing in Guatemala (courtesy Nancy Haws, Water For People)
Water projects in the developing world fail asoften as they succeed. Despite best intentions, projects often are not sustainable for the long run,especially after the donor leaves the country.Historically, sustainability has often been an after-thought. Traditionally, more effort has been put
into constructing new systems than into makingsure the old ones continue to work.3 Well-thought-out, sustainable design has the best chance ofenabling stakeholders to achieve the scale needed tosignificantly reduce the number of people withoutwater and sanitation. More fundamentally, sustain-
CO
MM
UNITY-B
ASEDA
PPROAC
HES
TOW
ATERAN
DS
ANITATIO
N
433. For more on this topic, see the WHO’s “Sustainability and Optimization of Water Supply and Sanitation Services,” available online at
BOX A: NGOS SURVEYEDWaterPartners International• Founded 1990, based in Kansas City, Missouri
(USA)• Active in Central America, Africa, Middle East, Asia• In 2005, WaterPartners expected to spend US$2.5
million on water, sanitation, and hygiene projects• WaterPartners has helped more than
60,000 people in 70 communities develop safewater supplies and improved sanitation systems
• Slogan: “We envision the day when everyone in theworld can take a safe drink of water.”
• http://www.water.org• Respondent: Gary White
Water For People • Founded 1991, based in Denver, Colorado (USA)• Active in Latin/Central America, Africa, Asia• In 2003, Water For People spent US$1.3 million,
and completed 58 projects in 12 countries• Slogan: “Water For People helps people help
themselves.”• http://www.waterforpeople.org • Respondent: Steve Werner
WaterAid • Founded 1981, based in London (UK)• Active in Africa, Asia• WaterAid spends £12 million per year (approx.
US$22.6 million), providing water to about700,000 people and sanitation to 500,000, averaging £15 (US$28.25) per person
• http://www.wateraid.org• Respondent: Stephen Turner
Living Water International • Founded 1990, based in Houston, Texas (USA)• Global operations, US$4.6 million in 2003• Close to 3,000,000 people currently being served,
pumping 15 million gallons a day. • Per capita costs (water supply only) from US$1 to
US$50• Slogan: “A cup of water in Jesus’ name.” • http://www.water.cc• Respondent: Gary Evans
CARE’s Water Program• Founded 1945, based in Atlanta, Georgia (USA)• Operations in more than 70 countries• In FY 2003, CARE spent US$16.3 million on water
and sanitation. Nearly 3 million people in 29 coun-tries gained access to clean water, sanitation, andhygiene education.
• Slogan: “Where the end of poverty begins.”• www.care.org • Respondent: Susan Davis
able design will lower the rates of mortality andmorbidity due to unsafe water, and create opportu-nities for related social development.
Although normally the technology involvedis—or should be—quite straightforward, addi-tional systems need to be instituted to ensure thateach project is sustainable on technical, social, andfinancial levels. All of the leading water-relatednonprofit organizations now focus on the follow-ing facets of sustainability throughout the life cycleof their projects:
1. Technology;2. Social sustainability or “soft skills”;3. Finance/business models;4. Management/ownership; and5. Gender.
TechnologyThe oft-debated 1981–1990 InternationalDrinking Water and Sanitation Decade4 was criticized for focusing too much on large-scaletechnical infrastructure and capital expenditures,and too little on designing and institutionalizingsystems that would build local capacity and ensurepermanence. Although most conversations withNGOs in this sector include discussions of thetechnology of water and sanitation, the nature ofthose discussions has changed. The best plannersand project developers address not only whichtechnology is most appropriate, but also considertechnology as a subset of the overall requirementsfor a successful water system, and include an in-depth appreciation of “soft skills.” In short, it is
increasingly rare for the sector to solely focus ontechnology.
With that said, the phrase “appropriate tech-nology” encapsulates what is widely perceived asbest practice today among leading nonprofits:technology that is locally derived and managed,and that meets needs in the most simple, efficientmanner possible. Examples of appropriate technol-ogy include technical solutions designed so thatlocal communities can obtain replacement partsfor a pump and repair it themselves, and, at best,ensure that communities have the capacity to craftor manufacture the part locally.
The water supply hardware used by the respon-dents to this survey includes but is not limited to:
• Gravity-fed water supply systems;• Boreholes with manual or electric pumps;• Rainwater harvesting systems with storage
tanks;• Village-level sand filtration systems for surface
or groundwater;• Microdams and catchment basins; and• Point-of-use (household) filtration systems
(e.g., buckets with cloth/charcoal filters orchlorine disinfection systems).5
Additionally, to ensure adequate sanitation, pitlatrines may be constructed locally.
