1

UNDP/GWP Project for a National Integrated Water

Management Plan for Kazakhstan Project ID: 00034289

ACCESS TO ‘SAFE’ WATER IN KAZAKHSTAN The findings of the Social Survey

November 2005

2

1. Introduction The UNDP/GWP Project to develop a National Integrated Water Resources Management and Water Efficiency Plan for Kazakhstan began in June 2004. The overall aims of the 3-year project are: 1. to prepare the National Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and Water

Efficiency Plans and River Basin IWRMs and Water Efficiency Plans, 2. to develop the Strategy for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals

(MDGs) for Water Supply and Sanitation, and 3. to establish River Basin Councils (RBCs). Establishing country specific IWRM principles and the achievement of the MDGs for water and sanitation represent the two most important global water management initiatives at present and as such are the focus of much discussion both within and beyond the water management sector. Various definitions of IWRM are available. According to the Global Water Partnership, for example, IWRM is a process that promotes coordinated development and management of water, land, and related resources in order to maximize economic and social welfare but at the same time ensuring equity and sustainability (GWP, 2000). The development of an appropriate IWRM strategy can thus be seen as an essential prerequisite for the achievement of MDG 7, Target 10 which aims to “reduce by half, between now and 2015, the proportion of people who lack sustainable access to adequate sources of affordable and safe drinking water and sanitation.” A number of recent publications have provided estimates of the current level of access to safe water and improved sanitation in the Republic of Kazakhstan. According to the 2004 UNDP report Water Resources of Kazakhstan in the New Millennium access to safe water supply in Kazakhstan is high, although it was noted that the level of provision has diminished in both rural and urban areas in recent years and will continue to deteriorate unless action is taken (UNDP, 2004). But what constitutes a ‘safe’ water supply? The UN describe it as access to an improved water source including household connections, public standpipes, boreholes, protected wells, protected spring and rainwater collection capable of providing 20 litres per capita per day at a distance of no more than a 1000 metres. However, this definition represents the absolute minimum level of water provision and it is inappropriate for a country with the economic standing of Kazakhstan. A large number of people in Kazakhstan access water via individual/communal standpipes. Although few people have to walk more than 1000 metres to collect water many areas of Kazakhstan experience prolonged and extremely cold winters and walking any distance for water represents a threat. Yet even in communities with a high percentage of households connected to a central water supply system water supply can only be considered to be safe if the both the quality and security of supply are assured. The provision of water to rural areas is especially problematic. According to an earlier UNDP report approximately 60% of Kazakhstan’s rural population are provided with water by pipeline (UNDP, 2004). However, these statistics were based on official government figures and include all pipelines including those which are no longer operational. The rapid and often catastrophic deterioration in the pipeline system means that many systems are no longer operational and it is debatable if any of the systems that still function deliver ‘safe’ water. These examples are used to illustrate some of the difficulties currently facing the water sector in Kazakhstan. The situation with respect to sanitation is somewhat different with various surveys reporting that nearly 99% of the population of Kazakhstan have access to improved sanitation.1 In urban areas nearly 73% of the population have access to a flush toilet with nearly 60%

1 Improved sanitation is taken to mean sanitation technologies connected to a sewer, septic tank, pour-flush latrine, simple pit-latrine, improved ventilated latrine. Not improved are service or bucket latrines, public latrines and latrines with an open pit.

3

having toilet facilities within their own homes. In contrast less than 3% of people living in rural areas have access to flush toilets, with most people using traditional pit-latrines. These figures, however, are based on two surveys, the most recent of which was published in 1996 and the information is likely to be out of date. Thus while access to improved sanitation is high it may well have deteriorated in recent years. It could also be argued that using outside latrines during the winter months is not acceptable- this would be particularly true for settlements on the steppe and it is possible that during the winter alternate facilities are used- e.g. a bucket. Moreover if Kazakhstan is to achieve European standards for water and sanitation by 2030 vast improvements in sanitation and wastewater management will be required. Additionally, where there is access to sanitation, waste water is predominantly released into water bodies or allowed to seep into groundwater with either insufficient or no treatment. There are also the environmental and health aspects of combined pit latrines and household shallow wells which has obvious consequences for the health of the water bodies as well as that of the people living near them or downstream of dump sites, a situation which Kazakhstan clearly has to address. As a first step towards preparing the strategy for achieving the MDGs for water and sanitation it is essential to have an accurate picture of the current level of access to safe water supply across the Republic of Kazakhstan. These data are essential not only to establish the level of current provision and thereby determine what actually needs to be done to achieve the target of halving the number of people without access to safe water and improved sanitation by 2015, but also to help determine priorities and specific actions, provide cost estimates of achieving the goals and to provide a benchmark against which progress can be monitored. Globally, the UN will monitor progress through a number of indicators. Target 10 will be monitored by Indicator 30: the proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water source: urban and rural and Indicator 31 Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation: urban and rural. The global standard for a base year has been selected as 1990. However, because of the changes in Kazakhstan since 1990 (mainly water system deterioration) it is an inappropriate base year. This has been discussed in our Round Table and Workshop meetings and it was agreed that 2005 should be taken as the base year. The social survey which has been undertaken in conjunction with a detailed technical survey of access to a ‘safe’ water supply and sanitation across the country thus provides baseline information on the current situation and should be used as the benchmark against which progress in achieving the MDGs is monitored. As the ultimate aim of Target 10 is to improve access to ‘safe’ water and improved sanitation to the population it is essential that the beneficiaries themselves participate in the development of the MDG strategy. Various stakeholders have participated in this process via public forums but, given the importance of this project to the population as a whole, it is essential that a broad range of views are collected from the most important stakeholder group, the people who will benefit from improved water supply. The most effective way of soliciting the views and opinions of a large number of people is to conduct a country wide social survey using a multi-method approach.

4

2. The Social Survey

The aim of the social survey is to provide an accurate quantification of the current level of access to safe water and sanitation in rural and urban communities across the Republic of Kazakhstan. In this project the social survey comprised three main components:

• An in-depth questionnaire survey administered to c. 7,500 people in rural and urban areas across Kazakhstan.

• Two-hundred and forty semi-structured interviews with individuals from urban and

rural settlements across the country, as well as officials working in various organisations concerned with water supply and health issues.

• Sixteen focus group discussions with a range of stakeholder groups.

2.1 The questionnaire survey Questionnaires are an indispensable tool when primary data is required about people, their behaviour, attitudes and opinions and their awareness of specific issues. A questionnaire survey must be custom-built to the specification of a given research project and both the composing of the questions and the asking of them is important in ensuring that appropriate information is collected. The questionnaire was administered to c. 7500 households across the country and the findings provide baseline information on water supply, water quality and water use as well as information on willingness and ability to pay for water. In addition it provides important information regarding sanitation in Kazakhstan. 2.2 Semi-Structured Interviews Questionnaires provide invaluable information about a given issue. However, because they are usually standardised, they are not tailored to suit an individual’s circumstances and, consequently, while the results are important, there is the potential for over-generalisation. Interviews can provide the researcher with a more detailed insight to a given situation and are frequently used to supplement the findings of questionnaire surveys. Semi-structured interviews with 240 people from large and small cities, towns and rural settlements across the country will be undertaken during the project. The semi-structured interviews will be used to explore in more detail a range of issues including what constitutes good access to water, what is perceived to be safe water, what level of access people want, and how much if anything, they are willing to pay for improved services. In addition we will also explore issues surrounding gender and water management both in the home and the community in general.

5

2.3 Focus groups Both questionnaires and interviews are, in effect, an interaction between the interviewer and interviewee. A focus group relies on the interactions within a group of people who are invited to discuss an issue supplied by the researcher. Focus groups are carefully managed discussions lasting approximately 1-1.5 hours and normally held with groups of 8-12 individuals. Focus groups can be used at the preliminary or exploratory stages of a study, during a study, or after a study has been completed, to assess its impact or to generate further avenues of research. Although they can be used as a research method in their own right, it is best not to rely on focus groups alone, as the findings may be somewhat biased by the fact they involve a small number of people and the fact that the participants will not be a representative sample. They are better used to complement other methods and are extremely useful for triangulation and validity checking.

6

3. Development of the questionnaire The questionnaire was designed specifically for this project but was based on a Water Supply, Water Quality and Water Use survey piloted in the Nura and Ishim basins in March 2003.2 A draft of the questionnaire was produced in early September 2004 and discussed with a range of stakeholders including representatives from the Committee for Water Resources (CWR), the River Basin Organizations (RBOs), Vodokanals, Kazgiprovodkhoz, and the State Epidemiological and Sanitation Service who attended two round table meetings in mid and late September. Modifications to the questionnaire were made following these discussions. 3.1 Questionnaire design The questionnaire comprises 7 sections (A through G) each designed to explore different water related issues with relevance to the three components of the overall project (A copy of the final questionnaire is given in appendix 1). Section A Section A comprises base data to identify the location of the particular respondent. Section B Questions in Section B focuses on access to water and is used to determine the number of households with a piped water supply and where there is no piped supply the main source of water for household use. Where a piped water service is no longer operational it indicates when and why the system stopped working. Households where the CWSS (piped water supply) is functioning were asked a series of questions about whether their supply is metered and, if they are, how much water they use and the amount they pay for water.3 Households without meters are also asked how much they pay for water. Respondents were also asked a series of questions designed to explore issues of supply i.e. is it intermittent and the quality of the water provided. Households not connected to a CWSS (or the supply is no longer operational) are asked a series of questions regarding the main source of water for domestic use, how far they have to go for water, who is responsible for collecting water, whether it is available at all times, whether they have to treat this water before they use it and if they have to pay for water. Section C All respondents were asked a series of questions specifically focusing on drinking water. These questions explore the main sources of drinking water and whether or not it is potable. Importantly respondents were asked a series of questions on whether or not they purchase

2 An extensive questionnaire was designed as part of the DfiD funded Nura-Ishim River Basin Management Project. The questionnaire consisted of eight modules that focused on municipal, industrial and agricultural water use and was designed following an in-depth desk study and a series of semi-structured interviews and focus groups with a range of stakeholders within the two river basins. Each module explored a different aspect of water use in Kazakhstan and was designed so that the RBOs had a set of ready made questionnaires on which to base future social surveys. The questionnaire was piloted in the two basins in March 2003. In this study we have modified four of the modules which focus on drinking water, water for domestic use, sanitation and information sources. A copy of the full questionnaire can be found in the Nura-Ishim River Basin Management Project. Final Report, Volume 5, Social Surveys in Water Resources Management DfiD, CWR, January 2004. 3Households connected to the CWSS and who have a meter pay considerably less for their water than households without a meter. Given that metering is considered to be an essential component of a fully functional water supply system and an important tool in reducing water use more homes will be metered in the future. The implication of this is that revenues collected by the water authorities e.g. Vodokanal will fall. This will require new pricing policies to be implemented and could result n a significant increase in the cost of metered water.

7

water for drinking and if they do, why and how much they spend on this. These data are essential as they provide important insights as to the actual amount people spend on water and give an indication of how much people are able and willing to pay for good quality water. Section D Access to improved sanitation was explored through a series of questions on whether the household has a bath/shower and toilet in their house or yard and if not what facilities they use. Respondents were also asked a series of questions on health problems experienced by household members in the last 12 months and what they considered to be the cause of these illnesses e.g. poor environmental conditions, poor housing conditions, poor water quality etc. Section E In Section E of the questionnaire respondents were asked to provide an assessment of their current water supply and to state what they consider to be important in terms of water supply e.g. availability and/or quality of the supply. In addition interviewees were asked whether they would be willing to pay for improvements in water supply system and if so how much. Finally section E contained a number of questions which explore what role if any the public should play in water management issues. Section F Increasing public awareness of water related issues and activities will be essential if the MDGs are to be met. To ensure that people know what the MDGs are, what has been achieved and to encourage public participation in this process it recommended that the project includes some public awareness activities. Such activities must be appropriately targeted to ensure that as may people as possible are aware of how the goals will be achieved and progress to date. As such Section F of the questionnaire explores issues surrounding information sources and will be used to identify how best to target such information. Section G This final section of the questionnaire provides socio-economic details regarding the respondent and members of their household. It asks question regarding income, expenditure, education, housing and ethnicity. 3.2 Piloting of the questionnaire The questionnaire was administered by the Institute for Comparative Social Research (CESSI) which is based in Astana and has considerable experience undertaking large scale questionnaire surveys across Kazakhstan. The English version of the questionnaire was translated into Russian and Kazakh, and then back translated to ensure the quality of the translation. Before administering the questionnaire CESSI conducted a detailed but small-scale pilot with c 20 people in rural and urban communities in order to test the robustness of the questionnaire with respect to the wording and the order of the questions and the range of answers on multiple-choice questions. This was done by first administering the questionnaire to an individual and then going through it with the interviewee to ensure that they had understood the question and if not why not. Based on pilot a number of questions were changed and simplified.

8

3.3 The semi-structured interviews Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 198 people across Kazakhstan, with 110 being conducted with individuals living in urban settlements and 88 with rural residents (see table 2 Appendix 1 for the number and where interviews were conducted by oblast). The interview schedule followed the same themes explored by the questionnaire survey but provided an opportunity to explore these themes and issues in more details. In addition 42 interviews were conducted with employees of various organizations responsible for water management issues including river basin council specialists (11 interviews), oblast and city water providers (15 interviews) and NGOs, sanitation and epidemiology and Akhimat employees (17 interviews). 3.4 Focus groups A total of 18 focus groups were carried out in major cities, oblast centres and small towns during the course of the survey. Focus groups in Almaty, Taldykoorgan and Tekeli. during March 2005 and Aktobe, Aktau, Atyrau, Uralsk, Ust-Kamenogorsk, Semipalatinsk, Pavlodar, Kokchetav, Kostanai, Petropavlovsk, Temirtau, Taraz, Shymkent, and Kyzylorda in July 2005. Each group comprised 8 to 11 individuals who were selected to act as a representative population of the city/town. Discussions lasted for between 1 hour 15 minutes and 2 hours. As with the semi-structured interviews the themes explored followed the main themes explored by the questionnaire survey.

9

4. Administration of the questionnaire survey The questionnaire was administered in two phases. Phase one focused on the Balkhash-Alakol Basin and was undertaken during February- March 2005. Based on the findings from phase 1 of the survey further modifications to the questionnaire were made.4 In phase two the revised questionnaire was administered across the remainder of Kazakhstan. A total of 75155 questionnaires were administered across Kazakhstan; 1393 in Phase one of the survey (February-March 2005) and 6122 in Phase Two (May-August 2005). The questionnaire was administer in the main cities, all oblast centres and selected small towns and settlements across the Republic of Kazakhstan (Table 1)

Table 1. The number of respondents in each Oblast by settlement type City of

Republican Stranding

Oblast centre

Small town

Village Total

Astana 256 0 0 0 256 Akmola 0 90 85 201 376 Aktobe 0 150 35 152 337 Atyrau 0 85 46 98 229 East Kazakhstan 0 185 245 300 730 Zhambul 0 181 42 271 494 West Kazakhstan 0 100 30 173 303 Karaganda 0 285 272 111 668 Kostanai 0 126 122 210 458 Kyzylorda 0 126 56 123 305 Mangystau 0 80 53 42 175 Pavlodar 0 142 101 131 374 North Kazakhstan 0 100 24 214 338 South Kazakhstan 0 260 155 664 1079 Almaty* 0 83 150 570 803 Almaty City* 590 0 0 0 590 Kazakhstan 846 1993 1416 3260 7515

The administration of the questionnaires across the 14 Oblasts and the two cities of Republican standing (Astana and Almaty) was based on population with the breakdown of the number of people surveyed in different communities: major cities, oblast centres, urban and rural settlements being determined by the percentage of people within each Oblast living in different community types (Table 1). The questionnaire took between 20 and 60 minutes to administer. On average 10 questionnaires were administered in each survey section with the interviewee following a route map. In the survey section the interviewer selects a start point and knocked on the door of the house/apartment. If no one answered the interviewer knocks on the next door until s/he gets an interview. Having completed the interview the interviewer misses 5 apartments/houses in urban areas and 3 in rural area. So having undertaken an interview in apartment 5 the next apartment should be 11, and if it is

4 The report from the Balkash-Alakol basin can found at www.voda.kz.new/en/doc_pilot.php 5 Although a total of 7515 people were surveyed it is inevitable in a survey of this size that some information will have been lost during the data entry process. As such totals may not also add up to 7515.

10

a failed knock the next apartment, i.e. failure at apartment 5 then go to apartment 6. If more than one family live in the same apartment the left hand rule is applied – on entering the apartment the first left room is the desired family. The interviewer should conduct no more than 3 interviews in one apartment house

The findings from the questionnaire survey were coded and analysed using SPSS (version12) a statistical package for social scientist that is used for data management and analysis. It is widely used by social scientists, health researchers, market research companies and academics to explore and analyses questionnaire data.

11

5. The results of the social survey The questionnaire data was coded and input into SPSS for analysis. Although most of the questions remained unchanged between phases one and two of the questionnaire survey, the changes that had been made meant it was necessary to analyse the two data sets separately. Once analysed the results were in most cases merged. 5.1 Socio-economic details of the surveyed population. 5.1.1. The age and gender profile of the surveyed population

Of the 7515 people surveyed 4246 (56.5%) were women and 3267 (43.5%) were men (Table 2). However, women dominated the survey in all the urban centres with 75% of respondents in Astana being female. In contrast more men that women were interviewed in rural settlements.

Table 2. The number of men and women surveyed by settlement type

Female Male Astana 192 64 Almaty City 367 223 Oblast Centres 1375 617 Small towns 862 554 Rural settlements 1450 1799 Kazakhstan 4246 3257

The age of respondents ranged from 18-92 years6 with an average of 45.8 years. For women the age range was 18-92 years and the average was 46.1 yeas while for men the range was 18-89 years with an average of 45.6 years. The average age of the survey population by Oblast ranged from 39.5 years in the case of Aktobe to 49.5 years in East Kazakhstan (Table 3).

6 This figure is for the main survey only. In the pilot survey in the Balkhash-Alakol basin people as young as 16 were surveyed.

The average age of the surveyed population is c. 46 years. The survey population in the Northern Oblasts of

Kazakhstan is more aged

12

Table 3 The average age of survey population in each Oblast

Oblast Average

Age Astana City 45.3 Akmola 43.1 Aktobe 39.5 Atyrau 47.1 East Kazakhstan 49.5 Zhambul 47.6 West Kazakhstan 41.6 Karaganda 46.8 Kostanai 47.2 Kyzylorda 44.7 Mangystau 40.8 Pavlodar 46.6 North Kazakhstan 46.1 South Kazakhstan 45.3 Almaty 45.8 Almaty CIty 46.7 Kazakhstan 45.8

Figure 1 shows the percentage of respondents surveyed falling into different age categories by oblast. These data are used to provide some indication of age profile and the population dynamics of a given region although it should be noted that the questionnaire was only administered to individuals 18 and over. A quarter of the survey population was aged between 18 and 34 with 60% aged between 35 and 64 years a further 15% of the surveyed population being over 65 years of age. Figure 1

Age breakdown of the surveyed population

9%

16%

25%22%

13%

11%4%

18-24 years25-34 years35-44 years45-54 years55-64 years65-74 yearsgreater than 75 years

The age breakdown of the surveyed population at Oblast level is shown in figure 2. West Kazakhstan and Aktobe had highest percentage of respondents aged 18-24 years

13

accounting for c. 20% of the surveyed population. Oblasts displaying a somewhat older age profile are East Kazakhstan where c. 22% of the people surveyed were over 65 years of age, and Kostanai, Pavlodar and North Kazakhstan where the figure was c. 20% of the sample.7 The relatively large number of elderly people in these regions could be a reflection of out migration from these regions (see below) with younger people being the most likely to leave resulting in a more aged population. Figure 2

Age breakdown of surveyed population by Oblast

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Astana

Akmola

Aktobe

Atyrau

East K

azak

hstan

Zhambu

l

Wes

t Kaz

akhs

tan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

North K

azak

hstan

South

Kazak

hstan

Almaty

Almaty

City

greater than 75 years65-74 years55-64 years45-54 years35-44 years25-34 years18-24 years

Since 1991 Kazakhstan had experienced a significant fall in population with official figures indicating that between 1989 and 2003 the population fell from c. 16.2 million to less than 15 million (Table 4). Although there has been a slight recovery in population levels in the last few years it is yet to recover to its pre-independence level. Population loss in some areas has been extremely high, for example over 400,000 people have left the Karaganda region with Akmola, East Kazakhstan, Kostanai, Pavlodar and North Kazakhstan all experiencing a dramatic drop (c.25-30%)in the number of people living in the region (Table 4 and Fig. 3) A number of regions, however, have seen an increase in population. Astana for example has grown by over 220,000 people and is likely to grow further as it consolidates its position as the country’s capital. South Kazakhstan has also seen a huge influx of people with a net increase of c. 16%.

7 According to the statistical year book for Kazakhstan 2002, c. 6.7 % of the population was over the age of 65 years and c. 37% of the population is under the age of 20 (2001 figures). Over 65s as a percentage of population over the age of 19 is c. 11%.

According to official figures the population of Kazakhstan has fallen by c. 1.3 million since 1989.

The northern Oblast have seen the largest decline in population over this time.

14

Table 4 Population by Oblast in 1989 and 2003

Oblast Population

000s 1989

Population 000s 2003

Change in population

1989-2003

Population in 2003 as a %

of 1989

Astana 281.25 502.00 220.75 178.49 Akmola 1064.41 748.2 -316.21 70.29 Aktobe 732.65 668.3 -64.35 91.22 Atyrau 424.71 452.00 27.29 106.43 East Kazakhstan 1767.23 1466.00 -301.23 82.95 Zhambul 1038.67 979.5 -59.17 94.30 West Kazakhstan 629.49 601.9 -27.59 95.62 Karaganda 1745.45 1,333.6 -411.85 76.40 Kostanai 1223.84 919.1 -304.74 75.10 Kyzylorda 574.46 603.8 29.34 105.11 Mangystau 324.24 338.5 14.26 104.40 Pavlodar 942.31 748.7 -193.61 79.45 North Kazakhstan 912.07 682.1 -229.97 74.79 South Kazakhstan 1823.53 2,110.8 287.27 115.75 Almaty 1642.92 1,560.5 -82.42 94.98 Almaty City 1071.93 1,147.5 74.57 107.05 Kazakhstan 16199 14862 1337 91.75

Figure 3

Population change (by Oblast) between 1989 and 2003

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

Astana

Akmola

Aktobe

Atyrau

East Kazakhstan

Zhambul

West K

azakhstan

Karaganda

Kostanai

Kyzylorda

Mangystau

Pavlodar

North Kazakhstan

South Kazakhstan

Almaty

Almaty C

ity

in 1

000s

Population loss could continue to be an issue for certain parts of Kazakhstan. Over 11% of the surveyed population stated that it was their intention to move from the region that they

15

lived with the main reason cited being better job prospects elsewhere, difficult living conditions and harsh climate and poor water supply system and lack of sewage (Fig. 4).8 Figure 4

Reasons for wishing to move (n=766)

29%

12%

13%10%

4%

4%

4%

15%

9%

Better job opportunities elsewhere

Difficult living conditions and harsh climate

Bad water supply system and sewarage

No job opportunities

People are leaving

Lack of gas and electricity

To reunite family

Other

Difficult to answer

But in some areas notably West Kazakhstan this figure was considerably higher. Over 37% of the people surveyed in West Kazakhstan, c.22% in Aktobe and c. 19% in Kyzlyorda stated that it was their intention to move (Table 5). Although a lack of job opportunities and better employment prospects elsewhere are the main reason for people wishing to move, it is worth noting that poor water supply is an important factor in West Kazakhstan and Kyzylorda, while difficult living and harsh climate conditions are an important factor in Aktobe (Fig. 5). In contrast relatively few of the respondents from South Kazakhstan (1.85%) expressed a desire to move with the figures for Almaty, Astana and Atyrau also being relatively low (Table 4). People who stated that they intended to move were generally the younger respondents to the questionnaire. Nearly a quarter of all respondents aged between 18 and 25 said they wanted to move with the figure for the 25-34 age group being c 17%. As would be expected more elderly respondents are less likely to want to move. The situation in West Kazakhstan was even more marked. In this oblast c. 58% of 18-24 year olds and 55% of 25-35 years olds stated that they intended to move. Although the respondents are only stating an intention the fact that such a high percentage of the population want to leave the region indicates a high level of dissatisfaction with their current lifestyle and standard of living.

8 Respondents could give more reason for wishing to move. Here the data is based on their reason they stated first.

16

Figure 5

Reasons for wishing to leave (by oblast)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Astana

Akmola

Aktobe

Atyrau

East K

azak

hstan

Zhambu

l

West K

azak

hstan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

North K

azak

hstan

South

Kazak

hstan

Almaty

Almaty

City

Difficult to answer

Other

To reunite family

Lack of gas and electricity

People are leaving

No job opportunities

Bad water supply system and sewarage

Difficult living conditions and harsh climate

Better job opportunities elsewhere

Table 5. The percentage of respondents who stated that they intended to move

Oblast % intending to move

Astana 5.08 Akmola 13.30 Aktobe 21.96 Atyrau 5.68 East Kazakhstan 13.56 Zhambul 7.89 West Kazakhstan 37.62 Karaganda 9.73 Kostanai 13.10 Kyzylorda 18.69 Mangystau 16.00 Pavlodar 6.42 North Kazakhstan 7.99 South Kazakhstan 1.85 Almaty 4.11 Almaty City 8.14 Kazakhstan 11.16

17

5. 1.2. Household size

Household size ranged from 1 to 15 although more than 75% of households have 4 or less members. Nearly a thousand (c. 13%) people surveyed live alone with this percentage being considerably higher for urban settlements with over 20% of the surveyed households in oblast centres being single occupancy. The figure for rural settlements is considerably lower with slightly over 6% of respondents saying they live alone. The number of single occupancy households varied considerably across the country (Fig. 6). For example in Kyzylorda less than 3% of the households surveyed are occupied by a single person. Low levels of single occupancy households are also found amongst the surveyed populations in South Kazakhstan, Almaty and Zhambul. In marked contrast over 36% of the surveyed population in Atyrau report that they live alone. Significant numbers of single occupancy homes amongst the surveyed population are also noted in Mangystau, East Kazakhstan, and Almaty City (Table 6). Table 6 Percentage of single person households surveyed in each oblast Women are far more likely to live alone than men with 16.2% of all the women surveyed reporting that they live on their own compared to 8.5% of men. Significantly c. 60% of women who live on their own are over 55 years of age whereas men living alone tend to be younger.

13% of homes are single occupancy. Women are more likely to live alone and tend to be more

elderly.

Oblast % single household

Astana 16.41 Akmola 11.97 Aktobe 9.50 Atyrau 36.68 East Kazakhstan 19.73 Zhambul 7.49 West Kazakhstan 9.90 Karaganda 17.22 Kostanai 18.34 Kyzylorda 2.95 Mangystau 24.00 Pavlodar 16.31 North Kazakhstan 12.43 South Kazakhstan 4.36 Almaty 6.35 Almaty City 19.49 Kazakhstan 12.91

18

Table 7 The age range of single person households by gender

Age range9 Men % Women % 18-24 years 13 6.40 36 5.97 25-34 years 40 19.70 63 10.45 35-44 years 40 19.70 69 11.44 45-54 years 39 19.21 71 11.77 55-64 years 22 10.84 109 18.08 65-74 years 29 14.29 176 29.19 75 + years 20 9.85 79 13.10

Figure 6

Household size of surveyed population by Oblast

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Astana

Akmoli

nska

ya

Aktobe

Atyrau

Easter

n Kaz

akhs

tan

Zhambu

l

Wes

tern K

azak

hstan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

Northe

rn Kaz

akhs

tan

South

Kazak

hstan

Almati

nska

ya

Almaty

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Household size varied across settlement type. Households in Almaty are generally smallest in size with c.75% of the households surveyed having less than 3 people. Household size increases slightly in oblast centres and small towns, with the profile for Astana being similar to that of an oblast centre. Households in rural settlements are generally larger with just under 60% of the households surveyed having more than three people in the household.

9 The figures in this table do not include the data from the Balkhash-Alakol survey

19

Figure 7

Family size by settlement type

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Astana Almaty Oblast Centre Small town Rural settlement

10+

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Single storey private houses were the most common form of housing stock amongst the surveyed population with 58% of the people surveyed living in this type of accommodation (Fig. 8). A further 39 % of the surveyed population lives in multi-storey housing with this type of housing being more common in urban settlements. The vast majority of people (over 95%) own their homes. Figure 8

Main housing type occupied by surveyed population

58%

39%

1%

1%

1%

private housemulitystory houseCottagetwo-flat houseOther

5.1.3. Ethnic origin of surveyed population Over 50% of the people surveyed gave their ethnic origin as Kazakh with 33% indicating that they are Russian. The remaining respondents come from over 20 other different ethnic groups with significant minority groups including Ukrainians, Tatars, Germans and Uzbeks.

20

Figure 9

Ethnic origin of surveyed population

53%

31%

4%2% 1% 2% 4% 3%

Kazakh

Russian

Ukranian

Tatar

German

Uzbek

Other

Not specified

Figure 9 shows the ethnic breakdown of the surveyed population by oblast. Although Kazakhs make up c. 53% of the country as a whole in some Oblasts notably Aktobe, Atyrau, Kyzylorda and Mangystau Kazakhs made up over 80% of the surveyed population and are the dominant group in South Kazakhstan, Almaty, Zhambul, West Kazakhstan and Akmola. Russians are the dominant ethnic group in East Kazakhstan, Kostanai, North Kazakhstan and Karaganda. It is worth noting that the four oblasts where ethnic Russians are the largest population group are also the oblast that have seen the greatest loss of population and have the highest percentage of people aged over 65 years of age (Fig. 10). In East Kazakhstan, for instance, Russians, who make up c. 60% of the population of the oblast have an age profile that is considerably more aged than the Kazakh population (Fig. 11). A similar situation is also noted in other oblasts where Russians represent the majority. In Kostanai, for example, c. 24% of Russians surveyed are aged 65 or over compared to 13.2% of Kazakhs. The combined effect of out migration and an aged population is likely to result in a continued decline in population in these four oblasts in the foreseeable. This factor will clearly need to be taken into consideration when any decision over investments in the water sector is made.

21

Figure 10

Ethnic origin of respondents by oblast

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Astana

Akmoli

nska

ya

Aktobe

Atyrau

Easter

n Kaz

akhs

tan

Zhambu

l

Wes

tern K

azak

hstan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

Northe

rn Kaz

akhs

tan

South

Kazak

hstan

Almati

nska

ya

Almaty

Other

Uzbek

Uyger

German

Tatar

Ukranian

Russian

Kazakh

Figure 11

The age profile of Russian and Kazakh respondents in East Kazakhstan

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

18-24 24-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 +

The

num

ber o

f peo

ple

in a

giv

en a

ge ra

nge

as a

per

cent

age

of th

at g

roup

Russian

Kazakh

5.1.4. Occupation of surveyed population Just over half of the surveyed population is employed with a further 10% stating that they are unemployed. Pensioners make up just over 20% of the surveyed population with a further 12% of respondents stating that they are householders (Fig. 12).

22

Figure 12

Occupation of the surveyed population

51%

3%

21%

10%

12%1% 2%

works

study

pensioner

unemployed

household

invalid

Did not answer

The percentage of respondents employed in each oblast ranges from just under 40% in East Kazakhstan to c. 70% in Mangystau. Employment levels are lower than the average in North Kazakhstan, Pavlodar and Zhambul and higher than the average in Astana, Aktobe and West Kazakhstan. Kyzylorda and Zhabul and Almaty have the highest rate of unemployment amongst the surveyed population (Fig. 13). Figure 13

Occupation of survey respondents by Oblast

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Astana

Akmola

Aktobe

Atyrau

East K

azak

hstan

Zhambu

l

Wes

t Kaz

akhs

tan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

North K

azak

hstan

South

Kazak

hstan

Almaty

Almaty

City

Did not answer

invalid

household

unemployed

pensioner

study

works

23

5.1.5. Household income

Household incomes are generally low with nearly 20% of respondents giving their monthly household income as less than 10,000 tenge (c. $75) (Fig. 14). The majority of respondents reported household incomes of between 20,000 and 30,000 (c. $150-225). Only 12% percent of respondents said that their household income was greater than 30,000, with this figure falling to 3% for monthly household income of more than 50,000 tenge. It should be noted, however, that a significant percentage of respondents were either unable or unwilling to answer this question. Figure 14

Household income of surveyed population (n=6122)

5%14%

17%

19%

18%

9%

3%

15%

less than 5000 tenge

5001-10000 tenge

10001-15000 tenge

15001-20000 tenge

20001-30000 tenge

30001-50000 tenge

over 50000 tenge

difficult to answer

In the pilot survey in Almaty and Almaty city the income categories were set at a lower level with the upper category being 20000 tenge or greater. Based on the findings of the pilot the income categories were increased upwards. As a result the figures shown in figure 14 do not include the date from Almaty and Almary City. Reported household income is lowest in Zhambul and North Kazakhstan with c. 33-34% of respondents stating that monthly household income is less than 10,000 tenge and c. 75% having an income of less than 20,000 tenge (Fig. 15). Over 50% of respondents stated that their household income is less than 20,000 in Akmola, East Kazakhstan, Karaganda, Kostanai, Pavlodar and South Kazakhstan. Incomes appear to be higher in Astana, Atyrau and Mangystau although it should be noted that in all 3 oblasts the number of respondents who were unwilling or unable to answer this question is very high.

The majority of respondents to the survey report a monthly household income of between 20,000 and

30,000 tenge

24

Figure 15

Monthly household income (tenge) by Oblast

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Astana

Akmola

Aktobe

Atyrau

East K

azak

hstan

Zhambu

l

Wes

t Kaz

akhs

tan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

North K

azak

hstan

South

Kazak

hstan

Don't know

over 50000

30001-50000

20001-30000

15001-20000

10001-15000

5001-10000

less than 5000

Income levels in urban areas is generally much higher than those in rural areas. For example, nearly 70% of the respondents who stated that their monthly household income is less than 5,000 tenge live in rural settlements. The percentage of people earning between 5,000 and 20,000 tenge is relatively consistent with people living in rural settlements generally making up 50% of each group. The number of respondents in rural settlements having monthly household incomes greater than 20,000 decreases quite markedly with less than 20% of respondents from such settlements reporting incomes greater than 50,000 tenge (Fig. 16). Figure 16

Reported monthly hosuehold income by settlement type (tenge)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

less than 5000 5001-10000 10001-15000 15001-20000 20001-30000 30001-50000 over 50000 difficult to answer

Rural settlement

Small town

Oblast centre

Astana

In addition to direct income sources many households have access to indirect sources of income. The most important one being produce grown on garden plots and at dachas.

25

Nearly 54% of all households surveyed have access to a garden plot, although this figure ranges from as little as 7.4% in Mangystau Oblast to over 80% in North Kazakhstan. Relatively few people living in the two major cities, Almaty and Astana, have a garden plot while in South Kazakhstan, Almaty, and Zhambul the figure is over 70% (Table 8).

Table 8 Percentage of households with a garden plot by oblast

Oblast Yes No % of households

with a garden

plot Astana 56 200 21.9 Akmola 214 162 56.9 Aktobe 120 217 35.6 Atyrau 38 191 16.6 East Kazakhstan 443 287 60.7 Zhambul 355 139 71.9 West Kazakhstan 169 134 55.8 Karaganda 237 431 35.5 Kostanai 303 155 66.2 Kyzylorda 90 215 29.5 Mangystau 13 162 7.4 Pavlodar 230 144 61.5 North Kazakhstan 280 58 82.8 South Kazakhstan 801 278 74.2 Almaty 626 177 78.0 Almaty City 80 510 13.6 Kazakhstan 4055 3460 53.96

People living in rural settlements are most likely to have a garden plot with over 80% of respondents in such communities reporting that they have one. This figure falls quite sharply in urban areas, although people living in smaller urban settlements are more likely to have access to a garden plot compared with respondents living in Oblast centres and the main cities (Fig. 17).

26

Figure 17

Percent of households in each settlement type with a garden plot

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Major city Oblast centre Small town Village

Perc

ent

Garden plots are clearly important to households and in many instances represent a significant source of indirect income in that food products grown on them provide a significant proportion of the households food requirements. Of the 4055 people surveyed who said that they had a garden plot nearly a third said it provided between 20 and 40% of all their household food requirements with a further c. 33% saying it provided more than 40% of their requirements (Fig. 18). Figure 18

Percent of food derived from garden plot (n=4055)

23%

32%21%

9%

3%

12%

less than 20%20-40%40-60%60-80%over 80%Don't know

At the oblast level it is evident that people living in some regions of Kazakhstan are more reliant on the food produced on their garden plots than other regions (Fig. 19). In North Kazakhstan for example, over 80% of respondents have a garden plot which in over 60% of cases provides over 40% of the household’s food requirements and for c. 25% of

27

respondents 60% of their food requirements. Other oblasts where the garden plots are important are Almaty, East Kazakhstan, and Pavlodar. Figure 19

Percent of food derived from garden plot (by Oblast)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Astana

Akmola

Aktobe

Atyrau

East K

azak

hstan

Zhambu

l

Wes

t Kaz

akhs

tan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

North K

azak

hstan

South

Kazak

hstan

Almaty

Almaty

City

Don't knowover 80%60-80%40-60%20-40%less than 20%

It was evident from the survey, however, that it is people living in rural settlements that rely most on their garden plots. Of the c. 80% of respondents living in rural areas who have access to a garden plot just under 60% said it provided more that 40% of their food needs with c. 40% of this group reporting that their garden plots provided between 60 and 80% of all their household’s food needs (Fig. 20). Thus while people in rural settlements generally have lower income levels than respondents living in urban areas, this is off set to some point by the fact that their garden plots often represent a significant indirect income stream. This fact is made clear by a number of interviewees in rural areas who highlight the importance of the garden plots to the local population and moreover the problems that result if there is a shortage of water.

‘You can’t live without water. A lot of people were unable to plant a garden this year as there is no water and it is expensive to buy. People do not have food. Living standards are falling and it is expensive to buy vegetables. It appears that people can not grow their own but have to buy imported products….there won’t be any settlement without water.’

(Female interviewee, rural Pavlodar) In other areas it is possible to have water delivered so that garden plots can be cultivated as on rural resident in North Kazakhstan noted

‘We buy water from a water truck, 2-3 times a month for watering and for cattle in the summer. We buy 3000 liters each time and it cost 500 tenge.’ (Female interviewee, rural North Kazakhstan)

28

Figure 20

Percent of food derived from garden plot by settlement type

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Major city Oblast centre Small town Village

difficult to answerover 80%60-80%40-60%20-40%less than 20%

29

6. Access to a piped water supply across the Republic of Kazakhstan

6.1 The general situation

The number of households surveyed with a working piped water system (or CWSS) is shown in table 9 and figure 21. Across the country as a whole c 55.1% of respondents reported that their home was served by a CWSS, although this figure varied considerably between oblasts from less than 23% of surveyed population in North Kazakhstan to nearly 95% in Almaty City. A further 4.4 % of the households surveyed indicated that although they are connected to a CWSS that it is no longer working. The number of households who reported that their CWSS no longer functions ranged from no loss of connection in the Aktobe Oblast to nearly 16 % of surveyed households in the Kostanai Oblast while in South Kazakhstan c. 9% of respondents reported that their CWSS is no longer operational.

Table 9. The percentage of households surveyed with an operational CWSS

Oblast

Yes

No

Connected, but no longer functioning

Total

% of households in

Oblasts connected to a working CWSS

Astana 235 20 1 256 91.7 Akmola 174 191 11 376 46.3 Aktobe 180 157 0 337 53.4 Atyrau 197 30 2 229 86.0 East Kazakhstan 452 254 24 730 61.9 Zhambul 212 253 29 494 42.9 West Kazakhstan 91 211 1 303 30.0 Karaganda 549 94 25 668 82.2 Kostanai 208 177 73 458 45.5 Kyzylorda 167 137 1 305 54.7 Mangystau 113 57 5 175 64.6 Pavlodar 207 166 1 374 55.3 North Kazakhstan 77 235 26 338 22.8 South Kazakhstan 510 474 95 1,079 47.3 Almaty 209 593* 1* 803 26.1 Almaty City 561 28 1 590 94.9 Kazakhstan 4142 3077 295 7515 55.1

* During the pilot survey people living in rural settlements of the Almaty Oblast (570 respondents) were not asked if they had had piped water but it was no longer operational. The figure of 593 is thus based on the assumption that no homes if a respondent did not reply positively to the question about piped water they had never had piped water.

55.1% of households in Kazakhstan have a working piped water supply.

30

Figure 21

Percentage of households survey connected to a CWSS- by Oblast

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Astana

Akmoli

nska

ya

Aktobe

Atyrau

Easter

n Kaz

akhs

tan

Zhambu

l

Wes

tern K

azak

hstan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

Northe

rn Kaz

akhs

tan

South

Kazak

hstan

Almati

nska

ya

Almaty

Connected, but no longer functioning No Yes

6.2.1 The level of connection in Urban Settlements

The level of connections across the different settlement types varies considerably. For example, the questionnaire survey indicated that the level of household connection in Kazakhstan’s two main cities as well as the 14 Oblast centres is high with over 90% of the people surveyed reporting that their home is connected to a CWSS. Uralsk, the Oblast centre for West Kazakhstan reported the lowest level of connection with only 68 % of the households surveyed indicating that they have a functioning CWSS. Two Oblast centres, Aktau (Mangystau) and Shymkent (South Kazakhstan) have 100% connections rates. Significantly the number of households who reported that their CWSS is no longer functioning is extremely small with only 7 of the 1983 people surveyed who live in Oblast centres across Kazakhstan reporting that they have lost their connection to the CWSS (Table 10).

91% of households in cities of republican standing and oblast centres have a working piped water supply.

73% of households in small urban settlements have a working

piped water supply.