Living Water International (LWI) asserts thatthere are five major components to a successfulwater project:
1. Access to safe water;2. Access to safe water;
WAT
ERST
ORI
ES:
EXPA
ND
ING
OPP
ORT
UN
ITIE
SIN
SMAL
L-SC
ALE
WAT
ERAN
DSA
NITA
TIO
NPR
OJE
CTS
44
4. For more information about the 1981–1990 International Drinking Water and Sanitation Decade and other United Nations waterresources, see http://www.unesco.org/water
5. For example, see the CDC’s Safe Water System at http://www.cdc.gov/safewater/index.htm; for a discussion of this and other point-of-use systems, see the accompanying chapter in this volume, “Household Water Treatment and Safe Storage Options in DevelopingCountries: A Review of Current Implementation Practices,” by Daniele S. Lantagne, Robert Quick, and Eric D. Mintz.
3. Access to safe water;4. Health and hygiene training; and5. Sanitation.
LWI has thus historically focused the majority ofits efforts on water supply solutions, arguing thatwithout the foundation of safe water there is littlehope of making effective or sustainable gains inhygiene, sanitation, or health (Gary Evans, person-al communication, January 14, 2005).
The lower end of LWI’s technical projects maybe a simple 100-foot borehole and handpump serv-ing 500–1,000 rural villagers in India for five years.On the high end, the system may entail a 1000-footborehole drilled through granite, with a generator,storage tank(s), and distribution system of kiosksand taps in a peri-urban area outside Nairobi,Kenya, designed to last 15–20 years.
LWI only infrequently incorporates soft skillstraining (health, hygiene, and sanitation) into itsprojects.6 They do, however, train and equip localpeople to drill and maintain boreholes and pumps.To achieve permanent capacity and scale, and cre-ate full-time jobs, LWI has also instituted a “cir-cuit rider” approach, whereby a small number ofworkers service a series of water systems.7 The ben-efits of this approach are:
• Creating full-time jobs for engineers (insteadof relying on village-level volunteers who maybe called into service only once in five years);
• Keeping these engineers’ skills current due tomore frequent installation and maintenanceprojects; and
• Cost-effectiveness.
The overall capital cost of a LWI water-only projectranges from US$2,500 to more than US$50,000,with per capita costs ranging from under US$2 tomore than US$50. These costs depend on manyvariables, including but not limited to:
• Country/region;• Terrain and depth of the well(s);• Number of people served;• Pump model and other hardware;• Whether storage and distribution systems are
built; and• Who performs the work (local or overseas
contractor).
LWI seeks to train and contract with local organi-zations as much as possible to achieve cost reduc-tions and economies of scale. Local contractors,using in-country equipment, are particularlyimportant for larger-scale projects. LWI alsorepairs existing handpumps and boreholes insteadof drilling and installing new ones, which may cutcapital costs by up to 80 percent, but does little toimprove local capacity to maintain the equipmentwithout outside intervention and support.
Even if a particular technology is appropriate inone place, it may be ineffective—even if quite sim-ple—in another. For example, the Northern Regionof Ghana remains one of the last few regions of theworld where Guinea worm disease is endemic. Safedrinking water is the best long-term solution to thedisease.8 While drilling boreholes has been the tradi-
CO
MM
UNITY-B
ASEDA
PPROAC
HES
TOW
ATERAN
DS
ANITATIO
N
45
6. Since my initial conversations with Living Water International, the organization has made a concerted effort to increase the sanitation and hygiene components of its projects (Jerry Wiles, personal communication, June 9, 2006).
7. For other examples of the “circuit rider” approach, see http://www.newforestsproject.com/ English/cwigeneral.html andhttp://www.ruralwater.org/irwa/
8. For more on Guinea worm disease, see the Carter Center Guinea Worm Eradication Program, http://www.cartercenter.com/healthprograms/program1.htm
WAT
ERST
ORI
ES:
EXPA
ND
ING
OPP
ORT
UN
ITIE
SIN
SMAL
L-SC
ALE
WAT
ERAN
DSA
NITA
TIO
NPR
OJE
CTS
46
10. For PSI’s mission, see http://www.psi.org
tional solution, boreholes are not, in fact, the bestsolution in the Northern Region of Ghana, as thewells are frequently dry due to hydrogeological con-ditions. In this instance, the Carter Center hasfound that the appropriate technology may be amore complex—yet still straightforward and locallysustainable—water filtration system for surfacewater held in catchment basins (Don Hopkins, per-sonal communication, December 21, 2004).