31

Table 10 Percentage of surveyed households in Oblast centres with a working CWSS

Oblast Yes No Yes, connected,

but no longer operational

Total % of households

Connected to a working CWSS

Astana 235 20 1 256 91.70 Akmola 73 17 0 90 81.11 Aktobe 148 2 0 150 98.67 Atyrau 83 0 2 85 97.65 East Kazakhstan 182 3 0 185 98.38 Zhambul 162 17 2 181 89.50 West Kazakhstan 68 32 0 100 68.00 Karaganda 274 10 1 285 96.14 Kostanai 97 28 1 126 76.98 Kyzylorda 114 12 0 126 90.48 Mangystau 80 0 0 80 100.00 Pavlodar 108 34 0 142 76.06 North Kazakhstan 77 23 0 100 77.00 South Kazakhstan 260 0 0 260 100.00 Almaty 62 20 1 83 74.70 Almaty City 561 28 1 590 94.90 Total 2584 246 9 2839 91.02 Table 11 Percentage of households surveyed in small towns with a working CWSS

Oblast Yes No Yes, connected, but

no longer operational

Total % of households

connected to a working

CWSS Akmola 56 24 5 85 65.88 Aktobe 27 8 0 35 77.14 Atyrau 46 0 0 46 100.00 East Kazakhstan 195 50 0 245 79.59 Zhambul 20 1 21 42 47.62 West Kazakhstan 23 6 1 30 76.67 Karaganda 256 14 2 272 94.12 Kostanai 111 9 2 122 90.98 Kyzylorda 27 29 0 56 48.21 Mangystau 32 18 3 53 60.38 Pavlodar 77 24 0 101 76.24 North Kazakhstan 0 24 0 24 0.00 South Kazakhstan 85 18 52 155 54.84 Almaty 82 68 0 150 54.67

Total 1037 293 86 1416 73.23 Approximately, 73% of households surveyed in small urban settlements are connected to a CWSS with the level of connection ranging from no connections in the case of North Kazakhstan to 100% connection in the Atyrau oblast. In both these cases, however, the

32

figures are based on the findings from a single urban settlement. In most cases, however, the level of connection is between 50 and 80% (Table 11). The number of households where the CWSS has been lost is considerably higher than for Oblast centres with nearly 6% of the households surveyed reporting their piped water system no longer works. Much of this change is accounted for by the loss of connection in two oblasts: South Kazakhstan and Zhambul. Over a third (52) of the households surveyed in small urban centres in south Kazakhstan report that their CWSS no longer functions, while in Zhambul the figure is 50% (Table 11). 6.2.2. The level of connection in rural settlements

Although urban settlements generally have a high level of service provision with respect to piped water supply, the same can not be said for rural settlements across Kazakhstan. Of the 3260 households surveyed in rural settlements 521 or c. 20.5 % are connected to a CWSS. In three Oblasts, West Kazakhstan, Kostanai and North Kazakhstan none of the households surveyed are connected. At the other end of the spectrum nearly 70% of rural households surveyed in Atyrau report that their home has piped water. In most oblasts, however, the level of connection is less than 20%. Just over 200 (7.5%) people surveyed in rural settlements report that their CWSS is no longer operational with 6 oblasts accounting for most of this figure. In Kostanai, for example, a third of the people surveyed who live in rural settlements report that they have lost their CWSS while in the Almaty oblast c. 20% of the rural population surveyed report that their piped water supply is no longer functioning. The vast majority of people living in rural settlements, however, have never had a piped water supply and rely on other sources for their water. Table 12 Percentage of households surveyed in rural settlements with a working

CWSS

Oblast

Yes

No

Yes, connected, but no longer operational

% of households

connected to working CWSS

Akmola 45 150 6 22.39 Aktobe 5 147 0 3.29 Atyrau 68 30 0 69.39 East Kazakhstan 75 201 24 25.00 Zhambul 30 235 6 11.07 West Kazakhstan 0 173 0 0.00 Karaganda 19 70 22 17.12 Kostanai 0 140 70 0.00 Kyzylorda 26 96 1 21.14 Mangystau 1 39 2 2.38 Pavlodar 22 108 1 16.79 North Kazakhstan 0 188 26 0.00 South Kazakhstan 165 456 43 24.85 Almaty 65 505 - 11.40 Total 521 2538 201 20.52

An estimated 20.5% of households in rural areas have a working piped water supply.

33

6.2.3 When households in urban and rural settlements lost their piped water supply.

Although a few people report that their CWSS stopped functioning prior to independence in 1991, the vast majority who were able to state when their piped water stopped said it had done so in the last 5-10 years (Fig 22). Although the rate of disconnection has slowed down it is clear that the system is continuing to deteriorate with c. 18% of respondents who reported a lost connection to their home saying that it had occurred in the last 5 years. Figure 22

Number of years since piped water supply stopped functioning

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

less than a year from 1 to 3 years from 3 to 5 years from 5 to 10 years more than 10 years difficult to answer

Num

ber o

f res

pond

ents

HomeUrban district/settlement

These data are supported by information provided by focus groups and the semi-structured interviews. As one interviewee from the Akmola oblast commented

‘ …there once was a water pipeline. It worked until 1995 but, everything collapsed with the breakdown of the collective farm.’ (Female interviewee, Rural Akmola)

Similar comments were made by numerous rural residents from the Kostanai Oblast. ‘ There was a pipeline , a long time ago, some 10 years ago.’ (Male interviewee, Rural Kostanai)

There is a pipeline, but it has not been working for 5 years. The house was connected and it is connected now, but the water pipeline

Most respondents who report that their piped water supply is no longer functioning said it collapsed between 5 and 10

years ago. Rural communities have been most adversely affected by the

collapse of piped water systems.

34

is not functioning. The settlement is collapsing. People leave and the authorities have changed and abandoned everything’

(Male interviewee, Rural Kostanai). 6.2.4.. Summary of the level of piped water in the home across Kazakhstan

Table 13 presents an estimate of the number of people in Kazakhstan as a whole and by oblast with and without a piped water supply in their home. Approximately 8.2 million people have piped water in their homes with 6.7 million people getting water from other sources. Table 13. The estimated number of people with and without a piped water supply

in their home

Oblast Population 000s

% of households with piped

water

Population with piped

water (000s)

Population without piped water (000s)

Astana 502.0 91.7 460.3 41.7 Akmola 748.2 46.3 346.4 401.8 Aktobe 668.3 53.4 356.9 311.4 Atyrau 452.0 86.0 388.7 63.3 East Kazakhstan 1466.0 61.9 907.5 558.5 Zhambul 979.5 42.9 420.2 559.3 West Kazakhstan 601.9 30.0 180.6 421.3 Karaganda 1333.6 82.2 1096.2 237.4 Kostanai 919.1 45.5 418.2 500.9 Kyzylorda 603.8 54.7 330.3 273.5 Mangystau 338.5 64.6 218.7 119.8 Pavlodar 748.7 55.3 414.0 334.7 North Kazakhstan 682.1 22.8 155.5 526.6 South Kazakhstan 2110.8 47.3 998.4 1112.4 Almaty 1560.5 26.1 407.3 1153.2 Almaty City 1147.5 94.9 1089.0 58.5 Kazakhstan 14862.0 55.1 8188.2 6673.8

6.2.5. Access to piped water in the urban district/settlement.

An estimated 8.2 million people across Kazakhstan have a working piped water supply in their home.

Circa 18% of households without a piped water supply in their home have access to piped water in their urban

district/settlement

35

Although many of the households surveyed do not have a working piped water in their homes it is not unusual for urban districts and rural settlements to be supplied by piped water and for people to collect this from individual and communal standpipes and water points. Respondent who had never had a piped water supply in their home or whose supply no longer operated were asked about the water supply in their urban district/settlement (table 14). Over 23% of respondents in this category stated that they were served by piped water with the level of provision at the urban district/settlement level being over 40% in Kyzylorda, East Kazakhstan and Almaty. Notable, however, is the fact that nearly 600 people responded that they had had piped water in the past, but that it no longer functioned. Oblasts that had a high percentage of respondents reporting failure of piped water supply include Zhambul, Kostanai and North Kazakhstan. But, most respondents in this category - 1949 individuals- (c. 59% of this category and c. 26% of the survey population as a whole) stated that their urban district/settlement had never been connected to a CWSS.

Table 14 Percentage of people in each oblast without piped water in their home but with a piped water supply in their urban district/settlement

Oblast Yes % No % Yes, but

not functioning

%

Astana 13 61.90 8 38.10 0 0.00 Akmola 61 30.35 125 62.19 15 7.46 Aktobe 7 4.46 149 94.90 1 0.64 Atyrau 1 3.13 30 93.75 1 3.13 East Kazakhstan 114 41.01 133 47.84 31 11.15 Zhambul 7 2.48 181 64.18 94 33.33 West Kazakhstan 7 3.30 204 96.23 1 0.47 Karaganda 8 6.72 80 67.23 31 26.05 Kostanai 14 5.60 151 60.40 85 34.00 Kyzylorda 71 51.45 55 39.86 12 8.70 Mangystau 2 3.23 54 87.10 6 9.68 Pavlodar 37 22.16 130 77.84 0 0.00 North Kazakhstan 20 7.66 100 38.31 141 54.02 South Kazakhstan 117 20.56 385 67.66 67 11.78 Almaty 295 51.80 164 28.80 111 19.50 Kazakhstan 774 23.32 1949 58.72 596 17.95

6.2.6. Summary of the level of access to a piped water supply across Kazakhstan For the survey as a whole, 55.1 % of respondents have a piped water supply in their home. An additional 10.3% are served by piped water at the level of urban district/settlement. Taken together this means that c. 65% of the surveyed population has a piped water supply. Moreover a total of 653 (8.8%) respondents said that they had been connected to a piped water supply in the past but this had now failed.10 This suggests that when the system was fully functional nearly 75% of the survey population was served by a piped water supply. Significantly it is the rural sector that has been primarily affected by the breakdown in the water supply system with most of the reported collapse in the water supply system being in rural settlements.

10 The data has been analysed to ensure that respondents whose home and urban district/settlement had been cut were not double counted in the analysis.

36

6.3 Main sources of water for households without a piped water supply 6.3.1. The main source of water for households without a piped water supply.

Nearly 45% of the people surveyed do not have a piped water supply in their home and rely on a range of other sources for water. Of this group c.48% reported that they obtain their water from an individual (private) standpipe with hand and electric pump standpipes representing the two most common types (Fig. 23). A further 29% of the households surveyed obtain their water from common (public) standpipes serving a number of households with communal hand pumps serving nearly a quarter of the households falling into this category. Open water sources are also important with 8% of the surveyed population taking their water from rivers, springs, lakes and irrigation canals. A similar number of people (8%) are reliant on water that is delivered to their settlement. Figure 23

Main source of water for households without a CWSS- Republic of Kazakhstan (n=3328)

2% 3% 1%

24%

4%

12%1%9%

9%

17%

6%2%

8%

2%

0%common open pump

common reservoir for water

common stand pump with electric pump

common standpump

Common well with sucker-rod pump

individual open well

individual reservoir for water

individual standpump

individual well with electric pump

individual well with sucker-rod pump

spring, river or lake

aryk, channel

delivered water

Other

don't know

The situation at oblast level does vary however (Fig. 24). The Kostanai, Akmola, Pavlodar, and Almaty Oblasts have a large number of households without a CWSS being dependent on common standpipes, while other oblasts such as South Kazakhstan, Kyzylorda, West

Approximately 48% of households without a piped water supply in their home take their water from an individual ‘private’

standpipe. An estimated half a million people across Kazakhstan get their

water delivered by tanker.

37

Kazakhstan and East Kazakhstan have a greater percentage of households being served by individual standpipes. Open water sources, such as river and lakes are important in West Kazakhstan and Almaty, while delivered water is important in Pavlodar, North Kazakhstan, South Kazakhstan and Almaty. Figure 24

Main source of water for households not connected to a CWSS (By Oblast)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Astana

Akmola

Aktobe

Atyrau

East K

azak

hstan

Zhambu

l

West K

azak

hstan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

North K

azak

hstan

South

Kazak

hstan

Almaty

don't know

Other

delivered water

aryk, channel

spring, river or lake

common reservoir for water

individual reservoir for water

common open pump

common stand pump with electric pump

Common well with sucker-rod pump

individual open well

individual well with electric pump

individual well with sucker-rod pump

common standpump

individual standpump

Table 15 provides an estimate of the number of people in each oblast who get their water from sources other than a piped connection in their home. These figures are based on the percentage of people surveyed who get their water from a particular source and the estimated population in each oblast not connected to a piped supply. Population figures are based on the official population records for 2003. These figures provide an indication of the number of people reliant of different sources and as such provide important information for the development of an overall water strategy for the country. For example it is estimated that over 1 million people get their water from open sources, rivers, aryks or get their water delivered and as such do not have access to safe water under the UN definition. Table 15 Estimates of the number of people who get their water from different sources

Oblast Estimated population

without piped water

individual stand pump

common stand pump

individual well with sucker-

rod pump

individual well with electric pump

Astana 41666 4167 35416 0 0 Akmola 401783 10095 151426 26247 72684 Aktobe 311428 59029 105845 6106 14248 Atyrau 63280 0 0 0 0 East Kazakhstan 558546 44361 96788 137116 143165 Zhambul 559295 89249 63466 117016 59499 West Kazakhstan 421330 11924 43723 115270 47698 Karaganda 237381 1995 91761 59844 35906 Kostanai 500910 10058 181052 22129 78456 Kyzylorda 273521 78436 84470 4022 0

38

Mangystau 119829 7731 0 3865 3865 Pavlodar 334669 4057 144009 18255 28396 North Kazakhstan 526581 40506 66835 40506 46582 South Kazakhstan 1123392 1978 89001 488517 67245 Almaty 1153210 242060 486403 41105 4567 Almaty City 58523 0 0 0 0 Kazakhstan 6685344 605646 1640195 1079998 602314

Table 15 continued.

Oblast Individual open well

Common well with sucker

rod

Common well with electric pump

Common open pump

Individual reservoir for water

Astana 0 0 0 0 0 Akmola 42399 2019 18171 4038 0 Aktobe 101774 0 10177 14248 0 Atyrau 61239 0 0 0 0 East Kazakhstan 108886 2016 4033 6049 2016 Zhambul 41650 11900 23800 9917 0 West Kazakhstan 41736 1987 1987 1987 5962 Karaganda 27927 0 0 0 0 Kostanai 38222 6035 18105 2012 28164 Kyzylorda 32179 2011 0 2011 12067 Mangystau 46385 0 0 5798 1933 Pavlodar 12170 0 0 8113 2028 North Kazakhstan 62785 52658 6076 34430 16202 South Kazakhstan 89001 98890 0 9889 17800 Almaty 61657 68508 0 13702 4567 Almaty City 0 0 0 0 0 Kazakhstan 768009 246025 82350 112195 90740

Table 15 continued

Oblast common reservoir

for water

spring, river or

lake

aryk, channel

delivered water

Other

Astana 0 0 0 2083 0 Akmola 0 2019 2019 66627 0 Aktobe 0 0 0 0 0 Atyrau 0 0 0 0 0 East Kazakhstan 0 10082 2016 0 2016 Zhambul 0 51566 89249 1983 0 West Kazakhstan 0 141106 1987 0 3975 Karaganda 0 0 0 13964 5984 Kostanai 2012 2012 2012 82479 28164 Kyzylorda 0 0 2011 28157 22123 Mangystau 0 13529 0 30924 0 Pavlodar 12170 2028 0 99387 4057 North Kazakhstan 44557 14177 0 87088 10127

39

South Kazakhstan 148335 1978 19778 59334 29667 Almaty 0 148433 0 82209 0 Almaty City 0 0 0 0 58523 Kazakhstan 207074 386930 119073 554235 164635

6.3.2. Distance to the nearest water supply for domestic use

Nearly 70% of the households surveyed that do not have a piped water connection in their home have a water supply within 100 m and 41% said they have to go less than 20 m for their nearest water source (Fig. 25). But for a significant number of households (25%) the nearest water source is over 100 m from their home and 7 % (c 200 households surveyed) of the surveyed population do not have a domestic water supply within 500 m of their home. Unfortunately a technical error in the pilot survey in the Balkhash-Alakol Basin means that we only have data on how far people go for water for the 570 people surveyed in rural settlements. As a result 119 people living in Almaty and the other urban centres surveyed in this basin are missing from this analysis. Figure 25

Distance households without piped water go to collect water for domestic use in the Republic of Kazakhstan (n=xxx)

41%

16%

10%

8%

6%

4%4%

3%8%

Less than 20 m

20-50m

50-100 m

100-200m

200-300m

300-500m

500-1000m

over 1000 m

do not know

Access to water does, however, vary across Kazakhstan (Fig. 26). For example the percentage of households with a domestic water source within 20 m of their home ranged from just over 10 % in Atyrau to 60% in East Kazakhstan. At the other end of the spectrum over 55% of the households surveyed in Mangystau had to go more than 100 m for their water while in north Kazakhstan the figure was nearly 50%. In both these Oblasts a significant percentage of the people surveyed who did not have piped water in their home had to go more than a 1000 m for water. But while the vast majority of people who rely on

Nearly 70% of households without piped water have a water supply within 100 m of their home.

40

such sources have a water supply relatively close to hand it does not mean that getting water is an easy chore and even having a pump in the yard can be problematic. As one rural resident from West Kazakhstan noted

‘It is hard, even though the well is in the yard. In the winter we have to dress up and it is hard to pump (the water).’

The problems posed by winter conditions were a major cause for concern amongst people in both rural and urban settlements who do not have piped water. A number of interviewees who live in settlements reliant on imported water for instances were keen to stress the fact that water deliveries are often not possible in the winter months. During such periods people have to use snow for their water and as one interviewee noted

‘It is also a problem with water in the winter. We use water from melted snow or from ice-holes…..some households take water from the so called ‘pull-out’ reservoirs where water from melted snow and groundwater flows.’

(Male interviewee, rural West Kazakhstan) The situation for people in urban areas is often no better and for many households the distance that they have to go and the number of households that are served by a pump creates many problems.

‘Of course we are tired of going to the pump to get water. It is not very close to our house….(the pump is) 200 m away from the house and serves 50 homes. It is all icy around the pump in winter. We have to break the ice. The access to water is nearly frozen. (Female interviewee, Uralsk City) ‘There is a huge problem getting water in the winter time. Standpipes are always frozen or broken. You have to get water with an axe.’ (Male interviewee, Semipalatinsk City)

Figure 26

Distance surveyed households go for water for domestic use (by Oblasts)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Astana

Akmoli

nska

ya

Aktobe

Atyrau

Easter

n Kaz

akhs

tan

Zhambu

l

Wes

tern K

azak

hstan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

Northe

rn Kaz

akhs

tan

South

Kazak

hstan

do not knowover 1000 m500-1000m300-500m200-300m 100-200m50-100 m20-50mLess than 20 m

41

6.3.3. Means of getting water

Most people without a piped water supply in their home collect their water on foot, but as the distance to source increases other

forms of transport are used. The vast majority of people go by foot to collect water, although a large number of households use a cart to help them carry it back to their homes. A small, but significant number of households collect their water using a cart and horse or a car (Fig. 27). In general the further people have to travel for water the less likely they are to walk. For example, while over 90% of respondents with a water source within 20 m of their home walk to get their water less than 50% do so when the distance to their water sources is more than 50 m. Relatively few people walk for water once the distance to the source exceeds 500 m with most respondents having to go more than 1000 m using a car (Table 17). Most households that collect water do so at least once a day with a significant number of households doing so 2 or 3 times a day. The majority of people collect 20 or 40 liters of water on each occasion, although many householders collect more- this is especially true of those individuals who have to travel further to get water (fig. 28). Although most people collect their water on foot as the amount of water collected goes above 40 liters other means of transport are used. People collecting large volumes of water on each occasion, more than 100 liters, generally use a car, however, according to the survey 55 people collected this amount on foot. Figure 27

Main means by which people go for water and the distance they have to go

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

less than 20m

20-50 50-100 100-200 200-300 300-500 500-1000 Over 1000 m Don't know

Other

Don't know

by car

with cart on horse

with cart

by bicycle

by foot

42

Figure 28

The amount of water collected each visit (by Oblast)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Astana

Akmoli

nska

ya

Aktobe

Atyrau

Easter

n Kaz

akhs

tan

Zhambu

l

Wes

tern K

azak

hstan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

Northe

rn Kaz

akhs

tan

South

Kazak

hstan

do not knowover 100 litre100 litre

80 litre

60 litre40 litre

20 litre10 litres

Table 15. The amount of water people collect (liters) each time they go for water

and the means of getting water

Means of transport

10 litres

20 litres

40 litres

60 litres

80 litres

100 litres

Over 100 litres

Don’t know

On foot 334 575 430 88 69 40 55 174 By bicycle 4 2 9 4 2 2 0 6 With cart 10 52 334 59 86 36 18 10 Horse/cart 0 7 8 11 6 14 19 0 By car 1 1 11 5 10 11 86 10 Other 17 3 19 3 3 3 36 6

Don’t know 2 1 7 1 1 0 9 41 Total 366 641 818 171 177 106 223 247

The time it actually takes to get water is obviously an important issue. In 50% of cases people spend 10 minutes or less on this job. A further c 30 % of respondents spend between 10 and 30 minutes collecting water, while 11% of respondents reported that it takes 30 or more minutes to complete this task. Although the amount of time it takes to get water varies considerably between oblasts, in that over 40% of respondents in Zhambul oblast have access within 5 minutes compare to c. 10% of people surveyed in Akmola oblast, in general c.70-80% of people without a CWSS in their home spend 30 minutes or less each time they collect water. The major exception to this situation is the Mangystau Oblast where over 50% of the households surveyed reported that it took over 30 minutes to go for water with c. 40% saying it took more than an hour. The time it takes, however, can be very variable and depends not only on distance to the source but access once you get their. In situations when many people are served by a single supply the time spent queuing can be significant. This fact was highlighted in a number of interviews with the following typifying a number of responses from interviewees.

‘My husband brings five water bottles (40 liters each) by car. Its 2 km to the water tower and he goes 1-2 times a week. If the queue is not

43

long it takes about 30 minutes, but if there are many people it can take over an hour.’

(Female interviewee, rural North Kazakhstan) 6.2.4. Assessment of the level of physical access to water for households without piped water.

As discussed, in this study access to ‘safe’ water is taken as having access to an improved water source including household connections, public standpipes, boreholes, protected wells, protected spring and rainwater collection capable of providing 20 litres per capita per day at a distance of no more than a 100 metres. Water taken from open sources, unprotected wells and delivered water is not acceptable. Based on this definition 1,315 of the surveyed households (c. 17.5 %) do not have access to a ‘safe’ water supply. This figure is derived from the number of people who have to go more than 100 m for their water together with the number of people who get their water from unprotected sources such as common reservoirs, rivers, aryks and delivered water.11 These data have been used to provide an estimate of the number of people in each oblast and Kazakhstan as a whole who do not have access to a ‘safe’ water supply within 100 m of their home. For the country as a whole c. 2.6 million people do not met the minimum standard for acceptable access to water. It is debatably, however, whether even 100 m is an acceptable distance to go for water, particularly during the winter months. The climate of the northern part of Kazakhstan, for example, is strongly continental and is characterised by long cold winters and short hot summers. The coldest month is January when temperatures average -18°C, and can fall to as low as -40 to -45 °C. The winter months also witness a significant number of windy days with about 50% having a wind speed of 4-8 m/s. As a result snow storms and ground blizzards are recorded on c. 80 days during the winter period. People interviewed in these regions commented at length on the issues and noted that while they might not have to go far to reach their nearest standpipe, during the winter standpipes often froze and they would have to go and search for water. Moreover, the area around the standpipe is frequently icy and extremely dangerous. This situation is particularly hazardous for the elderly; one of the more vulnerable sectors of society. Thus while provision might technically be classified as safe, in that it is close by, it clearly is not. Moreover given that the northern part of the country has the lowest percentage of households connected to a piped water supply and the fact that the population in these oblasts are (in comparison to the rest of the country) very aged going even a 100 m for water during the winter months is unacceptable.

11 These data have been checked to ensure no double counting of this figure

Over 17% of the total surveyed population do not have access to an improved water source within 100 m of their home this

equates to 40 % of surveyed population without a piped water supply.

44

Table 16 The number of households surveyed and estimated number of people in each oblast where access to water does not meet the minimum standard

Oblast Number

without piped water

supply

number not meeting minimum standard*

% without piped water not meeting minimum standard

% of oblast not meeting minimum standard

Estimated number

of people

Astana 21 8 38.10 3.16 15875 Akmola 202 67 33.17 17.81 133271 Aktobe 157 52 33.12 14.99 103145

Atyrau 30 0 0.00 0.00 0 East Kazakhstan 278 22 7.91 3.01 44181 Zhambul 282 106 37.59 21.46 210239 West Kazakhstan 212 109 51.42 35.99 216648 Karaganda 119 45 37.82 6.73 89777 Kostanai 250 128 51.20 27.90 256466 Kyzylorda 138 51 36.96 16.74 101093 Mangystau 62 50 80.65 28.55 96642

Pavlodar 167 94 56.29 25.16 188385 North Kazakhstan 261 183 70.11 54.12 369186 South Kazakhstan 569 254 44.64 23.76 501482 Almaty 594 146 24.58 18.16 283459

Kazakhstan+ 3,342 1315 39.35 17.54 2607654

* Minimum standard is taken to mean access to an improved water source including household connections, public standpipes, boreholes, protected wells, protected spring and rainwater collection capable of providing 20 litres per capita per day at a distance of no more than a 100 metres. + Does not include Almaty City 6.4. Water supply security 6.4.1. Water supply security for households with a piped water supply

Although physical access to water is crucial, supply security also needs to be considered. and as such access to an uninterrupted water supply is important. The findings from the survey indicated that people who homes are connected to a CWSS routinely suffer cuts in their cold water supply with 68% of surveyed population stating this is the case (Table 19). Residents of Almaty City are least likely to experience supply interruptions with only c. 13% of respondents indicating that they suffer cuts in cold water supply. In marked contrast the figures for the rest of the country are much higher and with the exception of Almaty (and Almaty City) over 65% of all respondents in each oblast reported supply interruption. In Akmola oblast this figure reaches nearly 98%.

Nearly 68% of households with a piped water supply experience supply interruptions

45

Table 17. Percentage of people with a piped water supply in their home who experience cuts in supply.

Oblast yes no % of

respondents who suffer cuts in piped water

supply Astana 164 71 69.79 Akmola 170 4 97.70 Aktobe 126 54 70.00 Atyrau 181 16 91.88 East Kazakhstan 400 52 88.50 Zhambul 139 73 65.57 West Kazakhstan 82 9 90.11 Karaganda 476 73 86.70 Kostanai 181 27 87.02 Kyzylorda 142 25 85.03 Mangystau 101 12 89.38 Pavlodar 181 26 87.44 North Kazakhstan 61 16 79.22 South Kazakhstan 287 223 56.27 Almaty* 43 166 20.57 Almaty City 76 484 12.81 Kazakhstan 2810 1331 67.85

Although the majority of people could not be specific about the number of days that their water was cut or the length of time of a given cut in supply it was clear from the results of the survey that cuts are more common during the summer months and tend to be for a longer period of time. Moreover the percentage of people surveyed who could give specific details of such cuts was generally greater in the summer (Table 20).

Table 18 Percentage of people who were able to state the number of days that cold water supply is cut in winter and in summer

Oblast Winter Summer

Astana 25.61 74.39 Akmola 59.41 40.59 Aktobe 32.54 67.46 Atyrau 14.36 85.64 East Kazakhstan 37.00 63.00 Zhambul 44.60 55.40 West Kazakhstan 14.63 85.37 Karaganda 34.24 65.76 Kostanai 15.47 84.53 Kyzylorda 42.25 57.75 Mangystau 18.81 81.19 Pavlodar 41.99 58.01 North Kazakhstan 85.25 14.75 South Kazakhstan 59.23 40.77 Almaty 21.98 42.41 Almaty City 21.11 32.73

46

The issue of supply security was explored through focus groups and semi-structured interviews. There was not a single city were residents could say that they did not experience cuts at some time although this ranged from a very rare occurrence to being a permanent situation. People living in Shymkent and Taraz report water supply is generally alright and cuts are very rare whereas residents in Temirtau talk of constant and often prolonged cuts in water supply. Similar complaints were also voiced by residents of Petropavlorsk and Pavlodar. Interviews frequently commented that cuts only occur during emergencies and there is a sense of acceptance that supply interruptions under such circumstances are to be tolerated.

‘Because of our ground content, the pipes deteriorate very quickly. Therefore water cuts are very frequent’.

(Focus Group participant. Aktau City). Although reports of supply interruptions are relatively infrequent in Almaty, they do occur in certain parts of the city when ‘water is often off in the summer’. Here too interviewees reporting cuts in water supply generally considered them to be the result of emergencies. Periodic cut-offs are also expected at certain times of the year. In some settlements water is supplied for a specific period of the day often during the morning and the early evening with residents generally knowing when water will be available.

‘Water supply is frequently interrupted. Water is supplied twice a day from 0900 to 1000 and from 1900 to 2000.’ (Male interviewee, Aral City)

‘We have a centralized connection (in the settlement) though we have water only twice a day by one hour. The water does not get higher than the basement, so you may call it a pump!’

(Male interviewee, rural settlement, Atyrau) Low water pressure is also an issue for many people with a piped water supply and respondents who live on the upper floors of high rise buildings are more likely to experience supply interruptions. Thus while c. 67% of people living on the first floor of a building experiences cuts in supply, this figure rises to over 90% for people living on the 7th floor or above (Fig. 29). Problems of low water pressure are clearly an issue for many people living in high rise building especially outside of Almaty City where a higher percentage of respondents report problems.

‘We are living on the 5th floor and the water pressure is very low. Therefore we can say that we never have water. Sometimes we turn on the water, wait while it fills the bath by drops and then we wash ourselves one person at a time.’

(Focus group participant, Aktau City) Such sentiments were echoed by numerous interviewees living on the upper floors of high-rise buildings with people living on the highest floors generally stating that it was a ‘permanent’ situation.

47

Figure 29

Percentage of respondents living on different floor levels of multi-storey apartment blocks who report interruptions in water supply

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+

NoYes

Having prior warning about cuts is clearly an issue with only 20% of the households surveyed saying that they are routinely informed if their supply is to be interrupted (Fig. 30). In some Oblasts such as Atyrau and Kyzylorda people received little if any information about their water supply but others say they know when to expect them, unless there is an emergency.

‘Very rarely are we informed’ but as such cuts are ‘usually a result of accidents they do not have an opportunity to warn us in advance.’

(Focus group participant , Aktau City) ‘In the case of an emergency – no (we are not informed). People are informed 7 to 10 days prior to seasonal water supply interruption.’

(Male interviewee, Rudny City). But in some regions people are often informed. In Almaty City for example one interviewee noted that

‘…we are always informed in advance … small notes are placed on the doors.’

(Female interviewee, Almaty City) Interestingly people with a CWSS living in rural settlements are most likely to receive information about cuts, while people living in Oblast centres are least likely to be given information.

48

Figure 30

Percentage of households with a CWSS who are informed if their supply is to be cut

20%

38%

38%

2% 2%

Informed in advancecut off unexpectedlysometimes informed, sometimes notDon't knowOther

6.4.2. Water supply security for households without a piped water supply While cuts in water supply are a common occurrence for people whose homes are served by piped water this was not true for people who are not. Just over 23% of the surveyed population in this group said that they experienced cuts in water supply at some time or other with this figure ranging from as little as 2.8% of respondents without a piped water supply in West Kazakhstan to over 70% in Kyzylorda and Astana (Table 19). Table 19 Percentage of households in each oblasts without a pipe water supply in

their home who experience cuts in water supply

Oblast Yes No % experiencing cuts Astana 20 1 95.24 Akmola 109 92 54.23 Aktobe 32 125 20.38 Atyrau 1 31 3.13 East Kazakhstan 67 211 24.10 Zhambul 19 263 6.74 West Kazakhstan 6 206 2.83 Karaganda 37 82 31.09 Kostanai 47 203 18.80 Kyzylorda 98 40 71.01 Mangystau 6 56 9.68 Pavlodar 66 101 39.52 North Kazakhstan 15 246 5.75 South Kazakhstan 70 499 12.30 Almaty 215 499 30.11 Kazakhstan 808 2655 23.33

However, a significant percentage of households, nearly 62%, that rely on communal standpipes for their water report that they experience cuts in water supply at some time or

49

other (Table 20). As approximately 25 % of all households without a CWSS take their water from communal standpipes and the fact that they are more important in some oblasts than other it means that in certain regions of Kazakhstan As such while rural settlements tend to have reasonable supply security, certain groups are vulnerable. Like people with a CWSS relatively few respondents in this category could say how often and for how long their water was cut but like those with a CWSS those without seem more certain about cuts in the summer than winter months. Relatively few of the households surveyed said that they routinely received notifications that their supply was to be cut.

Table 20 The percentage of respondents without piped water in their home who experiences cuts in their water supply

Main source of water % individual standpump 19.89 common standpump 61.95 individual well with sucker-rod pump 1.72 individual well with electric pump 5.03 individual open well 14.49 common well with sucker-rod pump 1.12 common stand pump with electric pump 7.32 common open pump 8.16 individual reservoir for water 11.63 common reservoir for water 6.73 spring, river or lake 1.67 aryk, channel 25.00 delivered water 20.85 don't know 38.46

50

6.3.1. Summary of water supply security

Security of supply is clearly an important issue and although 55.1% of the surveyed population has a piped water supply, for a large percentage of these households the supply is often interrupted and there is little if any warning given when this is going to occur. Although people living in rural settlements are less likely to experience cuts in their water supply, households that take their water from communal water pumps or rely on delivered water are vulnerable to supply interruptions. Table 21 provides an estimate of the number of people who enjoy an uninterrupted water supply by Oblast and for the country as a whole. Just over a third of the population, some 5,044,200 people always have water on demand with slightly over a half of this figure being accounted for by people with a piped water supply. As such c. 9.8 million people experience supply interruptions. Given the issues of cross contamination associated with interrupted water supply as well as other hygiene related issues it can be argued that none of these people can be deemed to have access to a ‘safe’ water supply.

Table 21 The estimated number of people (1000s) in each oblast and in Kazakhstan as a whole who enjoy an uninterrupted water supply.

Oblast Population With

household connection

Without household connection

Total

Astana 502.0 139.1 15.9 155.0 Akmola 748.2 8.0 133.3 141.3 Aktobe 688.3 107.1 103.1 210.2 Atyrau 452.0 31.6 0.0 31.6 East Kazakhstan 1466.0 104.4 44.2 148.6 Zhambul 979.5 144.7 210.2 354.9 West Kazakhstan 601.9 17.9 216.6 234.5 Karaganda 1333.6 145.8 87.8 233.6 Kostanai 919.1 54.3 256.5 310.8 Kyzylorda 603.8 49.5 101.1 150.6 Mangystau 338.5 23.3 96.6 119.9 Pavlodar 748.7 52.0 188.4 240.4 North Kazakhstan 682.1 32.4 369.2 401.6 South Kazakhstan 2110.8 436.6 401.5 838.1 Almaty 1560.5 323.6 200.0 523.6 Almaty City 1147.5 949.5 0.0 949.5 Kazakhstan 14882.5 2619.8 2424.4 5044.2

Only a third of households surveyed enjoy an uninterrupted water supply and as such over 9.8 million people across

Kazakhstan suffer from intermittent or regular cuts in water supply

51

6.4 Water Quality

6.4.1. The general situation

The quality of the water that people have access is clearly of paramount importance, not only in terms of the actual quality as measured by its chemical, biological, nutrient and

aesthetic qualities, but also in terms of people’s perception of the quality of the water they have access to. Over 40% of respondents to the questionnaire survey considered that they had problems with their water quality, the percentage being slightly higher for people with a CWSS compared to those without (44% versus 40%). Within this total, however, there was

a considerable range observed. For example over 75% of the people with a piped water supply in the North Kazakhstan believed they had problems with water quality compared to

only 15% of the people surveyed in Zhambul (Table 22). Table 22. The percentage of respondents with and without a piped water supply in

their home who believe that they have problems with water quality

Oblast With a piped water supply

Without a piped water supply

Astana 55.74 71.43 Akmola 55.17 47.76 Aktobe 25.00 24.84 Atyrau 37.56 84.38

East Kazakhstan 29.49 42.81 Zhambul 14.69 27.66

West Kazakhstan 57.14 30.66 Karaganda 65.57 36.13 Kostanai 49.52 23.20 Kyzylorda 50.30 37.68 Mangystau 69.90 61.29 Pavlodar 36.23 34.73

North Kazakhstan 75.32 51.34 South Kazakhstan 33.99 49.74

Almaty 22.01 44.70 Almaty City 36.08 20.00

Although a smaller percentage of the people surveyed without a piped water supply in their home believed that water quality was an issue it was clear from the findings from the questionnaire survey that water from certain sources was more likely to be perceived as having quality problems. For example the vast majority of the small, but significant number of people who take their water from open sources such as communal reservoirs, aryks and springs and lakes were concerned about water quality as were a large number of people who take their water from individual open wells and wells with sucker rod pump (Table 23).

More than 40% of respondents believed there is a problem with the quality of their water.

52

Table 23 Percentage of people taking water from different sources who consider water quality to be an issue

Water Source Yes No % who believe

yes there is quality issue

individual stand pump 54 127 29.83 individual well with sucker-rod pump 222 300 42.53 individual well with electric pump 78 220 26.17 individual open well 171 181 48.58 Common well with sucker-rod pump 49 40 55.06 common stand pump with electric pump 2 39 4.88 common open well 20 29 40.82 common stand pump 198 375 34.55 individual reservoir for water 16 27 37.21 common reservoir for water 88 16 84.62 spring, river or lake 62 58 51.67 aryk, channel 49 11 81.67 delivered water 71 164 30.21 Don't know 3 10 23.08

The issue of water quality was discussed at length in both the focus groups and semi-structured interviews which highlighted a high level of concern over water quality. In urban regions, only people in Taraz and Shymkent appeared to be happy with the quality of their water or are used to it.

‘the water is fine we boil it sometimes, but overall its fine and we can drink tapped water.’

(Focus group participant, Taraz) ‘…we are used to the water and drink it raw without any problems.’

(Focus group participant, Shymkent) But for the most part people living in urban settlements consider their water to be ‘unsafe’.

‘I think the water is safe for hygiene use, cleaning and washing. But we do not risk drinking it.’

(Male interviewee, Rudny City) ‘The water is unsafe, therefore we boil it.’

(Female interviewee, Astana) ‘The water is unsafe. The water needs to be distilled and boiled. We do not drink tapped water because it is chlorinated.’

(Female interviewee, Ust- Kamenogorsk) Interestingly interviewees who live in urban areas but whose homes do not have piped water are generally more satisfied with the quality of their water than those individuals connected to the CWSS. Like urban areas, the response from rural residents is also variable from complete satisfaction to virtual despair as to the low quality of water they are expected to drink. Interviewees from western Kazakhstan for example commented that

53

‘The water in the tower is of high quality, almost without additives. It is tasty and transparent …..we can drink this water without boiling.’

(Female interviewee, rural West Kazakhstan).

‘It is simply unsafe to drink water from the river without pre-treatment. Water from the wells and delivered water should be treated.’

(Female interviewee, rural West Kazakhstan). ‘Water quality is the number two issues in our settlement (after roads). A lot of people have stomach ache, there are frequent incidents of poisonings. People have jaundice.’

(Female interviewee, rural West Kazakhstan). The main water quality issues highlighted by the survey included coloration of the water, the fact that the water is often dirty and contains sediment, and that the water leaves stains on the dishes. Nearly a third of respondents in this category highlighted problems of taste with the fact that the water is salty being considered the main problem for 14% of the respondents who considered water quality an issue (Fig. 31). Figure 31

The main water quality issues across Kazakhstan (n=2562)

18%

21%

5%9%

28%

14%5%

The water is yellow

The water contains sediment

The water has a strange smell

The water has an after taste

The water leaves stains on the dishes

The water is salty

Don't know

The main water quality issues highlighted by people with piped water varied between oblasts with respondents from the Atyrau, Mangystau, Pavlodar and North Kazakhstan Oblasts indicating that water coloration is the major issue, whereas few people in Astana and East Kazakhstan highlighted this as a problem. A significant number of people, especially those with a CWSS, highlighted the fact that the water leaves a residue on their dishes and was seen as especially problematic by respondents in Kostanai and Zhambul (Fig. 32). Figure 32

54

Main water quality issues by Oblast

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Astana

Akmola

Aktobe

Atyrau

East K

azak

hstan

Zhambu

l

Wes

t Kaz

akhs

tan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

North K

azak

hstan

South

Kazak

hstan

Almaty

Almaty

City

don't know

Other

the water is salty

It leaves sediment on the dishes

Water tastes bad

Strange smell

Sediment in the water

Water is yellow

For people without piped water other issues are problematic. For example 80% of the respondents from West Kazakhstan who fell into this category consider the colour of the water to be an issue while over 50 % of respondents in the Atyrau oblast cite water taste as a problem. Salty water is also an issue for respondents from Karaganda, Kostania, Pavlodar, North Kazakhstan and South Kazakhstan Fig. 33). Figure 33

Main issues with water quality for surveyed households without a CWSS- by Oblast

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Astana

Akmoli

nska

ya

Aktobe

Atyrau

Easter

n Kaz

akhs

tan

Zhambu

l

Wes

tern K

azak

hstan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

Northe

rn Kaz

akhs

tan

South

Kazak

hstan

don't know

the water is salty

It leaves sediment on the dishes

Water tastes bad

Strange smell

Sediment in the water

Water is yellow

Water quality issues also vary considerably with water source. A significant number of respondents who take their water from individual wells report that their water is salty. This is especially true of people that have an individual well with a sucker rod. Although people taking water from communal water sources highlight salinity as a problem, other factors are considered more important. For people taking water from open sources sediment content is

55

of major concern, this is especially true for respondents that get their water from communal reservoirs and aryks (Fig. 34). Figure 34

Main water quality issue by source

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

individ

ual s

tandp

ump

indivi

dual

well w

ith su

cker-

rod pu

mp

indivi

dual

well w

ith el

ectric

pump

indivi

dual

open

well

common

stan

dpum

p

common

well

with

suck

er-rod

pump

common

stan

d pum

p with

elec

tric pu

mp

common

open

well

indivi

dual

reserv

oir fo

r wate

r

common

rese

rvoir f

or wate

r

sprin

g, riv

er or

lake

aryk,

chan

nel

delive

red w

ater

don't

know

, diffi

cult t

o ans

wer

Num

ber o

f res

pond

ents don't know

water is salty

leaves sediment on thedisheswater has an aftertaste

water smells strange

Sediment in water

Water coloration

Water quality issues highlighted by the responses to the questionnaire survey were also a factor emphasized by interviewees. Participants in a focus group held in Uralsk City, for example, commented that the water quality is ‘terrible’ and that their water for drinking is ‘unacceptable, always rusty and close to being spoiled.’ While in Petropavlovsk city the feeling is that the ‘quality of water is oppressive. Sometimes it smells unpleasantly.’ Moreover, for some respondents there has been a notable decline in water quality in recent years.

‘…until 12 years ago the water was perfect. Now it is yellow and dirty.’ (Male interviewee, Uralsk City)

‘The water is salty and hard and contaminated because of the obsolete water pipeline system.’

(Male interviewee, rural Akmola). It is evident that water quality is an issue for many people, both in rural and urban settlements. While many people simply accept the fact that water quality is poor for some the fact that the government and private sector can invest in new buildings but not improve the water supply is a mystery. As one interviewee in Astana comments

‘Low water quality is an issue in our city. I would like to believe that the wonderful architecture would be supplemented by good quality potable water.’

(Male interviewee, Astana City)

56

6.4.2. Health Issues

Poor water supply and quality are frequently linked with illnesses such gastroenteritis and hepatitis and as such the questionnaire explored a number of health issues by asking if the respondent or any member of their household had experienced ill health during the preceding 12 months. Nearly 35 % of the respondents replied that they had, with c. 6% stating that they or someone in their household had been ill continuously over the previous 12 months. Respondents were asked whether they or a member of their household had suffered from; gastroenteritis, hepatitis, headaches, skin problems or other illnesses: in the latter case being asked to specify the nature of the illness. By far the most common illness reported was headaches, but a large proportion of the surveyed population (c. 16%) reported that they or a member of their household had suffered from stomach infections/gastroenteritis. Smaller but nevertheless significant numbers of people reported skin complaints and hepatitis (Table 26). Other major illnesses reported include heart problems, hypertension, kidney diseases and acute respiratory infections.