NGO leaders I surveyed consistently assertedthat the technical solution that is often most visible,tangible, and therefore appealing to donors is notnecessarily the right solution, even if it meets theappropriate technology criterion. Like other con-sultants, global NGOs should work with a particu-lar village’s leadership to consider the solutions to itswater problems. The consultant NGO then stepsback and lets local people make the final decision,enabling (rather than insisting) that they do themajority of the work themselves, and pay for it. Awell-designed water project can be implementedlocally in a sustainable, self-sufficient fashion—andnot simply satisfy the technical or financial require-ments of an overseas partner. The best practice thuscombines local knowledge with innovative technol-ogy and sound sustainable design. These critical ele-ments can be found, for example, in arsenic-removal projects in Bangladesh and water-qualitytesting throughout the world (see, e.g., UnitedNations, n.d.)
Social SustainabilityMost respondents strongly asserted that the besttechnological solution in the world will achievevery little unless it is grounded in social sustain-ability. In water projects, this typically means
adding culture-specific sanitation and hygienecomponents to the water supply work. Donors,implementing organizations, and recipients ofassistance are increasingly attentive to this concept.It is vital that donors, in particular, incorporatesocial concerns into each project for two reasons:
1. Donors are often more aware than their localpartners of the long-term benefits thataccrue to communities that properly imple-ment the sanitation and hygiene aspects of awater project; and
2. Local partners are historically accustomedto—and have come to expect—purely tech-nological solutions; today’s donors and NGOsmust in some cases lead them to a more sus-tainable solution.
Most respondents also consistently pointed out thatthe most immediate, tangible life-saving impacts of awater project may not come from the technicalwater supply solution alone. Often, in fact, theseimpacts come from simply teaching communitymembers, especially women, to more effectively andfrequently wash their hands. For example, theLancet Infectious Diseases Journal reported that42–47 percent of all diarrheal transmission could bestopped by handwashing with soap (Curtis &Cairncross, 2003). Respondents also pointed outthat the Water Supply and Sanitation CollaborativeCouncil is devoting more resources to sanitation andhygiene issues through a wide array of literature andmarketing campaigns, such as the “Water, Sanitationand Hygiene for All” (WASH) campaign.9
Each NGO interviewed for this report broughtup the issues of sanitation (primarily pit latrines)and handwashing, and the difficulty of changing
9. For more information on the WASH campaign, see http://www.wsscc.org/dataweb. cfm?code=26
habits deeply ingrained in local cultures. Donorsand implementing organizations know that with-out attention to sanitation and hygiene, projectswill not achieve health benefits. How do projectplanners ensure that the recipient communitiesagree to use latrines and appropriate handwashing?Respondents pointed to social marketing toolssuch as theater performances, board games, house-to-house education programs, formal hygienecommittees, and training schoolchildren to teachtheir parents to adopt these new habits.
In the overall nonprofit/health space, respondentssingled out the thought-provoking social marketingwork of Population Services International (PSI),which “deploys commercial marketing strategies topromote health products, services, and other types ofhealthy behavior that enable low-income and othervulnerable people to lead healthier lives.”10 In manycases, respondents are integrating similar efforts intotheir own water projects; for example, a jointCARE-PSI-Centers for Disease Control andPrevention (CDC) project in Madagascar used socialmarketing and community mobilization to combatthe spread of cholera (Dunston et al., 2001). CAREprojects combine social marketing with capitalismby training vendors of water filtration systems andproducts to educate their customers about healthand hygiene (Susan Davis, personal communication,December 13, 2004).
Respondents unanimously agreed that no mat-ter how well-designed a pit latrine might be, itsuse and the concomitant health benefits requiresignificant changes in habits. Individuals may notreadily accept the “improvement”—even if theydo, their culture may not allow them to uselatrines—in the absence of targeted and culture-
specific education and social marketing programs(often led by women). Or, as Water For People(WFP) warns, villagers may find a better use forthe latrines once built, like storing crops (SteveWerner, personal communication, January 8,2005). Yet once the benefits of the programbecome clear over time (e.g., fewer cases of diar-rhea), the intended habit change will stick.
Successful handwashing does not come naturallyin many rural communities, especially in theabsence of ample supplies of clean water. InGuatemala, WFP partners with the U.S. PeaceCorps to not only bring safe water supply to theschools, but also to teach students about washingtheir hands. WFP gives the schoolchildren tools(primarily posters) to teach their family members,and uses Peace Corps volunteers to reinforce the les-sons over the long term. (Before WFP helped pro-vide safe water to the schools, Peace Corps volun-teers had been miming handwashing techniques.)
On the other hand, LWI asserted that habitchange takes a generation to become ingrained,meaning that it also takes a generation before suchprojects achieve sustainable health benefits. LWItherefore suggested that the sector focus predomi-nantly on water supply in order to meet theMillennium Development Goals. However, everyother NGO I surveyed stressed that they will nolonger consider any project without a primaryfocus on education before, during, and afterimplementation.