Table 24. The number of reported cases of illness in the last 12 months amongst the surveyed population

Reported illness Number of reported cases of illness in

the last 12 months12 Gastroenteritis 1527 Hepatitis 239 Headache 2048 Skin Problems 580 Other 857

The level of self-reported cases of gastroenteritis is similar for people with or without a piped water supply with 21.6% of people connected to a CWSS stating that either they or a member of their household had suffered from gastroenteritis in the previous 12 months compared to 24.5% of people without a CWSS. However, the picture is somewhat different when issues of supply security and source are considered. For example, nearly 25 % of people with a CWSS who report that they experience cuts in their piped water supply also report that either they or a member of their household had suffered from gastroenteritis; the percentage for households that do not experience cuts in their water supply being only 11.3%. The significant difference in the rate of gastroenteritis could be due to a number of factors. Firstly when households have an intermittent water supply personal hygiene is likely to suffer, increasing the chance of disease transmission via the fecal-oral route. Secondly, when water supply systems function intermittently contamination may occur as a result of the intrusion of contaminated waters into the pipeline via faulty joints and cracks in the pipeline network. 12 This figure is table 24 are for all reported cases. In some households more than one person may have suffered from an illness. As such while there are 1527 reported cases of gastroenteritis, the actual number of households reporting gastroenteritis is 1212.

Over 16% of the surveyed population said that they or a member of their household had suffered from gastroenteritis is

the last 12 months. Amongst respondents with a piped water supply the prevalence

of gastroenteritis was twice as high if the supply was intermittent.

57

The situation with respect to households not served by piped water is equally interesting. For example, householders who get their water from communal stand pipes (be they a simple standpipe, or served by a sucker rod or electric pump) are less likely to suffer from gastroenteritis compared to those households served by an individual ‘private’ standpipe (Table 25). One possible reason for this difference is that individual standpipes are likely to be located closer to pit latrines than communal standpipes and as such there is a greater chance of contamination. This possibility of cross contamination is recognized amongst some of the population at least. For example one interviewee from East Kazakhstan noted

‘In toilets - pit-latrines – the bottom is not concreted. Therefore sewage and the content of toilets freely reaches groundwater level, from where drinking water for all the settlement is taken."

(Male interviewee, rural East Kazakhstan) Certainly the majority of households who take their water from an individual well generally have that source within 20 m of their home and probably in relatively close proximity to their latrine. Moreover, while people are more likely to suffer from gastroenteritis if they take water from an open reservoir the percentage of people effected is greater if the reservoir serves an individual household. Households that take their water from other open sources such as springs, rivers and aryks also reported extremely high incidence of gastroenteritis. In contrast people who use a standpipe that uses an electric pump reported much lower levels of gastroenteritis. It is possible that these households are taking their water from groundwater sources that are at greater depth and as such may be protected to some extent from cross contamination. Table 25 Percentage of households using different water sources reporting a case

of gastroenteritis in the previous 12 months Water Source Number

served by

source

Number of reported cases of

gastroenteritis

% of people using source

reporting Gastroenteritis

common reservoir for water 104 27 25.96 common well with electric pump 41 4 9.76 common stand pump 573 109 19.02 Common well with sucker-rod pump 89 8 8.99 individual open well 352 112 31.82 individual reservoir for water 43 15 34.88 individual stand pump 181 44 24.31 individual well with electric pump 298 47 15.77 individual well with sucker-rod pump 522 131 25.10 spring, river or lake 120 58 48.33 aryk, channel 60 33 55.00 delivered water 235 56 23.83

Nearly 224 people or c. 3% of the surveyed population stated that they or a member of their household had suffered from hepatitis in the previous 12 months. Although it is not possible to determine which form of hepatitis people were affected by the most likely form are Hepatitis A or E which are both transmitted via the fecal-oral route. Hepatitis E is a water-borne disease and contaminated water and food supplies have been implicated in major outbreaks. Poor sanitation is also associated with HEV.

The number of reported cases of hepatitis across the country is extremely variable, in the Aktobe Oblast for example 11.3% of respondents reported that they or a member of their

58

household had had hepatitis in the previous 12 months. The incident of hepatitis was also high in West Kazakhstan and Kyzylorda. In contrast the level of self-reported cases of hepatitis were much lower than average in the major cities of Astana and Almaty City (Table 26 and Fig. 35.)

Table 26. The incidence of hepatitis amongst surveyed population in previous 12

months Oblast Total

number of reported

incidence of Hepatitis

Number of households surveyed reporting

incidence of Hepatitis

Number of households surveyed

% of households surveyed

Astana 2 2 256 0.78

Akmola 4 4 376 1.06

Aktobe 38 36 337 11.28

Atyrau 10 8 229 4.37

East Kazakhstan 21 18 730 2.88

Zhambul 17 17 494 3.44

West Kazakhstan 19 17 303 6.27

Karaganda 21 20 668 3.14

Kostanai 15 14 458 3.28

Kyzylorda 22 22 305 7.21

Mangystau 9 7 175 5.14

Pavlodar 9 9 374 2.41

North Kazakhstan 4 3 338 1.18

South Kazakhstan 14 13 1079 1.30

Almaty 29 29 803 3.61

Almaty City 5 5 590 0.84

Total 239 224 7515 2.98

A total of 92 cases of hepatitis were reported in urban environments with the percentage of respondents reporting that either they or a member of their family had suffered from hepatitis in the preceding 12 months being the same regardless of whether the piped water supply was uninterrupted or not. Significantly there is no major difference in the number of reported incidents of hepatitis between households connected to a CWSS and those that are not. However, as with gastroenteritis people without a CWSS were more likely to be affected if they take their water from an individual water pump compared to a communal pump,13 although people taking their water from open sources such as rivers, and aryks were most at risk.

13 This has been shown statistical significant using Chi-Sq..

59

Figure 35

Percentage of self-reported cases of Hepatitis in last 12 months by settlement type for Kazakhstan

3%

19%

20%58%

City of Republican StandingOblast CentreSmall town Rural settlement

Respondents who reported illnesses were asked what they thought the cause of this illness was. Nearly 40 % cited poor environmental conditions including air pollution with c. 19% explicitly stating that illnesses in their households was due to poor water quality (Fig 36). It is worth noting that while poor environmental conditions are perceived to be a major factor in causing ill health, it was rarely mentioned as a reason for wanting to leave a particular area. Indeed poor water quality figured much more highly as a push factor. Figure 36

Main reasons stated forcausing recent illnesses amongst surveyed population (n=2118)

19%

40%6%

6%

10%

19%

Poor water quality

Poor environmental conditions

Lack of water pipe and bad utilities

Poverty

Other

difficult to answer

In a number of oblast poor water quality is clearly seen as more problematic for health than in other regions. For example, c. 70% of respondents reporting illness in Atyrau blame poor water quality although the number of people reporting illness is relatively low. In Akmola, however, over 30% of respondents blame ill health on poor water with the figure being over 25% in Karaganda and Kyzylorda. In Kostanai, South Kazakhstan, Almaty, Almaty City and

60

Pavlodar c. 10% or less of the respondents in each oblast reporting illness believed poor water quality was an issue (Fig. 37). Figure 37

Main factor considered to cause ill health (by oblast)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Astana

Akmola

Aktobe

Atyrau

East K

azak

hstan

Zhambu

l

Wes

t Kaz

akhs

tan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

North K

azak

hstan

South

Kazak

hstan

Almaty

Almaty

City

Don't know

Other

Poverty

Lack of water pipe and badutilitiesPoor environmental conditions

Poor water quality

Poor water quality was considered to be a major cause of common indigestion and other intestinal diseases amongst focus group and interview participants and numerous statements as to both general and specific impacts on health were made. In Uralsk for example people complained that they had problem with their teeth while one interviewee from west Kazakhstan comment that poor water quality

‘’…affects the health of residents, it is detrimental to the stomach, shin, hair. Very often people have gum sickness.’

(Male interviewee, rural West Kazakhstan) And as another interviewee from Ust-Kamenogorsk City noted poor water quality results in:

‘…gastrointestinal disturbances, hepatitis infection thyroid gland disease.’

Even cases of Clostridium Botulinum, often associated with food poisoning due to poor preservation of canned and bottled foods was considered by one respondent to be a result of poor water.

‘Raw water is dangerous. There are cases of poisoning and contamination with Clostridium Botulinum. It happens more often in spring.’

(Male interviewee, rural East Kazakhstan). Although it is not possible to actually state that poor water quality is the cause of such illnesses it is clear that people across Kazakhstan believe that there is a link and as such poor water quality ‘directly effects the state of our health’.

61

6.4.3. The treatment of water for drinking

A further indicator of water quality is whether people believe it is necessary to treat water that they intend to consume. Across Kazakhstan as a whole c. 46 % of the surveyed population treat their drinking water, but this figure varies between oblasts and different settlement types (Table 27). Over 60% of the surveyed population in Karaganda, West Kazakhstan, Astana and Kostanai routinely treat water before drinking it. The figure is less than 40% for Aktobe, East Kazakhstan and South Kazakhstan, while in Zhambul only c. 24% of the surveyed population feel they need to treat their water.

Table 27 Percentage of households who treat their water before use

Oblast Yes No % of households who treat water

Astana 167 89 65.23 Akmola 163 213 43.35 Aktobe 128 209 37.98 Atyrau 126 103 55.02 East Kazakhstan 280 450 38.36 Zhambul 116 378 23.48 West Kazakhstan 200 103 66.01 Karaganda 457 211 68.41 Kostanai 276 182 60.26 Kyzylorda 129 176 42.30 Mangystau 103 72 58.86 Pavlodar 203 171 54.28 North Kazakhstan 168 170 49.70 South Kazakhstan 394 685 36.52 Almaty 270 533 33.62 Almaty City 260 330 44.07 Kazakhstan 3440 4075 45.76

Urban householders are most likely to treat their water. In Astana, for example, over 65% of people treat their drinking water, although this figure drops to c 57% for Oblast centres and just over 46% for small urban centres. Households in rural areas are least likely to treat their drinking water with just over 39% of the surveyed population in rural settlements doing so. A clear differential exists between households with a piped water supply and those without (Table 28). Over 53% of households with a piped water supply treat drinking water compared to an average of 41.26.% for households reliant on other sources for water. However, a wide variation in the percentage of households without a CWSS, who treat their drinking water is noted (Table 29). Significantly households reliant on communal sources of water are more likely to treat their water. For example, 80% of people who take their water from a communal reservoir report that they treat this water before drinking it, while the figure for people using water from aryks is c. 83%. In contrast households who have an individual standpipe are most likely to drink untreated water.

Approximately 46% of the surveyed population treats water before drinking it.

62

Table 28. The percentage of people without piped water who treat their water before use.

Oblast Yes No % of

households who treat

water Astana 18 3 85.71 Akmola 74 128 36.63 Aktobe 63 94 40.13 Atyrau 25 7 78.13 East Kazakhstan 76 202 27.34 Zhambul 84 198 29.79 West Kazakhstan 129 83 60.85 Karaganda 42 77 35.29 Kostanai 132 118 52.80 Kyzylorda 39 99 28.26 Mangystau 21 41 33.87 Pavlodar 82 85 49.10 North Kazakhstan 104 157 39.85 South Kazakhstan 104 157 39.85 Almaty 247 323 43.33 Almaty City 15 15 50.00 Kazakhstan 1255 1787 41.26

* Due to a technical error in the first phase of the questionnaire survey the data given here only includes rural settlements. There is no data for respondents in urban settlements who are not connected to a CWSS. In the case of Almaty City of the of 30 people not connected it is assumed that 50% boil their water. Table 29 Percentage of people taking water from different sources who treat their

water before use

Main water source

Yes

No

% treating water

individual open well 146 206 41.48 individual reservoir for water 14 29 32.56 individual standpump 52 129 28.73 individual well with electric pump 84 214 28.19 individual well with sucker-rod pump 154 368 29.50 common reservoir for water 84 20 80.77 common well with electric pump 14 27 34.15 common standpump 276 297 48.17 Common well with sucker-rod pump 55 34 61.80 Common open well 18 31 36.73 spring, river or lake 62 50 55.36 aryk, channel 50 10 83.33 delivered water 67 168 28.51

63

Poor water quality and health concerns were the main reasons cited for treating drinking water. By far the most common reason being the fact that the water is opaque with a significant number of people highlighting the fact that they need to treat their drinking water to remove sediment. Approximately 25% of the households that treat their water cite health related reasons, with issues of taste also being important (Table 30).

Table 30 Reasons given for treating water

Reason cited for treatment Number of

responses

Valid Percent

To kill microbes 255 8.76 For safety reasons 167 5.74 Because the water is opaque 521 17.90 The water contains sediment 135 4.64 Because of taste 60 2.06 To settle sediment 134 4.60 To make the water safe 24 0.82 Poor water quality 231 7.94 Because of mechanical impurities 31 1.07 For health safety 274 9.42 Because the water has a yellow colour 68 2.34 Habit 48 1.65 We boil water for hygiene as have a kid 19 0.65 To reduce chlorine smell 73 2.51 To improve taste 50 1.72 To improve quality 91 3.13 The water is dangerous 31 1.07 It’s impossible to drink without treatment 90 3.09 The water smells 30 1.03 Other 183 6.21 difficult to answer 395 13.57 Total 2910 100.00

Boiling water is the main means of treating water with over 80% of respondents saying it is their primary form of treatment. A further 12% say that they settle their water first and a significant number of people do both (Fig. 33). A small number of respondents filter their water with the vast majority of these people being in the higher income bracket. Many people, however, complain that filters do not work for long.

‘… a schungite filter costs 1000 tenge and it stopped working in three months so we don’t use it.’

(Female interviewee, Rudny City).

‘We buy filters that cost from 7000 tenge. They stop working quickly so its’s inevitable for us that we distil or boil water.’

(Female interviewee, Aksai City).

‘We used to buy the Russian filter ‘Rodnichok’. However, now they are not been sold. Therefore we just pass the water through cotton wool. Everyone does this.’

64

(Focus Group participant, Aktau City). Figure 33

Main forms of water treatment (n=3340)

80%

13%

6% 1%

Boil

Settle

Filter

Other

The amount of time that people boil their water ranges from less than 10 minutes to several hours with most people spending between 20 and 40 minutes each day on this chore (Fig. 34). On Average people living in rural settlements spend 39 minutes boiling their water compared to 32 minutes for people in urban settlements. Residents of Atyrau oblast boil their water for longest – 62 minutes- compared to an average of 17 minutes in Pavlodar. Boiling water clearly has a implications in terms of both time and cost. This fact is note by many people interviewed as illustrated by the following comments.

‘…we boil water and spend energy on it.’

(Female interviewee, Zheskazgan City). ‘My wife boils the water. We do not calculate the cost, though we spend more on gas and energy., (Male interviewee, Astana) ‘We boil water and pay for the energy ourselves’

(Female interviewee, rural East Kazakhstan).

65

Figure 34

Average length of time water is boiled

15%

27%

35%

15%

3% 4% 1%

10 mins or less10-20 mins20-40 mins40-60 mins60-90 mins90-120 minsmore than 120 mins

6.4.4. Purchase of Bottled water

Buying bottled water for drinking can be another indicator of whether water quality is an issue and in the survey as a whole c. 42 % of the households purchased bottle water. The majority of respondents (45%) commented that they drink bottled water just like any other non-alcoholic beverage. A significant number of respondents, however, stated issues of water quality and safety i.e. health safety as the reason for buying bottled water (Fig. 35). This issue was raised by numerous interviewees many of whom routinely purchase bottled water.

‘We regularly buy a 20 liter bottle …. To prevent stomach problems and kidney diseases. We pay about 30 tenge a bottle which is enough for one day.’

(Male interviewee, Aksai City) We never drink water from the tap. We buy huge bottles of water for drinking….big bottles cost 450 tenge.’

(Focus group participant, Petropavlovsk City)

‘We buy mineral water all the time because it is dangerous to drink tapped water as it is chlorinated.’ (Female interviewee, Ust-Kamenogorsk City)

The issue of cost was mentioned by a number of interviewees with some people commenting that they simply could not afford to buy water.

‘We can afford to buy only 1 to 2 bottles (20 liters) a week, and only to drink it when we want pure and tasty water. It cost us about 600-800 tenge a week.

(Female interviewee, rural West Kazakhstan).

Over 40% of households routinely buy bottled water

66

While for other interviewees bottled water is not available even if they want to buy it

‘Yes, sometimes we buy water in bottles. However, due to poor transport and roads water is brought (to the settlement) rarely and it is more expensive than in other settlements.’

(Female interviewee, rural West Kazakhstan) Figure 35

Main reasons cited for buying bottled water (n=2581)

45%

26%

22%

2% 5%

We drink like any other non-alcholic bevarageBecause it has a better qualityWith the aim of a better lifestyle and safetyOtherDon't now

In a number of regions, notably Atyrau (68%), West Kazakhstan (57%), Karaganda (64 %) and Kyzlyorda (75%) water quality and safety are the primary reason for buying bottled water. Significantly all of these oblasts had a relatively high percentage of respondents stating that they buy bottled water (Table 31).

Table 31 Reasons stated for buying bottled water Oblast % of

respondents who said they

purchased bottle water

% drink like any other

non-alcoholic beverage

% better water quality

% for health reasons

Astana 58.5 43.3 14.7 31.3 Akmola 45.5 41.5 31.0 21.1 Aktobe 35.6 41.7 32.5 20.8 Atyrau 57.7 3.8 38.9 29.0 East Kazakhstan 45.3 53.8 16.6 23.3 Zhambul 12.6 54.8 27.4 14.5 West Kazakhstan 46.5 38.3 47.5 9.9 Karaganda 55.2 28.7 36.6 27.4 Kostanai 31.0 45.1 30.3 22.5 Kyzylorda 68.2 18.8 43.8 31.3 Mangystau 43.3 36.8 28.9 21.1 Pavlodar 49.7 65.1 15.6 15.6 North Kazakhstan 28.1 56.8 18.9 21.1

67

South Kazakhstan 37.0 71.9 9.8 14.0 Almaty 9.7 61.3 2.5 15.0 Almaty City 44.2 48.7 28.0 18.8 A significant number of households buy bottled water. In the majority of cases (c. 56%) a bottle contains 1.5 liters of water and people pay less than 100 tenge for it. Households generally buy 5 bottles or less a week with the number of bottles purchases generally being greater for households with a greater number of people. On average households who buy water buy c. one 1.5 liter bottle of water per person per week. Given that the cost of a bottle varies between 25 and 75 tenge and averages about c. 50 tenge per bottle the amount people pay per person for bottled water over the course of a year is about 2500 tenge. Questionnaire respondents were asked to provide an assessment of the suitability of their water for drinking, cooking and cleaning and personal hygiene. Just over 27% of respondents considered their water to be completely suitable for drinking, although this figure ranged from c 13% in the Karaganda Oblast to nearly 42% in the case of Almaty (Table 32). At the other end of the spectrum over 50% of the respondents in the Karaganda and Atyrau Oblasts considered their water to be unsuitable or wholly unsuitable for drinking, with c 20% of respondents in Atyrau saying it was wholly unsuitable.

Table 32. How the surveyed population assessed the quality of the water they received for drinking

There is a strong positive correlation (r= 0.618) between the percentage of respondents in each oblast that consider their water to be unsuitable or completely unsuitable for drinking and the percentage of people that buy bottled water. Using a one-tailed Pearson correlation this is significant at the 0.01 level. As such the buying of bottled water can be seen as an indicator of water quality within a region.

Oblast Completely suitable

% Suitable on the whole

% Unsuitable % Completely unsuitable

%

Astana 34 13.28 97 37.89 85 33.20 31 12.11

Akmola 76 20.21 145 38.56 70 18.62 65 17.29

Aktobe 122 36.20 104 30.86 64 18.99 10 2.97

Atyrau 45 19.65 43 18.78 78 34.06 46 20.09

East Kazakhstan 213 29.18 293 40.14 178 24.38 41 5.62

Zhambul 155 31.38 238 48.18 59 11.94 39 7.89

West Kazakhstan 60 19.80 139 45.87 93 30.69 8 2.64

Karaganda 89 13.32 199 29.79 286 42.81 90 13.47

Kostanai 109 23.80 227 49.56 98 21.40 19 4.15

Kyzylorda 88 28.85 127 41.64 58 19.02 29 9.51

Mangystau 40 22.86 73 41.71 29 16.57 2 1.14

Pavlodar 124 33.16 159 42.51 82 21.93 3 0.80

North Kazakhstan 50 14.79 155 45.86 103 30.47 29 8.58

South Kazakhstan 318 29.47 503 46.62 233 21.59 20 1.85

Almaty 335 41.71 388 48.31 66 8.21 3 0.37

Almaty City 183 31.01 215 36.44 166 28.13 14 2.37

68

6.5 .Summary of the number of people in Kazakhstan with access to ‘safe’ water

Sections 6.1 to 6.4 of the report provide information on physical access to a ‘safe’ water supply, the security of that supply and the perceived quality of the supply. In this section these data are combined to provide an estimate of the number of people across Kazakhstan who have access to a ‘safe’, secure and good quality supply of water. Table 33 provides an estimate of the number of people in each oblast with a piped water supply who have access to good quality water on demand. This figure is derived from the number of respondents who stated that they never experienced cuts in supply and the fact that they considered water to be of good quality and they do not need to treat it in anyway before drinking. Based on these data a total of 963 respondents or 12.8% of the survey can be deemed to have access to good quality water on demand. This equates to approximately 1.9 million people. It is evident from the data that a large percentage of these individuals live in Almaty City where over 60% of the population have a very good water supply. But outside of Almaty the situation is very different and in the case of Akmola no with a piped water supply enjoys good quality water on demand. In 5 other oblasts, West Kazakhstan, Karaganda, Kostanai, Mangystau, and North Kazakhstan the figure is less than 5% and for all other oblast less than 20 % of all respondents (Table 33). Table 33 The number of people across Kazakhstan and by Oblast to have access to

good quality water on demand. Oblast

Number of respondents with good

quality water on demand

Total number of respondent

s

% of respondent

s

Population (000s)

Population with

access to good

quality water on demand

Astana 35 256 13.67 502.00 68.633 Akmola 0 376 0.00 748.2 0.000 Aktobe 47 337 13.95 668.3 93.205 Atyrau 15 229 6.55 452.00 29.607 East Kazakhstan 46 730 6.30 1466.00 92.378 Zhambul 72 494 14.57 979.5 142.761 West Kazakhstan 8 303 2.64 601.9 15.892 Karaganda 25 668 3.74 1,333.6 49.910 Kostanai 20 458 4.37 919.1 40.135 Kyzylorda 20 305 6.56 603.8 39.593 Mangystau 6 175 3.43 338.5 11.606 Pavlodar 22 374 5.88 748.7 44.041 North Kazakhstan 8 338 2.37 682.1 16.144 South Kazakhstan

152 1,079 14.09 2,110.8 297.351

Almaty 130 803 16.19 1,560.5 252.634 Almaty City 357 590 60.51 1,147.5 694.335

An estimated 27% of the population or c. 4.45 million people across Kazakhstan have access to a ‘safe’ water supply.

69

Kazakhstan 963 7515 12.81 14862.00 1904.472 For people without a piped water supply in the home it is somewhat more difficult to provide an accurate estimate of the number of people with access to a safe water supply. However, the following can be assumed, no one taking water from an unprotected open source, such as a common reservoir, a river, stream, lake or aryk or who is dependent on delivered water has a ‘safe’ supply. Using this criteria c. 1.5 million of the 6.68 million people without a piped water supply are drinking ‘unsafe’ water. In addition nearly 62% of the 1.64 million people who take their water from a common water pump state that they experience cuts in supply and can not be said to have a safe supply. When the issue of water quality is factored in this figure rises to just over 70% adding a further 1.15 million to the total of those without safe water. Of the c. 440,000 people who take there water from other common water sources, nearly 59% (c. 300,000) report supply security and water quality as a problem. Although the vast majority of respondents who stated that they take their water from an individual standpipe have a supply within 100m of their home (c. 90%) and by and large have few problems with supply security a significant proportion (c.39%) state that what quality is an issue. Of the c. 3 million people across Kazakhstan who take water from various types of individual wells, nearly 50% either have to go more than 100 m for their water or have problems with water quality. As such 1.5 million people using individual water pumps do not have access to safe water. Indeed it could be argued that this figure is a low estimate. given the fact that cross contamination of ground water supply is likely to be an issue for people taking water from such sources and it could be argued that no one taking water from these sources has a safe supply. Taken together an estimated 4.45 million people of the estimated 6.68 million who are without piped water do not have access to a safe water supply. As such the findings of the survey indicate that c. 27% of the population of Kazakhstan or just over 4 million people across Kazakhstan have access to a safe water supply.

70

7. Desire to be connected to a CWSS

Respondents whose homes are not connected to a CWSS were asked whether they would like to have piped water. A significant percentage of respondents, 77%, stated that they want to be connected and significantly over 78% of the large number of people in rural areas responded positively to this question (Table 34). Table 34 Percentage of surveyed population without a CWSS who would like their

homes to be connected

Yes No % of households wanting piped water

Astana 17 4 80.95 Almaty City 19 11 63.33 Oblast centres 147 58 71.71 Small towns 270 109 71.24 Villages 1968 541 78.44 Total 2421 723 77.00

The percentage of respondents who want a piped water supply in their home varies from oblast to oblast with over 90% of respondents in Atyrau and West Kazakhstan stating that they want a connection compared to less than 25% in Mangystau (Table 35). A relatively low percentage of respondents in Akmola, Kyzylorda and Almaty City without piped water also said they wanted a connection (Table 35). As noted overall demand for piped water in rural settlements is high, but even within this total there is a significant amount of variation between oblasts. Over 90% of rural respondents in Atyrau and West Kazakhstan and 80% in Aktobe, Zhambul, Pavlodar, South Kazakhstan and Almaty stated that they wanted to have piped water in their homes compared to less than 59% of respondents in Akmola and only c. 24 % in Mangystau. As such there are significant regional variations in demand (Table 35). There is little variation in the percentage of respondents wanting to be connected to a CWSS with respect to gender (female =77.25%; male=75.8%) and age up to 65 years. The percentage of people 65 plus wanting a piped water supply being c.70%.

77% of households without a piped water supply in their home want to be connected.

71

Table 35. The percentage of respondents without piped water in their home who would like to be connected

Urban Rural Yes % No % Yes % No %

Astana 17 80.95 4 19.05 0 0.00 0 0.00 Akmola 31 67.39 15 32.61 92 58.97 64 41.03 Aktobe 7 70.00 3 30.00 118 80.27 29 19.73 Atyrau 2 100.00 0 0.00 29 96.67 1 3.33

East Kazakhstan 44 83.02 9 16.98 164 72.89 61 27.11 Zhambul 37 90.24 4 9.76 204 84.65 37 15.35

West Kazakhstan 38 97.44 1 2.56 161 93.06 12 6.94 Karaganda 19 70.37 8 29.63 65 70.65 27 29.35 Kostanai 25 62.50 15 37.50 148 70.48 62 29.52 Kyzylorda 24 58.54 17 41.46 64 65.98 33 34.02 Mangystau 5 23.81 16 76.19 10 24.39 31 75.61 Pavlodar 43 74.14 15 25.86 94 86.24 15 13.76

North Kazakhstan 42 89.36 5 10.64 178 83.18 36 16.82 South Kazakhstan 32 45.71 38 54.29 411 82.36 88 17.64

Almaty 68 76.40 21 23.60 230 83.64 45 16.36 Almaty City 19 63.33 11 36.67 0 0.00 0 0.00

Kazakhstan 453 71.33 182 28.67 1968 78.43 541 21.57

‘Yes, all settlement residents would be delighted to be connected.

(Male interviewee, Rural West Kazakhstan).

‘Of course we would like to be connected (to a CWSS). We are tired of carrying water.’

(Female interviewee, Zheskazgan City). But some respondents do not believe that they will ever be connected. One interviewee from a rural settlement in North Kazakhstan that lost its piped water supply 15 years ago commented that

‘Certainly, we would like to be connected to a water supply system, though we doubt that it is possible.’

(Female interviewee, rural North Kazakhstan) Nearly 82% of all respondents who want a piped water supply in their home stated that they were willing to pay for connection, with a very high percentage of respondent in Aktobe, Zhambul, Kyzylorda and Almaty being prepared to meet some of the costs of connection (Fig. 36). A notable exception to the general trend is East Kazakhstan14 where over 35% of respondents who want piped water said that they were unwilling to pay for connection.

14 The percentage of people willing to pay for connection to a CWSS is also low in Almaty and Astana but this is more a reflection of the small sample size in these two cities.

72

Figure 36

Percentage of respondents (by oblast) who said that they are willing to pay for connection to a CWSS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Astana

Akmola

Aktobe

Atyrau

East K

azak

hstan

Zhambu

l

Wes

t Kaz

akhs

tan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

North K

azak

hstan

South

Kazak

hstan

Almaty

Almaty

City

NoYes

The amount people were willing to pay ranged from less than 500 tenge to over 10,000 tenge, although the majority (58%) of respondents stated that they are prepared to pay 2000 tenge or less (Fig. 37). Significantly respondents living in rural settlements are more willing to pay a slightly higher price for this service. Moreover, the amount people are willing to pay varied across the country (Fig. 38). Nearly 40 % of respondents to this question in West Kazakhstan oblast for example are willing to pay 2,000 tenge or more for connection whereas in Akmola, the vast majority of people who stated a willingness to pay gave a figure of 2,000 tenge or less. Figure 37

Amount respondents are willing to pay for connection to CWSS (n=1784)

22%

28%18%

16%

5%1%

10%

less than 500 tenge501-1000 tenge1001-2000 tenge2001-50005001-10000 tengeover 10001 tengeDon't know

73

Figure 38

Amount respondents said they were willing to pay for connection to a CWSS (by oblast)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Astana

Akmola

Aktobe

Atyrau

East K

azak

hstan

Zhambu

l

Wes

t Kaz

akhs

tan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

North K

azak

hstan

South

Kazak

hstan

Almaty

Almaty

City

Don't know

over 10001 tenge

5001-10000 tenge

2001-5000

1001-2000 tenge

501-1000 tenge

less than 500 tenge

Over a third (37%) of respondents who want a piped water supply, but do not wish to pay stated that they would pay if they could afford to while an additional 22% said they though that it was too expensive (Fig. 39). Thus cost is clearly an issue for much of this group. A significant percentage of respondents to this question however, considered the cost for such works should be met by the government. Cost is also a major factor for people not wanting to be connected to a CWSS with over 30% of respondents stating that they either can not afford to pay for connection or it is too expensive. A further 16% of respondents to this question state that they simply do not need to be connected to a piped supply. Figure 39

The main reasons respondents gave for not wanting to pay for connection to a CWSS (n=419)

37%

22%

32%

3% 6%

I want to be connected, but I am not able to pay

It is too expensive

It is the responsibility of the state

Don't know

Other

74

Clearly cost is an issue for many people who feel unable to pay for such services.

‘All settlement residents would like to be connected but not all of them agree or are able to pay for the connection. There is a huge unemployment issue in the settlement, more than half of the people survive on their farm.’

(Female interviewee, rural East Kazakhstan)

‘We would pay, but not all neigbours would be able to pay.’ (Female interviewee, Zheskazgan City).

‘We certainly would like to pay but we are unable. We have a low living wage.’ (Male interviewee, Uralsk City) However, some interviewee were of the opinion that costs should be shared and as one interviewee from Kostanai noted the cost of connection should be paid

‘Partly by the owners, but for the most part by the state.’

‘All settlement residents would like to be connected but not all of them agree or are able to pay for the connection. There is a huge unemployment issue in the settlement, more than half of the people survive on their farm.’

(Female interviewee, rural East Kazakhstan)

75

8. Ability and willingness to pay for water

8.1. Households connected to a CWSS Of the 4121 respondents to the questionnaire survey whose homes are connected to a piped water supply only 23 do not pay for water services. Of the remaining 3988 respondents, 33% pay 200 tenge a month or less for water, 21% pay 201-300 tenge and a further 20% pay 301-500 tenge per month. Nearly 500 households (c. 11%) of the survey have water bills greater than 500 tenge per month (Fig. 40). Figure 40

Amount households pay for water per month (in tenge) for piped water (n=4141)

1% 11%

22%

21%13%

7%

11%

14%

01-100101-200201-300301-400401-500 over 501 Do not know

The amount households pay for piped water is dependent on two main factors; the number of people in a household and whether or not they have a meter. Figure 41 which shows the level of payment for water against the number of people in the households shows that while it is possible for a single person household to pay the same or more for their water than a multiple person households, that in general larger households tend to pay more for their water.

76

Figure 41

Household size and monthly water payments (tenge)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0 1-100 101-200 201-300 301-400 401-500 501+ Do not know

8+7654321

But, when the amount people pay with and without a meter is considered, it is clear that in general households with a meter tend to pay significantly less for their water than those households without (Table 36). For example, while 75% of the households that have a meter pay 100 tenge or less each month for water, just under 30% pay more than 500 tenge a month. Yet when household size, monthly payment for water and metering are considered together it is evident that while smaller households (4 people or less) with a meter tend to pay less than similar sized households without a meter the relationship is not so clear for larger sized households and if anything indicates that larger sized households with a meter pay more for their water than those without (Fig. 42). Table 36 Amount people with and without a cold water meter pay each month for

their water

Amount household pays for water

With cold water meter

% No cold water meter

%

0 tenge 1 4.55 21 95.45 1-100 tenge 318 74.47 109 25.53 101-200 tenge 414 42.81 553 57.19 201-300 tenge 267 33.54 529 66.46 301-400 tenge 162 30.62 367 69.38 401-500 tenge 121 43.37 158 56.63 over 501 tenge 135 29.80 318 70.20 Do not know 220 38.73 348 61.27

77

Figure 42

Household size, monthly payments for piped water and whether home has a meter or not.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 with 1without

2 with 2without

3 with 3without

4 with 4without

5 with 5without

6 with 6without

7+ with 7+without

difficult to answer

over 501 tenge

401-500 tenge

301-400 tenge

201-300 tenge

101-200 tenge

1-100 tenge

The amount people pay for piped water varies considerably across the country with people living in Aktobe, Zhambul, South Kazakhstan and Almaty generally paying less for their water than respondents living in for example, Astana and Mangystau (Fig. 43). As such there is an extremely wide variation in the amount that people pay for their water that is determined by the Oblast where they live, the size of the household and whether or not water use is metered. Figure 43

Amount people pay (tenge) per household each month for cold water from a CWSS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Astana

Akmola

Aktobe

Atyrau

East K

azak

hstan

Zhambu

l

Wes

t Kaz

akhs

tan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavloda

r

North K

azak

hstan

South

Kazak

hstan

Almaty

Almaty

City

Do not knowover 501 401-500 301-400201-300101-2001-1000

78

8.2 Payment for non piped water Just over 38% of the households that do not have a piped water supply in their home pay for their domestic water. The survey results indicate that households reliant on communal water sources are most likely to pay, with a significant proportion (c. 64%) of the large number of respondents who get their water from communal standpipes stating that they pay. Nearly 60% of household that have their water delivered also pay for their water (Table 37). In contrast relatively few people who take their water from individual sources pay. Table 37. The percentage of people taking water from sources other than a CWSS

who pay for water

Yes % No % individual standpump 136 46.90 154 53.10 common standpump 497 63.88 281 36.12 individual well with sucker-rod pump 93 17.29 445 82.71 individual well with electric pump 27 9.06 271 90.94 individual open well 56 14.78 323 85.22 Common well with sucker-rod pump 17 14.29 102 85.71 common stand pump with electric pump 21 51.22 20 48.78 common open pump 6 12.24 43 87.76 individual reservoir for water 23 53.49 20 46.51 common reservoir for water 61 58.65 43 41.35 spring, river or lake 18 9.78 166 90.22 aryk, channel 6 10.00 54 90.00 delivered water 179 59.87 120 40.13 Other 20 37.74 33 62.26 don't know, difficult to answer 5 38.46 8 61.54

The amount households pay for water varies considerably, but what is clear from the data is that while the amount people reliant on common stand pumps pay varies most households pay 200 tenge or less a month. Moreover, people who are reliant on delivered water tend to pay more (Fig. 44).

79

Figure 44

Monthly amount households pay for water by source

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

lessthan 50tenge

51-100 101-150

151 -200

201-250

251-300

301-350

351-400

401-500

over501

Don'tknow

don't know, difficult to answer

delivered water

aryk, channel

spring, river or lake

common reservoir for water

individual reservuar for water

common open pump

common stand pump with electric pump

Common well with sucker-rod pump

individual open well

individual well with electric pump

individual well with sucker-rod pump

common standpump

individual standpump

water pipe connected to the house

When the data is analysed at the oblast level it is clear that respondents living in certain parts of the country are more likely to pay for water than in other parts. For example less than 10% of households without a CWSS living in Aktobe, East Kazakhstan, and Zhambul pay for water this figure is over 70% in Kyzylorda, Mangystau, Pavlodar and Astana (Table 38).

Table 38 Percentage of respondents in each oblast without a CWSS who pay for water

Oblast Yes No Total % Astana 21 0 21 100.00 Akmola 109 92 201 54.23 Aktobe 14 143 157 8.92 Atyrau 5 27 32 15.63 East Kazakhstan 26 252 278 9.35 Zhambul 12 270 282 4.26 West Kazakhstan 39 173 212 18.40 Karaganda 49 70 119 41.18 Kostanai 103 147 250 41.20 Kyzylorda 99 39 138 71.74 Mangystau 47 15 62 75.81 Pavlodar 130 37 167 77.84 North Kazakhstan 111 150 261 42.53 South Kazakhstan 166 403 569 29.17 Almaty 265 240 505* 52.48 Kazakhstan 931 1818 2749 33.87

*because of a technical error in the pilot survey we do not have data for 119 people in Almaty City and other urban centres in the Almaty Oblast who are not connected to a CWSS.

80

The percentage of respondents in each oblast who pay for water is shown in table 39. While 100 % of respondents in Astana and over 90% of respondents in Mangystau, Pavlodar and Almaty pay for water, the figure is considerably lower in other Oblast. In west Kazakhstan for example fewer than 43 % of respondents pay for water with the figure for Zhambul being being c. 45 %.

Table 39 The percentage of respondents in each oblast who pay for water

Oblast % Astana 100.00Akmola 75.00 Aktobe 55.79 Atyrau 88.21 East Kazakhstan 64.38 Zhambul 45.34 West Kazakhstan 42.90 Karaganda 88.92 Kostanai 67.90 Kyzylorda 87.21 Mangystau 90.29 Pavlodar 90.11 North Kazakhstan 55.62 South Kazakhstan 62.56 Almaty 58.90* Almaty City 94.92*

* These figures are likely to be underestimated as the data for 30 respondents from Almaty City and 89 respondents from Almaty are missing. In addition to paying for water they receive people are also incur additional costs. As already shown a significant proportion of the population boil their water for drinking and have to pay for the coal or gas that they use for this purpose. Although it is not possible to calculate the actual cost of boiling water it is clear from the Questionnaire survey that energy cost represents one of the single biggest expenses for many families. In Almaty City, houses/apartments without a gas meter pay c. 180 tenge per person per month for gas. If we take an average household of three people and assume 25% of this cost can be attributed to the cost of boiling water this would add an additional c. 1600 tenge to the annual cost of water. A far more expensive option taken by many households however, it tp purchase water for drinking which as already shown can represent a significant expenditure for many households. 8.3.1. Willingness to pay for improvements in water supply security Both in the questionnaire survey and during the focus and semi-structured interviews people were ask whether they would be prepared to pay more if their water supply was improved, in terms of supply security, amount delivered and water quality. Just under 43% of respondents to the questionnaire said that they would be willing to pay more if supply frequency was improved i.e. they had water on demand (Table 40). The percentage of respondents stating a willingness to pay more being lowest in Astana and Almaty and greatest in Akmola. The fact that the two major cities were least likely to want to pay more

81

is not surprising. Residents in Astana are currently paying more for their water than most other parts of the country and in Almaty water supply security is generally good and it is likely that respondents feel that they do not need to pay for improvements in this. Table 40 Percentage of respondents in each oblast who stated a willingness to pay

extra for water on demand

% Astana 24.61Akmola 33.78Aktobe 60.24Atyrau 44.10East Kazakhstan 38.22Zhambul 57.89West Kazakhstan 51.82Karaganda 42.22Kostanai 34.93Kyzylorda 55.41Mangystau 50.86Pavlodar 38.24North Kazakhstan 51.48South Kazakhstan 38.00Almaty 47.95Almaty City 29.83Kazakhstan 42.63

Willingness to pay for improved water supply i.e for water on demand is also related to whether or not the household has or has had a piped water supply or not (table 41). Households that have a working piped water supply were least likely to want to pay for improvements in supply security with just over 35% of respondents in this category stating a willingness to pay. This figure rises to nearly 55% for those homes that have enjoyed piped water in the past but where it is no longer functioning. For respondents without a piped water supply the figure is c. 50%

Table 41 Willingness to pay for water on demand by connection type

Oblast yes no, never connected

yes, connected,

but no longer

operationalAstana 24.26 30.00 0.00 Akmola 39.66 26.70 63.64 Aktobe 61.11 59.24 0.00 Atyrau 48.73 13.33 50.00 East Kazakhstan 30.75 50.39 50.00 Zhambul 40.09 69.96 82.76 West Kazakhstan 23.08 63.98 100.00 Karaganda 41.89 43.62 44.00 Kostanai 25.00 33.33 67.12 Kyzylorda 58.68 51.09 100.00 Mangystau 55.75 43.86 20.00 Pavlodar 32.85 45.18 0.00 North Kazakhstan 33.77 53.62 84.62

82

South Kazakhstan 30.00 47.47 33.68 Almaty 12.50 60.23 0.00 Almaty City 28.57 57.14 0.00 Kazakhstan 35.45 49.92 54.21

Although many respondents (19%) who stated a willingness to pay for improved water supply security were unable to give a figure as to how much they are willing to pay 81% did. For the majority of people a sum of 200 tenge or less per household per month was suggested, although a significant proportion (34% of respondents) stated that they were prepared to pay 300 tenge or more if they had guaranteed water on demand (Fig. 48). Figure 38

Amount (in tenge) households across Kazakhstan are willing to pay for water on demand (n=3341)

22%

25%

17%

7%

10%

19%

less 100 101-200201-300301-400over 401do not know

The amount that respondents stated that they are willing to pay varied significantly across the county (Fig. 39). However, many respondents to the questionnaire, particularly those from Astana, Atyrau, Karaganda and Almaty were unable to say how much they would be willing to pay. But in other parts of the country respondents had a very clear idea of what they would pay extra to have water on demand. For example, while a relatively small percentage of people in Almaty City stated that they were willing to pay for improvements in supply, the sums they suggest were largely in excess of 400 tenge a month. Whereas respondents from Aktobe Zhambul, North Kazakhstan and South Kazakhstan, while generally willing to pay for this service generally gave figures of 200 tenge or less.