Project Management/OwnershipTop-down, centralized decision-making for waterprojects of all sizes is no longer seen as an acceptableapproach. Instead, many NGOs support decentraliz-
CO
MM
UNITY-B
ASEDA
PPROAC
HES
TOW
ATERAN
DS
ANITATIO
N
4710. For PSI’s mission, see http://www.psi.org
ing ownership and management of developmentprojects to the lowest possible level. NGOs considerthis a good idea objectively, but occasionally getthemselves in trouble by responding too willingly tosolutions that, although chosen by the local commu-nities, may in fact be unsustainable over the longrun. NGO leaders aim to work themselves out of ajob by building the local capacity to operate andmaintain projects for the long term. They mustremain cognizant that even if local people want aparticular solution, it may not be the right answerfor that particular situation.
Small-scale rural water systems supported byNGO leaders interviewed for this report are typicallyled by village water committees or water user associ-ations that report to village leaders or local govern-ment. Operations are often handled by unpaidmembers of the water committee trained in thetechnical and financial skills necessary to maintainthe system and collect user fees. Multi-village sys-tems often benefit from a circuit rider, a full-timepaid employee who maintains several systems. Thesize of communities and projects covered by thisreport rarely attracts large private-sector operators,thus creating few full-time jobs.
Decision making should be decentralized,engaging all community stakeholders, as decentral-ization increases a project’s speed and transparency.However, as demonstrated by the controversy sur-rounding (real or perceived) unfunded federalmandates in the United States, decentralizationdoes not automatically result in increased technicalor financial capacity, nor does it guarantee projectsuccess. Respondents suggested that decentraliza-tion for the sake of decentralization can doom aproject to failure.
Respondents also insisted that the key to man-agement of each project is keeping track of both
process and outcome measures: Does the projectsave lives? Does it reduce morbidity risks? Will itfunction effectively 10 years down the line? Willlocal people have the technical and financialcapacity to maintain, repair, replace, and/orupgrade the system?
Village Water Committees: The NGOs surveyedreported that during the early stages of each project,communities, local NGOs, and the donor typicallyform and support a village water committee—oftenaccompanied by a hygiene promotion committee—of 5–9 villagers, including a:
This committee consolidates local support for theproject; identifies and trains responsible laborers,trainers, and managers; and makes sure the entireproject meets the community’s self-identified needs.On an ongoing basis, the water committee:
• Identifies water supply infrastructure, sanita-tion, and hygiene needs and solutions;
• Collects fees from communities to at leastpartially support the capital costs of the initialwater project, and also to support ongoingmaintenance costs;
• Identifies local leaders for advanced technicaland social training;
• Organizes training programs in communityorganization, maintenance, watershed man-agement, sanitation, and related matters; and
• Follows up on water, health, sanitation,education, and other social development
opportunities.
WAT
ERST
ORI
ES:
EXPA
ND
ING
OPP
ORT
UN
ITIE
SIN
SMA
LL-S
CA
LEW
ATER
AN
DSA
NITA
TIO
NPR
OJE
CTS
48
59040_WWICS_Text_ACG 8/6/07 4:24 PM Page 48
For each project, the water committee assemblesdrillers, hydrogeologists, mechanical engineers, envi-ronmentalists, businesspeople, volunteers, and localworkers (as necessary) to design, implement, andassess projects. Depending on the size and scope ofthe project, the committee and donors may alsochoose to work with local women’s groups, otherNGOs, local government agencies, or additionalinternational partners.
Note, however, that communities may alsochoose not to manage the project themselves, andinstead hire an experienced operator. Villages areadvised to approach this relationship carefully, withclear information about pricing, service-level agree-ments and contract management expertise.
Hygiene Promotion Committee: This committeecomprises 1–3 women leaders responsible for train-ing their peers in hygiene techniques. NGOs workwith these leaders to design hygiene training materi-als and techniques appropriate to the local culture.
Government and Project Management: NGOleaders interviewed about government involvementin small-scale, rural water projects consistentlyreplied with a knowing groan, adding an admoni-tion to avoid it as much as possible. According tothose surveyed, government involvement above thevillage water committee level politicizes both theplanning and implementation process, tending todetract rather than contribute.
On small-scale rural water projects, it is possi-ble—and arguably beneficial—to avoid extensivegovernment interaction. The key is to depoliticizethe situation by making the project’s communica-tions as public and transparent as possible.Transparency leads to a distribution of water points(boreholes with handpumps, for example) basedmore on the needs of the population than on localpolitical exigencies (Stephen Turner, personal com-
munication, December 13, 2004). If or when proj-ects scale up, however, it becomes advisable andeven necessary to cultivate productive relationshipswith governments.