83

Figure 39

Amount (tenge) households are willing to pay each month for water on demand

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Astana

Akmola

Aktobe

Atyrau

East K

azak

hstan

Zhambu

l

Wes

t Kaz

akhs

tan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

North K

azak

hstan

South

Kazak

hstan

Almaty

Almaty

City

do not knowover 401301-400201-300101-200less 100

The main reasons for not wanting to pay for improvements in the systems were cost and the fact that they have a stable water supply already. But a significant proportion (15.5%) said they believed that the government was responsible for covering the cost of this service, while a further x % said they had no faith in the CWSS and did not think supply security could be achieved. Table 42 Reasons for not wishing to pay more for water supply security

Reason for not wishing to pay more % Government should pay 15.52I would be glad, but I cannot afford it 24.86There are more important things to spend the money on 8.59 I don't believe in the reliability of CWS 12.70I don't have problems with stability of water supply 24.69Quality of water is more important 2.36 Other 2.62 difficult to answer 8.65

8.3.2. Willingness to pay for improved water quality

Willingness to pay for improvements in water quality was also considered in the Questionnaire survey and interviews. For the country as a whole just over 45% of respondents stated a willingness to pay for improvements in water quality, but as with supply security the figure was slightly higher for respondents without a connection to a CWSS. Respondents from the Aktobe oblast were the most likely to say they would pay

45% of respondents to the questionnaire stated a willingness to pay extra for improved water quality

84

more while those from Astana, Almaty City and Kostanai least likely (Table 43). For people without a CWSS the figures varied quite considerably and whereas over 71% of respondents falling into this category in Zhambul stated a willingness to pay more the figure for Atyrau was c. 13% (Table 44).

Table 43 Percent of respondents in each oblast willing to pay more for improved water quality

Oblast % Astana 30.47 Akmola 41.22 Aktobe 64.69 Atyrau 57.64 East Kazakhstan 45.21 Zhambul 52.43 West Kazakhstan 52.15 Karaganda 50.90 Kostanai 27.07 Kyzylorda 50.82 Mangystau 41.71 Pavlodar 42.51 North Kazakhstan 53.85 South Kazakhstan 39.39 Almaty 53.42 Almaty City 32.54 Kazakhstan 45.36

Table 44 Percentage of people with and without a CWSS who were willing to pay

more for improved water quality

Oblast yes no, never connected

yes, connected,

but no longer

operational Astana 29.36 45.00 0.00 Akmola 51.72 30.89 54.55 Aktobe 65.56 63.06 50.00 Atyrau 55.33 13.33 79.17 East Kazakhstan 36.50 55.12 86.21 Zhambul 35.85 71.94 100.00 West Kazakhstan 37.36 57.35 12.00 Karaganda 47.91 48.94 42.47 Kostanai 28.37 36.16 100.00 Kyzylorda 49.70 50.36 60.00 Mangystau 53.98 21.05 0.00 Pavlodar 33.33 41.57 80.77 North Kazakhstan 32.47 52.34 35.79 South Kazakhstan 21.18 36.29 49.32 Almaty 22.49 66.18 57.80 Almaty City 31.43 57.14 0.00 Kazakhstan 37.48 50.71 50.50

85

Like supply security a large percentage of respondents (27%) who stated a willingness to pay for improvements in water quality were unable to say how much they are willing to pay. For 50% of respondents, however, a sum of 300 tenge or less was considered appropriate while a further 23% of respondents cited a sum of 300 tenge or more (Fig. 40). As such respondents were willing to pay slightly more for quality compared with supply security. Figure 40

Amount (in tenge) people are willing to pay for improvements in water quality (N=3188)

21%

18%

11%6%9%

8%

27%

1-100101-200201-300301-400401-500more than 501Do not know

Residents of Zhambul, Pavoldar and South Kazakhstan were most able to give a figure for what they are willing to pay while respondents from Almaty were willing to pay the most. Figure 41

Amount (in tenge) respondents in each Oblast are willing to pay for improvements in water quality

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Astana

Akmoli

nska

ya

Aktobe

Atyrau

Easter

n Kaz

akhs

tan

Zhambu

l

Wes

tern K

azak

hstan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

Northe

rn Kaz

akhs

tan

South

Kazak

hstan

Almaty

Almaty

City

Do not knowmore than 501401-500301-400201-300101-2001-100

86

Table 45 Main reasons for not wishing to pay more for improved water quality

Reason for not wishing to pay more Percent

The water quality is satisfactory 30.87 The government should pay 16.36 I would be glad to pay, but I can't afford to 22.25 There are more important things on which to spend money 8.51 I have paid already for installing the water purifiers 1.47 How will I know that the water quality improved 10.66 Other 2.38 Do not know 7.56

For a significant percentage of respondents the main reason for not wanting to pay more for improved water quality was the fact that they would be able to judge whether there had been an improvement in quality. This concern was also voiced by a number of interviewees.

‘I would agree to pay, but I am afraid as always. The company will raise the fee but preserve the same quality or supply even poorer quality and will justify their actions.’

(Male interviewee, Aksai City) ‘I simply do not believe that the water supply can be improved.’

(Female interviewee, rural North Kazakhstan). But some people simply do not want to pay or feel they already pay enough for their water

‘We would like to improve water quality, but we do not want to pay extra money…..|We already maintain the water department and pay for unused water and non-generated flows. Who verifies the fees rationale?’ (Male interviewee, Rudny City)

8.4 Summary of ability and willingness to pay The findings from the surveys indicate that most people already pay for water either directly or indirectly. Although it is difficult to give an exact amount for certain individuals the sums are quite high and household payments of c.10,000 tenge a year are not unusual. For many household this figure is higher if indirect costs are added in. Notwithstanding this fact there is a high level of willingness to pay for water and in particularly improved water supply security and quality. However, to a large extent people are unsure what this cost should be. Those individuals unwilling to pay are so because they perceive they have no problem with their water supply, they can not afford additional costs or they consider it the government’s responsibility to pay for this. These factors will need to be taken into account when the overall strategy for domestic water supply is developed and it is clear that public awareness campaign highlighting what people are already paying for water (both directly and indirectly), what it costs to provide water and how improvements in the system will benefit the consumer. A separate document on how such a public awareness campaign might be devised and targeted in Kazakhstan is being prepared by the project.

87

9.0 Sanitation

9.1 The general situation

A second major aim of the questionnaire survey is to provide an indication of the level of access to improved sanitation across Kazakhstan. The survey findings indicates that just under 42 % of respondents to the questionnaire lived in a house/apartment connected to a to a central waste water system (CWWS), although like water the level of service provision varied considerably from oblast to oblast. While the level of provision was very high in Astana and Almaty – Kazakhstan’s two major cities- in many oblasts the level of connection is less than 30% and in South Kazakhstan the figure was less than 15% (Table 46).

Table 46 Percentage of respondents in each oblast with a connection to a CWWS

Oblast Yes % connected No Astana 228 89.06 28 Akmola 150 39.89 226 Aktobe 178 52.82 159 Atyrau 116 50.66 113 East Kazakhstan 373 51.10 357 Zhambul 121 24.49 373 West Kazakhstan 90 29.70 213 Karaganda 503 75.30 165 Kostanai 193 42.14 265 Kyzylorda 83 27.21 222 Mangystau 111 63.43 64 Pavlodar 173 46.26 201 North Kazakhstan 71 21.01 267 South Kazakhstan 159 14.74 920 Almaty 104 12.95 699 Almaty City 482 81.69 108

Within each Oblast, however, there is a marked difference in the percentage of households in different settlement types with a connection to a waste water system. For example most oblast centres have a reasonable level of connection ranging from a low of 61% in South Kazakhstan to 98% in Aktobe. The situation in small towns however, is extremely variable. For example none of the households surveyed in North Kazakhstan and South Kazakhstan are connected to a waste water system and the figure for Kyzylorda was a mere 2%. The situation in rural settlements is fairly similar across Kazakhstan with only 76 households (2.9%) across all the rural settlements surveyed having a CWWS.

Nearly 43% of the surveyed population live in a house/apartment connected to a CWWS.

In rural settlements less than 3% of homes are connected to a CWWS

88

Table 47 Percentage of respondents in different settlement types with a connection to a CWWS

Oblast Major

City Oblast centre

Small town Rural settlement

Astana 89

Akmola 81 74 7

Aktobe 97 74 5

Atyrau 84 87 5

East Kazakhstan 90 70 12

Zhambul 54 57 0

West Kazakhstan 67 70 1

Karaganda 96 82 4

Kostanai 71 81 2

Kyzylorda 65 2 0

Mangystau 98 57 7

Pavlodar 74 66 1

North Kazakhstan 70 0 0

South Kazakhstan 61 0 0

Almaty

Almaty City 82

Householders without a CWSS were asked whether they would like to be connected. Over 46% said that they would with the level of demand being extremely similar for all settlement types. The picture at Oblast level, however, is very different. In West Kazakhstan for example over 90% of households without a CWWS would like to be connected. In marked contrast only c. 16% of the significant number of households in South Kazakhstan without a CWWS wanted to be connected

Table 48 Percentage of respondents in each oblast without a CWWS who would like to be connected

Oblasts yes % of surveyed

households Astana 22 78.57 Akmola 119 52.65 Aktobe 104 65.41 Atyrau 89 78.76 East Kazakhstan 211 59.10 Zhambul 139 37.27 West Kazakhstan 193 90.61 Karaganda 131 79.39 Kostanai 163 61.51 Kyzylorda 54 24.32 Mangystau 21 32.81 Pavlodar 112 55.72 North Kazakhstan 147 55.06 South Kazakhstan 146 15.87 Almaty 313 44.77 Almaty City 69 63.88

89

Respondents not wishing to be connected were asked why not, with most people simply stating that they did not need a connection. For some respondents, however, cost was an issue, especially for respondents living in Aktobe East Kazakhstan and Pavlodar. In a number of Oblasts, notably east Kazakhstan and South Kazakhstan a number of respondents commented that they did not want connection because there is not a sewage system in their region and as such it could be argued that if there was a CWWS these individuals would wish to be connected. Figure 42

Main reasons given for not wishing to be connected to a CWWS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Astana

Akmoli

nska

ya

Aktobe

Atyrau

Easter

n Kaz

akhs

tan

Zhambu

l

Wes

tern K

azak

hstan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

Northe

rn Kaz

akhs

tan

South

Kazak

hstan

Don't know

Other

There is no sewage system

No piped water

I can not afford it

I don't need the connection

The vast majority (c. 81%) of surveyed households who want connection to a CWWS stated that they were willing to pay, at least in part. The amount people were willing to pay is fairly low, 44% giving a figure of 1000 tenge or less. Figure 43

Amount households are willing to pay for connection to a CWWS (n=1338)

21%

23%

18%

14%

6%

1%

0%17%

less than 500 tenge

501-1000

1001-2000 tenge

2001-5000 tenge

5001-10000 tenge

10001-20000 tenge

over 20000 tenge

Don't know

90

Table 49 Amount respondents are willing to pay for connection to a CWWS

Oblast

less than 500

tenge

501-1000 tenge

1001-2000 tenge

2001-5000 tenge

5001-10000 tenge

10001-20000 tenge

over

20000 tenge

Don't know

Astana 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 14 Akmola 22 28 15 13 5 0 0 8 Aktobe 11 19 38 16 9 0 1 4 Atyrau 9 4 0 2 0 2 0 68 East Kazakhstan 49 33 35 23 8 1 0 13 Zhambul 19 56 23 12 6 0 0 7 West Kazakhstan 21 21 33 38 17 4 0 29 Karaganda 17 22 17 10 2 2 1 36 Kostanai 24 31 17 16 8 4 2 12 Kyzylorda 13 12 8 2 0 1 0 5 Mangystau 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 Pavlodar 7 18 21 17 10 1 0 14 North Kazakhstan 60 26 16 13 5 0 0 10 South Kazakhstan 23 20 18 29 9 0 0 7 9.2 Toilet facilities By far the most common type of toilet is a traditional pit latrine with 58% of the surveyed population using facilities of this sort, a further 40% of respondents had access to a toilet connected to a CWSS and as such c. 98% of the population have access to toilet facilities deemed acceptable by the UN definition. Figure 44

provision of toilet facilities amongst surveyed population

40%

1%

58%

0%

1%

modern toilet, connected to CWS and sewagetoilet connected to CWS, but not to CSSPit latrineToilet not connected nto CWSS or CWWSOther

91

Figure 45

Type of toilet facility according to settlement type for Kazakhstan

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Capital Oblast centre Small town Village

Othertoilet as a pittoilet connected to CWSS, but not to CWWSmodern toilet, connected to CWS and sewage

People living in major cities are most likely to have a toilet connected to a CWSS and a CWWS. With nearly 90% of respondents living in ALmaty City and Astana reporting toilet facilities of this type. This figure falls to c. 75% for respondents living in Oblast centres and just under 60% for small urban settlement. In contrast less than 3% of respondents in rural settlements have access to a flush toilet. Although a large number of households surveyed have a modern flush toilet connected to a CWSS and CWWS, a significant proportion, c. 82% experience cuts in their water supply during which time their toilets do not function. Although people routinely store water in their bathrooms for such eventualities- if cuts are prolonged hygiene standards are likely to suffer, increasing the risk of illness such as gastroenteritis. Figure 46

Toilet type by Oblast

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Astana

Akmoli

nska

ya

Aktobe

Atyrau

Easter

n Kaz

akhs

tan

Zhambu

l

Wes

tern K

azak

hstan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

Northe

rn Kaz

akhs

tan

South

Kazak

hstan

Other

Toilet not connected nto CWSS or CWWS

Pit latrine

toilet connected to CWS, but not to CSS

modern toilet, connected to CWS and sewage

92

For the survey as a whole 150 respondents (c. 2%) share their toilet facilities with more than one family with a further 28 respondents stating that they do not have any facility and use public toilets as such only 2.4% of the surveyed population do not have access to appropriate toilet facilities. But the situation for many of these families is appalling and highlighted by the comments of a number of interviewees who use such shared facilities.

‘The toilet in the yard is in a devastating condition. Twelve families use it….the toilet has no doors, it is always overfilled. It has been pumped out only once in the lifetime of the yard.’

(Male interviewee, Uralsk City)

‘We have a common toilet for 8 rooms (24 people). It is a total disaster.’

(Female interviewee, Pavoldar City) Yet many respondents with toilet facilities for sole use by the family would like to improve their toilet facility. This is especially true for people that live in the northern part of Kazakhstan and only have use of a outside pit-latrines. For many of these individuals using an outside toilet during the winter months is an issue.

We would like a ‘modern-type lavatory. We are in the 21st century but we do not feel ourselves a part of civilization.’

(Female interviewee, Rural Akmola)

‘We would like to have a toilet inside the house connected to a centralized sewage system. It is convenient to have a toilet inside especially during the winter time…A warm toilet is especially important for women in the winter time, as there is a permanent threat falling or catching cold. Children also suffer as they are afraid to go to the toilet in the night.’

(Female interviewee, Rural North Kazakhstan) 9.3 Bath/shower facilities Nearly 1250 of the households surveyed do not have access to their own bath/shower either in their house or outside in the yard. Most respondents made use of facilities provided by neighbours, relatives or heat water for washing in their homes. A large percentage of these people use a public banya to wash and just over half of the respondents without a bath/showers had to pay to use these facilities or those of neighbours, friends and relatives. Most people pay between 50 and 100 tenge to bath/shower although c. 35% of respondents said they paid more than 100 tenge each time they went to shower/bath.

93

Figure 47

Percentage of households surveyed with some form of bath/shower/sauna

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Astana

Akmoli

nska

ya

Aktobe

Atyrau

Easter

n Kaz

akhs

tan

Zhambu

l

Wes

tern K

azak

hstan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

Northe

rn Kaz

akhs

tan

South

Kazak

hstan

No bathroom facilitiesBath/shower/sauna outside homeBath/shower/ sauna in home

Table 50 Amount respondents pay (tenge) to use a public banya

Cost per visit (tenge) Number % of households who pay

0 5 0.77 1-50 89 13.71 51-100 318 48.99 101-150 140 21.57 151-200 46 7.08 201-250 19 2.9 251-300 9 1.38 300-400 6 0.92 over 400 6 0.92 Don't know 11 1.69 Total 649 100.00

94

10. Public assessment of what they require in terms of

water and sanitation services. As part of the questionnaire survey respondents were asked one a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being not important and 5 being very important) to assess how important it is to them to be connected to water and sanitation services and to have good quality water on demand. With respect to a piped water supply c. 68% of the survey population said it was very important to them and a further 17% considered it to be important. Just 5% of the survey considered it not to be an important issue (Fig. 48). Figure 48

How important is it to be connected to a CWSS (n=7515)

5% 2% 4%

17%

68%

4%

not important

2

3

4

very important

difficult to answer

In Figure 49 variations in the importance given to have a piped water supply by oblast is show. It is clear from these data that while the vast majority of respondents living in Astana and Karaganda consider piped water to be a very important issues it was less important for respondents living in Zhambul and particularly Almaty (Fig. 49).

95

Figure 49

The level of importance surveyed households place on having a CWSS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Astana

Akmola

Aktobe

Atyrau

East K

azak

hstan

Zhambu

l

West K

azak

hstan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

North K

azak

hstan

South

Kazak

hstan

Almaty

Almaty

City

difficult to answer

very important

4

3

2

not important

Being connected to a CWWS system was considered to be less important by the surveyed population. But nevertheless, c. 56% of respondents considered it to be very important to them with a further 16% saying it was important. Circa 11% of respondents however, did not considered a CWWS to be of importance to them (Fig. 50). Figure 50

How important is it to be connected to a CWWS (n=7515)

11%

7%

6%

14%56%

6%

not important

2

3

4

very important

difficult to answer

Like a CWSS, the importance placed on having a CWWS varied from oblast to oblast and again was of little importance for many respondents to the questionnaire who live in the Zhambul and Almaty Oblast.s and to a lesser extend the Kyzylorda and North Kazakhstan oblast. Again for residents of Astana and the Karaganda oblast it was considered to be very important (Fig. 51).

96

Figure 51

The level of importance surveyed households place on having a CWWS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Astana

Akmola

Aktobe

Atyrau

East K

azak

hstan

Zhambu

l

West K

azak

hstan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

North K

azak

hstan

South

Kazak

hstan

Almaty

Almaty

City

difficult to answervery important432not important

Having water on demand is extremely important to over 76% of the surveyed population with a further 15% considering it to be important, with relatively few people surveyed not considering water on the demand to be of importance (Fig. 52). Figure 52

How important is it to have water on demand (n=7515)

2% 1% 2%

15%

76%

4%

not important

2

3

4

very important

difficult to answer

Given the large number of respondents considering water on demand to be important it is not surprising that there is relatively little variation in assessment across the country, although people living in Mangystau (who generally have to travel the furthest for their water) placing least importance on having water on demand (Fig. 53).

97

Figure 53

Level of importance surveyed households place on having water on demand

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Astana

Akmola

Aktobe

Atyrau

East K

azak

hstan

Zhambu

l

West K

azak

hstan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

North K

azak

hstan

South

Kazak

hstan

Almaty

Almaty

City

difficult to answer

very important

4

3

2

not important

For the vast majority of respondents to the survey being able to drink water without having to treat it first is extremely important with 80& respondents stating this fact a further 12 % considered this to be very important to them (Fig. 54). Figure 54

How important is it not to have to treat water for drinking (n=7515)

1%

1%

2%12%

80%

4%

not important

2

3

4

very important

difficult to answer

This assessment is fairly consistent across the country with only a small percentage of residents in Mangystau and Aktobe saying that it was unimportant to them (Fig. 55).

98

Figure 55

The level of importanc surveyed households place on not having to treat water for drinking

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Astana

Akmoli

nska

ya

Aktobe

Atyrau

Easter

n Kaz

akhs

tan

Zhambu

l

Wes

tern K

azak

hstan

Karaga

nda

Kostan

ai

Kyzylo

rda

Mangy

stau

Pavlod

ar

Northe

rn Kaz

akhs

tan

South

Kazak

hstan

difficult to answer

very important

4

3

2

not important

99

11. Public participation in water management. As part of the questionnaire survey respondents were asked whether they thought the general public should have a say in how water is managed. For the country as a whole just under 68% of respondents said that they believed the public should have some involvement with this figure ranging from c. 50% in South Kazakhstan to nearly 88% in the case of Aktobe. In terms of settlement type there was relatively little difference between the percentage of respondents in oblast centres, small towns and rural settlements who thought there should be public involvement and although younger people are more likely to favour involvement here too there is little difference between the younger and older sector of the survey population.

Table 51 Percentage of respondents in each oblast who believe that the public should have a say in how water is managed.

Oblast % Astana 74.22 Akmola 63.83 Aktobe 87.83 Atyrau 79.91 East Kazakhstan 77.26 Zhambul 80.77 West Kazakhstan 77.89 Karaganda 78.44 Kostanai 62.23 Kyzylorda 66.23 Mangystau 69.14 Pavlodar 75.13 North Kazakhstan 66.27 South Kazakhstan 50.42 Almaty 58.28 Almaty City 54.41 Kazakhstan 67.57

Respondents mentioned a number of ways in which the public could participate but by far the most popular was writing to the government while addressing official committees and organizing thematic meetings were also considered to be way in which people can be involved in this process (Fig.56).

100

Figure 56

Ways in which the public can be involved with water management issues (n=4289)

37%

20%

21%

3%

19%

It is necessary to write to the governmentNecessary to organize thematic meetingsNecessary to address official committeesOtherDifficult to answer

Respondents who thought the public should not be involved were generally of the opinion that either the government will not listen to the views of the water the water user or the fact that water users are no knowledgeable or interested in such issues and should therefore not be involved. Figure 57

Main reasons given for the public not being involved in water management issues (n=1833)

35%

7%40%

2%

16%

Water users are not experts

Water users are not interested in it

Government will not listen

Other

Difficult to answer

101

Appendix 1. The questionnaire used in phase 2 of the survey.

CESSI-Kazakhstan Questionnaire No. ________ 86-1 Abai St., Astana, 437000 Oblast __________________________________ tel. 3172/327-852 Place _________________________

Water Supply Systems Study – 2005 Town/Village________________________________

RBO _______________________________________

********************************************************************************************************** Hello, my name is _________________. I am working on behalf of the Institute for Comparative Social Researches CESSI-Kazakhstan. We are interviewing the population regarding supply, quality and use of water. This interview is completely confidential so all the data will be in aggregated form upon processing by the PC. Thank you very much for your assistance! **********************************************************************************************************

INTERVIEWER, please specify the exact time when the interview started: !____!____! : !____!____! a.m./p.m.