WaterAid’s Hitosa Water Supply Scheme inEthiopia incorporated local government structureswhen scaling up a large gravity-driven water sup-ply project (Silkin, 1998). The project effectivelycreated a cooperative—a mini-utility—which isowned by an elected Water Management Boardcomprised of an equal number of men andwomen from village water committees. The boardemploys tap attendants and enjoys a surplus on itsoperations and maintenance budget. The nextchallenge for the cooperative is to move to aviable business model that serves the pooresthouseholds, which are unable to pay anything fortheir water (Shivanathan-Beasty, Gelpke, &Jarman, 1998).
A WaterAid project of similar size and scope,completed in Bale, Ethiopia, in 2001, incorporat-ed regional government structures before workeven started. The rural Water Management Board(comprised of representatives from rural villagewater committees) was initially supposed to man-age the entire rural/urban project, includingwater, sanitation, and hygiene promotion activi-ties for small villages and for citizens of Robe, atown of 35,000 people. However, the govern-ment’s Water Bureau lacked confidence in theWater Management Board’s ability to managesuch a large project, and was hesitant to handover control of its water supply work in Robe.They agreed to a compromise in which the WaterBureau manages the town’s water supply, whilethe rural Water Management Board manages allother aspects and retains overall responsibility forthe entire project. Although this project is
CO
MM
UNITY-B
ASEDA
PPROAC
HES
TOW
ATERAN
DS
ANITATIO
N
49
arguably successful, many questions remain aboutits long-term sustainability.
Project Financial ModelsWater may fall from the sky for free, or be availablein the form of a stream or other surface water reser-voir, but it is often not potable, much less deliveredto a village standpipe or a house at no cost.WaterPartners’ Gary White (personal communica-tion, December 10, 2004) describes the evolutionof the water sector as evolving through the “4 C’s”:
• Compassion (post-World War II foreign assis-tance, starting with the Marshall Plan); to
• Common sense (community participation andcollaboration, including sanitation and hygienesystems); to
• Capital (tools that enable local communities toafford their own water projects, and thereforeensure sustainability).
In the near and medium term, capital questionswill remain at the forefront. There are far morequestions than answers about financing small-scale rural water projects, especially when consid-ering the sheer number of people needing waterand sanitation.
It is relatively simple to address the costs associat-ed with maintaining a borehole and handpump, andperhaps a small filtration system. But consider:
• How should the project address the capitalcosts of installing the system in the first place?
• How can it ensure that the poorest of the poorhave access to water regardless of their abilityto pay?
• How should it incorporate the costs of sanita-
tion and hygiene, which experience suggestshave more impact on mortality and morbiditythan does water supply per se?
Local communities are already paying for their watersupplies, directly or indirectly. In many cases, thepoorest communities are in fact paying above-market rates for unsafe water that is killing and sick-ening them through the spread of waterborne dis-eases. It should be the goal of those communities,governments, and the development sector to ration-alize the costs paid for drinking water, to ensure thatthe water is safe, and to finance adequate sanitationand hygiene training in order to decrease waterbornemortality and morbidity.
Even though each water project surveyed in thisarticle differs, the NGOs surveyed assert that initialcapital costs for a rural, small-scale project encom-passing water supply, sanitation, and hygiene train-ing should normally be US$25–50 per person.These projects should be self-financed after thedonor leaves, and self-sufficient both technically andsocially. It is important to highlight that the abovefigures include only the initial capital costs.
WaterAid (2006) states that US$25 will “providea person with a lasting supply of safe water, adequatesanitation and knowledge of good hygiene practices”in Africa and Asia (Stephen Turner, personal com-munication, December 13, 2004). WaterPartnersagrees with the US$25 figure in Africa, but cautionsthat costs double to $50 in Latin America. Almostsingularly focusing on technical water supply proj-ects, LWI has refurbished handpumps for villages foras little as US$1–$2 per capita (Gary Evans, person-al communication, January 14, 2005).
All of these figures should be used with cau-tion. One of the field’s biggest private donors,the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation (see Box B),
WAT
ERST
ORI
ES:
EXPA
ND
ING
OPP
ORT
UN
ITIE
SIN
SMAL
L-SC
ALE
WAT
ERAN
DSA
NITA
TIO
NPR
OJE
CTS
50
has explored cutting costs by hiring fewer con-tractors from the United States and more fromthe developing world. This may save money inairfare and salaries, and augment local capacity insome cases. Yet it may render monitoring andevaluation more difficult, and may actuallyreduce the overall efficacy of a project. Choosingto fund a local nonprofit directly can work well,but by doing so, a donor loses the technicalexpertise and capacity in monitoring and evalua-tion provided by an international NGO.Relatively small donors like the HiltonFoundation (with 17 full-time staff ) would behard-pressed to provide the implementation andmonitoring and evaluation skills typically offeredby an international NGO.
On the other hand, even if donors choose tofinance projects through a large internationalorganization or use U.S.-based consultants, theywill always have to work at the local level withthe village water committees, government agen-cies, village elders, etc. Regardless of the donor’sbusiness and financial models, unless ownershipof the project lies squarely in the community’shands, no project will be sustainable (SteveHilton, personal communication, January 10,2005 and June 29, 2006).
Community Contributions: Leading waterNGOs now insist that local communities pay atleast the maintenance costs of their water projects,and in many cases, part or all of the capital costsas well. The NGOs’ argument is two-fold:
1. Communities are already paying for theirwater, and for the most part can affordto do so; and
2. Communities will not respect ormaintain water systems unless theirpocketbooks are directly affected.
In a World Bank project in Ghana, for example,the World Bank finances 90 percent (through agrant), the community pays 5 percent, and thedistrict government pays 5 percent (World Bank,1999). The community and district governmentpercentages vary from community to communityaccording to the cost of the project and the com-munity’s ability to pay.
Anecdotal evidence points to a divide betweenthe philosophy of donor organizations and thelocal partners implementing the projects. In somecases the community’s financial contribution maynot come directly from each household but fromthe village leadership or local government. Thisremoves project ownership from the individualhousehold level, thus arguably reducing its sustain-ability. Sector leaders advise donors to pay closeattention to this potential divide to ensure the per-manence of their projects (Gary White, personalcommunication, December 10, 2004).
As the water sector has advanced, pressure toinclude sanitation and hygiene components inprojects has increased. Traditional financialaccounting systems are hard-pressed to quantify thereturn on an investment in sanitation and hygiene,thus making it difficult to set a price that willreflect both cost and benefit. Until the costs and
CO
MM
UNITY-B
ASEDA
PPROAC
HES
TOW
ATERAN
DS
ANITATIO
N
51
Handwashing in Nepal (courtesy WaterAid)
the benefits of sanitation and hygiene are clear togovernments and communities, subsidizing capitalcosts—for sanitation in particular—will continueto be necessary in many cases.
Regardless of the model, respondents arguedthat the project must be self-contained financially.The project managers may approach an outsidelending agency to pay for capital expenditures, butthey themselves must reach that decision based ontheir ability to manage debt repayment and a morecomplex project.
GenderWater, sanitation, and hygiene are unquestionablygender issues. In many cultures, women and chil-dren bear primary responsibility for collecting
water and making it safe to drink. In addition,women and children suffer severe opportunitycosts since they spend so much of their lives deal-ing with water issues or caring for family mem-bers sickened by unsafe water. The NGOs sur-veyed widely acknowledged that women shouldassume prominent roles on village water commit-tees—especially when the issue at hand is sanita-tion or hygiene. The impact of their participationmay extend beyond health benefits: women couldsee greater economic opportunities and girls couldachieve higher levels of education.
Water For People’s small-scale, rural projectsare each managed by a village water committee.Normally, 2 of the 5 members are women. Thisis logical because women often bear the primary
WAT
ERST
ORI
ES:
EXPA
ND
ING
OPP
ORT
UN
ITIE
SIN
SMAL
L-SC
ALE
WAT
ERAN
DSA
NITA
TIO
NPR
OJE
CTS
52
• The Hilton Foundation (http://www.hilton founda-tion.org) supports small-scale, rural water projectsfor two reasons: 1) unsafe water is one of theworld’s biggest killers of children, and thereforearguably the most vital development issue; and 2)safe water opens doors to numerous other socialdevelopment opportunities, including education,health care, and job creation.
• The most important contributors to the success ofthe Hilton Foundation’s projects, as evidenced byits West Africa Water Initiative, are competentlocal managers and a holistic approach accom-plished by partnering with complementary interna-tional and local NGOs. For its work, Hilton focus-es not necessarily on the least expensive imple-menting organization, but on those organizationsthat (alone or in a consortium) can achieve the
greatest financial and operational leverage—andtherefore the most positive outcomes.
• Quantifiable process measures are important toHilton (e.g., number of latrines, boreholes), butthey also know that technical water solutions are inseparable from the “soft skills” of sanitationand hygiene.
• The Hilton Foundation’s biggest frustrations are alsoheld by the other nonprofits surveyed:
• A lack of awareness of the problem of unsafewater and inadequate sanitation; and
• Potential donors’ hesitation to get involvedbecause the situation seems intractable, espe-cially considering the ambitious targets set bythe Millennium Development Goals.
BOX B: A BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH THE HILTON FOUNDATION(Steve Hilton, personal communication, January 10, 2005)
responsibility for the health of their families, andadolescent girls arguably have a greater need forsanitation and hygiene than boys. Water ForPeople’s experience also suggests that womenmanage money better and are more attentive tothe required reporting. They may also make bet-ter decisions when it comes to dealing with vil-lagers who can not or will not pay. Water ForPeople’s projects rely on women to constantlyreinforce hygiene messages throughout the com-munity, such as forbidding children to drinkdirectly from the tap and keeping animals awayfrom it. (Steve Werner, personal communication,January 8, 2005).
Several organizations caution against pushing therole of women too far. Many societies in the devel-oping world remain highly patriarchal and do notlook kindly on women in leadership positions. Ifthe male leaders of the community do not at least“believe” they are in charge, projects may face seri-ous obstacles. As CARE puts it, the goal is to “pullwomen in, but not push men out” (Susan Davis,personal communication, December 13, 2004).
EMERGING PRACTICESDespite all of the water sector’s progress, theproblem is still massive. What is holding back the solution, and what are the surveyed NGOsplanning next?
Respondents universally acknowledged that thetwo major obstacles to continued progress are lackof finances and a lack of scale. Breakthrough prac-tices that address these constraints are rarely newtechnological solutions; they will likely continue tobe new ways of applying old technologies, creativebusiness or financial models, or new ways of design-
ing and implementing water projects that are moreholistic and more easily scaled up. It is too early totell if the practices discussed below will prove effec-tive in the long run, but I believe that they areimportant to consider and, in many cases, alreadyworth replicating.
Improved financing for water projectsWaterPartners’ WaterCredit initiative combinesmicrocredit with best practices in water supply proj-ects.11 Through this facility, communities will haveaccess to credit to pay for the capital costs of a watersupply project. WaterCredit decisions are made bylocal water supply and grassroots organizations, andrepayment rates are expected to be high. If managedproperly, WaterCredit will become a small revolvingloan fund, increasing the financial reach of limiteddonor support.
Improved managementThe franchising model for managing small-scalewater supply systems, and sometimes sanitation ini-tiatives, is very similar to traditional for-profit fran-chised businesses. Some respondents argued that thissystem provides incentives for good managementand operations, and helps to solve the lack of insti-tutional capacity (too few engineers and middlemanagers) throughout the developing world.
Collaboration with governments It is impossible to achieve the scale necessary tosucceed in this effort without effectively tacklingthe peri-urban and urban challenge. Operating inan urban environment requires the active supportof government. Urbanization is not going away;more and more individuals are moving to larger
CO
MM
UNITY-B
ASEDA
PPROAC
HES
TOW
ATERAN
DS
ANITATIO
N
5311. For more information on WaterPartners’ WaterCredit initiative, see http://www.watercredit.org
cities for economic reasons, and many of thesenewcomers are legally “off the grid” and lack infra-structure. Thus, many suffer from a lack of waterand from waterborne maladies. As water NGOsscale up their projects, and as cities continue toexpand into formerly rural areas, they need toknow how to address this issue.
Under a U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency grant, Water For People is actively work-ing to research this problem, stating that theworld has no chance of meeting the MDGs unlessthe urban water situation is addressed. WaterAid’scommunity-management project in Dacca,Bangladesh, recently experienced a breakthrough.The city of Dacca had said that it could not sup-ply water to illegal squatters. WaterAid negotiatedwith the city so that community organizationsregistered as NGOs could purchase drinkingwater in bulk for the new communities. The city’swater corporation realized it could get new cus-tomers through the use of trusted local NGOs.Until these new communities benefit from perma-nent water infrastructure, there will continue tobe reliability and pricing challenges, but this is agood start toward addressing a seeminglyintractable problem (Steve Werner, personal com-munication, January 8, 2005).
Reviving an underappreciated “technology”Rainwater harvesting is a millennia-old method ofmeeting water supply needs. Many of the NGOssurveyed suggested that rural villages should take anew look at this proven practice. It lessens thestress on groundwater tables, almost entirely
removes the need to treat water, and solves theproblem of rural communities whose traditionalwater supplies disappear during the dry season.12
AdvocacyNonprofit leaders unanimously expressed theirconcern that the global drinking water sector suf-fers from a lack of awareness—and thereforefunding—compared to other development sectors.Naturally, none is interested in shifting moneyaway from other high-priority concerns, but allexpressed interest and support for third-partyorganizations pushing the safe drinking water andsanitation agenda from a public relations or aware-ness-raising standpoint.
A new organization addressing this issue isWater Advocates, a Washington, D.C.-based lob-bying and advocacy NGO targeting five con-stituencies: the U.S. federal government, civicorganizations, faith-based organizations, corpora-tions, and traditional philanthropies.13 WaterAdvocates aims to triple financial and other sup-port for the sector over the next several yearsthrough a combination of lobbying, advocacywork, and matchmaking.
CONCLUSION: POLITICAL WILL, FINANCING,AND SCALEThe question remains: Why are there still billionsof people without safe drinking water and sanita-tion when there are so many talented individualsand organizations working on the problemthroughout the world? At the Commission onSustainable Development’s 12th meeting in New
WAT
ERST
ORI
ES:
EXPA
ND
ING
OPP
ORT
UN
ITIE
SIN
SMA
LL-S
CA
LEW
ATER
AN
DSA
NITA
TIO
NPR
OJE
CTS
54
12. For more information about rainwater harvesting, visit the Centre for Science and Environment’s website at http://www.rainwater harvesting.org
13. Note: The author joined Water Advocates’ staff in March 2006. For more information on Water Advocates, see http://www.wateradvocates.org
59040_WWICS_Text_ACG 8/6/07 2:32 PM Page 54
CO
MM
UNITY-B
ASEDA
PPROAC
HES
TOW
ATERAN
DS
ANITATIO
N
55
York in 2004, the Chairman’s Summary concludedthat, regardless of progress being made on allfronts, “the [Millennium Development] Goal canonly be met if efforts are scaled up” (UnitedNations, 2004, page 35). This article seeks toincrease the level of activity by providing easilyaccessible, neutral, reliable, and actionable guid-ance for all stakeholders, thus shortening thelearning curve for international NGOs, donors,and local people who are designing, funding,and/or implementing water projects.
As the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs noted, “alack of political will at both international andnational levels had hampered progress, notably inresource mobilization” (United Nations, 2004,page 23). By highlighting the feasibility immedia-cy, and notable economic multiplier of water-relat-ed development work, this article hopes to con-tribute to generating the political will necessary toincrease funding levels. As evidenced by my inter-views with nonprofit leaders of water-relatedorganizations, water projects are rarely simple.They are, however, eminently doable. If designedproperly, they contribute almost immediately tosaving lives and reducing, if not eliminating, themyriad opportunity costs attributed to unsafewater, inadequate sanitation, and poor hygiene.
The next decade is vital. Gro HarlemBrundtland, former director of the WHO, said:“Simple, inexpensive measures, both individualand collective, are available that will provide cleanwater for millions and millions of people in devel-oping countries—now, not in 10 or 20 years”(WHO, 2001). Ambassador John McDonald, oneof the driving forces behind both of the WorldWater Decades, stresses that 2005-2015 is thetime to make those commitments real, and use
water as the foundation for progress in otherfields of social development (personal communi-cation, January 12, 2005).
All of the leaders surveyed for this article sup-port Ambassador McDonald’s assertion that waterranks high—if not first—in the hierarchy ofneeds in the developing world. As discussed earli-er, clean water, sanitation, and hygiene have animpressive multiplier effect at both macroeco-nomic and household/village levels. Above andbeyond the health benefits, proponents avow thatsafe water contributes positively to the challengesof population, urbanization, and economic devel-opment, and is a powerful starting point for envi-ronmental protection and/or remediation.
This article concludes that small-scale, rural,community-based water projects can and shouldbe simple, sustainable, and scalable. They can bestarted quickly with limited resources. Bottom-line responsibility should rest with the local end-users. Yet I remain cognizant of the dangers: projects cannot be oversimplified, as many individuals and organizations have seen waterprojects fail because of unsustainable technical,social, or financial design.
Most importantly, NGOs cannot afford tolose focus on the goals: saving lives and reducingwater-related illness through sustainable develop-ment. I hope this article will motivate individu-als, organizations, and governments to act quick-ly, decisively, and in a sustainable manner.
BIOGRAPHYJohn Oldfield is the director of PartnershipDevelopment at Water Advocates. Prior to joiningWater Advocates, he was vice president at a pri-vate equity buyout group focused on turnaround
opportunities and corporate divestitures. He has alsobeen an executive at The Conference Board, aNew York-based economic research firm which pro-duces the Leading Economic Indicators andConsumer Confidence Index. He has launched twowater-related nonprofits, and also has several yearsof international experience leading USAID-fundedprojects, including training programs for election offi-cials and foreign media, as well as civil/militarycommunication projects in post-conflict countries.
![Water,Sanitation,andHygieneServiceAvailabilityatRural ... · inadequate water supply and sanitation [3]. Inadequate drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene in nonhousehold settings,](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5e81efd69f9e151ba6551f5b/watersanitationandhygieneserviceavailabilityatrural-inadequate-water-supply.jpg)