B. Domestic Water Supply B1. Please tell me is your house /apartment connected to the central water supply system?

1. Yes GO TO QUESTION B2 2. No GO TO QUESTION B3 3. Yes, it is, but it does not work GO TO QUESTION B2.1

B2. The water supplied is:

1. Cold GO TO QUESTION B 8 2. Hot and cold GO TO QUESTION B8

B2.1. How long do you live without central water supply system? 1. less than 1 year 2. from 1 to3 years 3. from 3 to 5 years 4. from 5 to 10 years 5. over 10 years (999) Difficult to answer

B3. Do you wish to be connected to the central water supply system? 1. Yes GO TO QUESTION В4 2. No GO TO QUESTION В6

B4. Are you willing to pay for connection? 1. Yes GO TO QUESTION В5 2. No GO TO QUESTION В7

B5. What is the amount in tenge you are willing to pay for installation of the central water supply system and subsequent connection? It means a single payment.

1. less than 500 tenge 2. 501-1000 tenge 3. 1001-2000 tenge 4. 2001-5000 tenge 5. 5001-10000 tenge 6. over 10001tenge (999) Difficult to answer

GO TO QUESTION 24 B6 Why are you unwilling to pay for connection?

102

1. I am willing but unable to pay 2. It is too expensive 3. It is the responisibility of the authorities/government 4. other [specify]

B7. Why do not you wish to be connected to the central water supply system?

1. It is too expensive 2. I can not afford to pay for it 3. I do not need/want to be connected 4. It is impossible to connect people in this region 5. Other [specify] 6. Do not

know_________________________________________________________________! GO TO QUESTION B 24

В8. Please specify the monthly amount your household pays for cold water supplied from the central water

supply system (tenge)? 1. 0 2. 1-50 3. 51-100 4. 101-150 5. 151-200 6. 201-250 7. 251-300 8. 301-350 9. 351-400 10. 401-500 11. >501 12. Do not know

B9. Please specify the monthly amount your household pays for hot water supplied from the central water supply system (tenge)?

1. 0 2. 1-50 3. 51-100 4. 101-150 5. 151-200 6. 201-250 7. 251-300 8. 301-350 9. 351-400 10. 401-500 11. 501-600 12. 601-700 13. >701 14. DO not know

В10 . Do you have water metre installed in your apartment/household? /READ OUT/ 1. Yes, we have a cold water metre installed in our apartment/private house 2. Yes, we have a hot water metre installed in our apartment/private house 3. We have cold and hot water metres installed in our apartment /house 4. No GO TO QUESTION B13 5.

В11. Please specify, do you have a water meter installed individually in your apartment/household, one for the whole house, or one for several apartments?

(1) In our apartment /household (2) One metre for the house (3) One metre for several apartments in the house (4) Other (specify) ______________________________

Удалено: Разрыв страницы

103

(999) difficult to answer В12. What is your monthly average water consumption in cubic meters according to the metre?

a) Hot water……………………. !__________! m ³ (9999) Difficult to answer b) Cold water………………….. !__________! m ³ (9999) - Difficult to answer

HAVING REPLIED TO THIS QUESTION GO TO QUESTION В17 FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE WATER METRES IN THE APARTMENT ONLY В13. Do you plan or did you ever plan to have metre installed?

1. Yes 2. No GO TO QUESTION B15

В14. What has prevented you from having the metre installed? [Do not read more than one can be marked]

1. too expensive 2. I can not afford it 3. I have no need for one 4. I haven’t had time to install one 5. I do not know how to install one 6. I do not know who to ask about installation 7. Other [specify] 8. Do not know _________________________________________________________________________________________!

IF THE RESPONDENT SPECIFIES IN QUESTION B14 THAT THE INSTALLMENT IS VERY EXPENSIVE OR THAT THEY CAN NOT AFFORD TO PAY, ASK QUESTION В16, IF OTHERWISE GO TO QUESTION B17 В15. Why do not you plan to have the metre installed?

1 too expensive 2 I can not afford it 3 I have no need for one 4 I haven’t had time to install one 5 I do not know how to install one 6 I do not know who to ask about installation 7 Other [specify] 8 Do not know

(999) Difficult to answer IF THE RESPONDENT SPECIFIES IN QUESTION В15 THAT THE INSTALLMENT IS VERY EXPENSIVE OR THAT THEY CAN NOT AFFORD TO PAY, ASK QUESTION В16, IF OTHERWISE GO TO QUESTION B17 В16. Would you consider installing a metre if you have been granted an interest-free credit allowed you to pay for it back over a period of 12 months?

1. Yes GO TO QUESTION В16.2 2. No GO TO QUESTION В16.1

В.16.1 Why do not you like to have a metre installed provided the government willingness to grant a credit?

(1) I can not afford it (2) The government should pay (3) I do not want one (4) I do not need one (5) I do not know/difficult to answer (6) Other (specify)________________________________________ (999) Difficult to answer

В.16.2. How much do you think it costs in tenge to buy and install the metre?

104

1. <1000 2.1000-2000 3.2000-3000 4.3000-5000 5.5000-10000 6.>10000 7. Do not know

999) I do not know/Difficult to answer

WATER SUPPLY В17. Is your water supply cut off occasionally?

1. Yes GO TO QUESTION B18 2. No GO TO QUESTION B20

В18. Is you water supply cut off randomly without notification or with a notification? /READ OUT/

1. Notified in advance 2. Cut of randomly 3. Sometimes notified, sometimes not 4. Other (specify)______________________________________________________ (999) Difficult to answer

В19. How often is your water supply cut off on average, and how long you are without water until the next switch on? В19.1 COLD WATER

a/ winter months b/ summer months

а/ Days in a month ................................................ !_______! DAYS .......................... !_______! DAYS ..........................................................................(999) I do not know ........................(999) I do not know

b/ Hours in a day .................................................. !_______! HOURS ........................ !_______! HOURS ..........................................................................(999) I do not know ........................(999) I do not know

В19.2 HOT WATER

a/ winter months b/ summer months

а/ Days in a month ................................................. !_______! DAYS .......................... !_______! DAYS ..........................................................................(999) I do not know ........................(999) I do not know

b/ Hours in a day ................................................... !_______! HOURS ........................ !_______! HOURS ..........................................................................(999) I do not know ........................(999) I do not know

В20. Do you have any problem with the quality of you domestic water supply? 1. Yes 2. No GO TO QUESTION С1

В21. Please specify, what kind of problem you have with the water quality? /SPECIFY THE RESPONDENT’S ANSWER IN BELOW TABLE IN COLUMN В21/ В22. What is a single the most important problem of the water quality? / SPECIFY ONLY ONE ANSWER IN COLUMN В22/

Question QuestThe water looks opaque, it has a yellow colour 1 The water contains sediments (sand, dirt, other particles) 2 2The water has a strange smell 3 3

105

The water has an after-taste 4 4There is sediment/scale on the crockery 5 5The water is salty 6 6Other characteristics of poor water quality /SPECIFY/_________________ ____________________________________________________________________

_____ ___

(999)Difficult to answer 999 99 В23. How do you deal with a water of poor quality? /DO NOT READ OUT, SPECIFY ALL MENTIONED/

(1) Let it stream down (2) Let it precipitate (settle) (3) Boil it (4) Filter it (5) Take water from another source (6) Other /SPECIFY/

_____________________________________________________________________ (7) Do nothing (999) Difficult to answer

GO TO MODULE «С» - POTABLE WATER, PAGE 8

В24. Is your village/town district connected to the central water supply system?

1. Yes GO TO QUESTION B25 2. No GO TO QUESTION B26 3. Yes, but no longer functioning GO TO QUESTION B25.1

В25. Please specify, do you have only cold water supply or both cold and hot?

1. Cold GO TO QUESTION 30 2. Hot and cold GO TO QUESTION B30

В25.1 How many years has your village/town district been without a central water supply?

1. less than 1 year 2. from1 to 3 years 3. from 3 to 5 years 4. from 5 to 10 years 5. more than 10 years (999) Difficult to answer

В26. Would you wish your village/town district to be connected to the central water supply system? 1. Yes GO TO QUESTION В27 2. No GO TO QUESTION В29

В27. Are you willing to pay for connection?

1. Yes GO TO QUESTION В28 2. No GO TO QUESTION В29

В28. What is the amount in tenge you are willing to pay for installation of the central water supply system

and subsequent connection? It means a single payment. 7. less than 500 tenge 8. 501-1000 tenge 9. 1001-2000 tenge 10. 2001-5000 tenge 11. 5001-10000 tenge 12. more than 10001tenge (999) Difficult to answer

106

GO TO QUESTION B30 B29. Why do not you wish to be connected to the central water supply system?

1 It is too expensive 2 I can not afford to pay for it 3 I do not need/want to be connected 4 It is impossible to connect people in this region 5 Other [specify] 6 Do not

know!___________________________________________________________________________________________!

В30. What is you main source of water for domestic/household use (cooking/washing clothes/cleaning etc) 1. Pipe connected to house 2. Individual standpipe outside house 3. Communal standpipe 4. Individual well with hand pump 5. Individual well with electrical pump 6. Uncovered well 7. Communal well with hand pump 8. Communal well with electric pump 9. communal well that is uncovered 10 Individual water reservoir 11. Communal water reservoir 12. Spring, stream or river 13. Irrigation canal (arik) 14. Transported water 15. Other [specify] 16. do not know

_________________________________________________________________________________________!

B31 Please specify, is your water for domestic use derived from groundwater or surface water sources

1. Ground water 2. Surface water 3. Groundwater and surface water 4. Do not know

!___________________________________________________________________________________________! В32. Who has the main responsibility for collecting water for domestic/personal use in your house? [Read out]

1. Male adult(s) in the family 2. Female adult (s) in the family 1. Boys in the family (less than 16 years old) 2. Girls in the family (less than `16 years old) 3. It is of no concern 4. Other (specify)____________________________ (999) Difficult to answer

107

B33 How many times a week does a member of your household collect water?................times per week B34. How much water is collected each time (litres)?>

1. 10 2. 20 3. 40 4. 60 5. 80 6. 100 7. >100 8. Do not know

B35 How far do you go to collect water (metres)

1 <20 2. 20-50 3. 50-100 4. 100-200 5. 200-300 6. 300-500 7. 500-1000 8>1000 9. Do not know.

B36 How do you go for water

1. Walk 2. on a bike 3. with a hand pulled cart 4. with a horse drawn cart 5. in a car/truck 6. Other [specify] 7. Do not know

B37 How long does it take to go for water (minutes)

1. < 5 2. 5-10 3. 10-15 4. 15-20 5. 20-30 6. 30-40 7. 40-60 8. >60 9. Do not know

B38 Do you have to pay for this water?

1. Yes 2. No

B39 Do you pay monthly or yearly?

1. Monthly Go to B39.1 2. Yearly Go to B39.2 3. Other {specaify] Go to B40 4. Do not know Go to B40

B39.1 If paying monthly how much does your household pay for water each month (tenge)

1 1 -50 2 51-100 3 101-150 4 151-200

108

5 201-250 6 251-300 7 301-350 8 351-400 9 401-500 10 >501 11 Do not know

B39.2 If paying yearly how much does your household pay per year.

1. <500 2. 501-1000 3. 1001-2000 4. 2001-3000 5. 3001-5000 6. 5001-10000 7. >10001

IF RESPONDENT USES WATER FROM A BOREHOLE (code 4 and 5 in question В30) – ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTION BLOCK B40 – B40.4, IF OTHERWISE GO TO В41 B40. Have you drilled a borehole for water in the last 10 years?

1. Yes 2. No → GO TO QUESTION В41

В40.1. Please specify, what year did you drill it?

SPECIFY A YEAR!______________________! (999) Difficult to answer

В40.2. Why did you decide to drill it?

!___________________________________________________________________________________________!

(999) Difficult to answer B40.3. Please specify how much did the well and installations cost in tenge?

1. <5000 2. 5001-10000 3. 1001-20000 4. 20001-30000 5. 30001-50000 6. 50001-70000 7. >70001

999) Difficult to answer B40.4 Does it have a pump?

1. Yes 2. No

GO TO QUESTION B42 В41. Do you intend to drill a borehole for water in the near future (next five years)

1. Yes 2. No GO TO QUESTION B42

В41.1 How much do you think it will cost to drill a well (tenge)?

1 <5000 2 5001-10000 3 10001-20000 4 20001-30000

109

5 30001-50000 6 50001-70000 7 >70001

999) Difficult to answer

WATER SUPPLY В42. Are there any cases when your water supply is cut off?

1. Yes GO TO QUESTION B43 2. No GO TO QUESTION B45

В43. Is you water supply cut off randomly without notification or with a notification? /READ OUT/

1. Notified in advance 2. Cut of randomly 3. Sometimes notified, sometimes not

В44. How often is your water supply cut off on average, and how long you are without water until the next switch on? a/ winter months b/ summer months

а/ Days in a month ................................................. !_______! DAYS .......................... !_______! DAYS ..........................................................................(999) I do not know ........................(999) I do not know

b/ Hours in a day ................................................... !_______! HOURS ........................ !_______! HOURS ..........................................................................(999) I do not know ........................(999) I do not know

B45. Do you have any problem with the quality of your domestic water supply? 1. Yes 2. No GO TO QUESTION С1

В46. Please specify, what kind of problem you have with the water quality? /DO NOT READ OUT, SPECIFY ALL MENTIONED IN THE BELOW TABLE, COLUMN OF Question 46/ В47. What is a single the most important problem of the water quality? / DO NOT READ OUT, SPECIFY ONLY ONE ANSWER IN COLUMN OF QUESTION 47/

Question QuesThe water looks opaque, it has a yellow colour 1 The water contains sediments (sand, dirt, other particles) 2 The water has a strange smell 3 The water has an after-taste 4 There is sediment/scale on the crockery 5 The water is salty 6 Other characteristics of poor water quality /SPECIFY /_______________ __________________________________________________________________

_____ __

Difficult to answer 999 9 В48. How do you deal with water of poor quality? /DO NOT READ OUT, SPECIFY ALL MENTIONED/

(1) Let it stream down (2) Let it precipitate (settle) (3) Boil it (4) Filter it (5) Take water from another source (6) Other /SPECIFY/

_____________________________________________________________________ (7) Do nothing

110

(999) Difficult to answer

C. Potable (Drinking)Water Module

C1 What is your main source of water for drinking? /SHOW THE CARD NO.1, SPECIFY ONE ANSWER/

1. Central water supply system 2. Water pipe line connected to the household 3. Communal stand pipe 4. Individual well 5. Communal well 6. Surface water (source, river, lake and etc.) 7. Individual water storage 8. Communal water storage 9. Transported water 10. Desalinated water 11. Bottled water

C2 Do you treat water for drinking? 1. Yes GO TO QUESTION C3 2. No GO TO QUESTION C9

С3. Why do you treat water for drinking?

!___________________________________________________________________________________________!

!___________________________________________________________________________________________!

!___________________________________________________________________________________________!

(999) Difficult to answer С4. How do you MOSTLY treat water for drinking?

(1) Boiling GO TO QUESTION С5 (2) Filtering GO TO QUESTION C6 (3) Precipitation GO TO QUESTION C9 (4) Other /SPECIFY/_________________________________________________

IF THE RESPONDENT BOILS WATER FOR DRINKING ASK QUESTION С5 С5. If you boil water for drinking for how long do you boil it?

/___________/ MINUTES (999) Difficult to answer

IF THE RESPONDENT FILTERS WATER FOR DRINKING ASK QUESTIONS С6-С8, IF OTHERWISE GO TO QUESTION С9 С6. How much did you pay for buying and installation of the filter and cartridge?

COST /___________________/ TENGE (999) Difficult to answer С7. How often do you change your filter a year?

111

/____________ /TIMES (999) Difficult to answer

С8. How often do you change your cartridge a year?

/____________ /TIMES (999) Difficult to answer

C9. Do you buy the bottled water?

1. Yes 2. No GO TO QUESTION C14

С10. Why do you use the bottled water? /DO NOT READ OUT, SPECIFY ALL ANSWERS GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT/

(1) We drink it like other non-alcoholic drinks (2) For higher quality/better taste (3) For health and safety reasons (4) Other /SPECIFY/_________________________________________________ (999) Difficult to answer

С11. How many bottles of water for your household do you buy per week?

!__________! BOTTLES (999) Difficult to answer С12. How much water does each bottle contain?

!__________! LITERS (999) Difficult to answer С13. How much do you pay per bottle of water (tenge)?

1 < 25 2 26-50 3 51-75 4. 76-100 5.101-125 6.126-150 7.151-175 8. 176-200 9. 201-300 10. >300 11. do not know

!__________! TENGE (999) Difficult to answer

C14. Now I am going to read out several statements made by some people concerning the potable water of your settlement. With regareach statement please specify how much the cold water in your town /village is suitable for use according to the following optionscompletely suitable, suitable on the whole, not so suitable or completely unsuitable? So how much water in your town /village is suitable: /READ OUT, STARTING FROM THE STATEMENT TICKED. MARK ON EVERY LINE/

Completely Suitable Not so Completely Difficult suitable on the whole suitable unsuitable to answer

a/ For drinking ................................................................................1 ...................... 2 ....................3 ................ 4.................. (9)

b/ For cooking ................................................................................1 ...................... 2 ....................3 ................ 4.................. (9)

c/ For domestic needs (washing, cleaning, etc.) .............................1 ...................... 2 ....................3 ................ 4.................. (9)

d/ For personal hygiene (washing) .................................................1 ...................... 2 ....................3 ................ 4.................. (9)

e/ For the livestock .........................................................................1 ...................... 2 ....................3 ................ 4.................. (9)

D. Sanitation/Health

D1. Is your house connected to the central wastewater system?

1. Yes GO TO QUESTION D7 2. No GO TO QUESTION D2

112

D2. Would you wish to be connected to the central wastewater system? 1. Yes 2. No GO TO QUESTION D

D3. If you would wish to be connected, would you be willing to contribute towards the part of connection costs?

1. Yes 2. No GO TO QUESTION D5

113

D4. How much would you be willing to pay?

1. less than 500 tenge 2. 501-1000 tenge 3. 1001-2000 tenge 4. 2001-5000 tenge 5. 5001-10000 tenge 6. 10001-20000 tenge 7. < 20000 tenge 8. Do not know.

!__________! Tenge (999) Difficult to answer GO TO QUESTIO

D5. Why would not you be willing to contribute towards the part of the connection costs of your household/apartment to the central wastewater system? 1. It is too expensive 2. I can not afford to pay for it 3. I do not need/want to be connected 4. It is impossible to connect people in this region 5. The authorities should pay 6. Other [specify] 7. Do not know

!___________________________________________________________________________________________! !___________________________________________________________________________________________! (999) Difficult to answer

GO TO QUESTIOD6. If you do not wish to be connected specify the reason?

(1) I do not need it (2) I can not afford it (3) Other /SPECIFY/_________________________________________________ (999) Difficult to answer

D7. Do you have a toilet at home?

(1) Yes GO TO QUESTION D8 (2) No GO TO QUESTION D10

D8. Is it connected to the Central Water Supply System?

(1) Yes (2) No

D9. Is it connected to the Central waste water system?

(1) Yes (2) No

AFTER ANSWERING QUESTION D9 GO TO QUESTIOND10. Do you have a toilet outside your home?

(1) Yes GO TO QUESTION D11 (2) No GO TO QUESTION D13

D11. Is it connected to the Central Water Supply System?

(1) Yes (2) No

D12. Is it connected to the Central waste water system?

(1) Yes (2) No

AFTER ANSWERING QUESTION D12 GO TO QUESTION FOR THOSE WHO DOES NOT HAVE A TOILET EITHER INSIDE OR OUTSIDE THE HOUSE D13. If you do not have a toilet what facility do you use most?

1. Neighbour’s toilet facility 2. Public toilet facility 3. Other /SPECIFY /_________________________________________________

GO TO QUESTIOND14. Please, describe the type of toilet you have:

114

1. Modern toilet connected to the central water supply system and waste water system 2. The toilet connected to the central water supply system but not to the waste water system 3. A pit which is not connected neither to the central water supply system nor wastewater system 4. Other /SPECIFY /_________________________________________________

D15. Is your toilet a communal facility used by more than one family?

(1) Yes, it is and used by several families GO TO QUESTION D16 (2) No GO TO QUESTION D17

D16. If yes how many families share this facility?

Number of families /________________/ D17. Do you have a bath/shower/sauna at home?

(1) Yes (2) No GO TO QUESTION D20

D18. Is it connected to the Central Water Supply System?

(1) Yes (2) No D19. Is it connected to the Central waste water system?

(1) Yes (2) No AFTER ANSWERING QUESTION D19 GO TO QUESTION

D20. Do you have a bath/shower/sauna outside your house? (1) Yes (2) No GO TO QUESTION D23

D21. Is it connected to the Central Water Supply System?

(1) Yes (2) No D22. Is it connected to the Central waste water system?

(1) Yes (2) No AFTER ANSWERING QUESTION D22 GO TO QUESTION

FOR THOSE WHO DOES NOT HAVE A BATH/SHOWER/banya EITHER INSIDE OR OUTSIDE THE HOUSE D23. Where do you take a bath/shower/sauna?

1. Public banya

2. Neighbours banya

3. Heat water in home

4. Other [specify]

5. Do not know / D24. Do you have to pay for this?

(1) Yes (2) No GO TO QUESTION D26

D25. How much do you pay per time?

1. 0-50

2. 51-100

3. 101-150

4. 151-200

5. 201-250

6. 251-300

7. 300-400

8. >400

9. do not know

115

D26. Have you or any of your family members experienced health problems in the last twelve months? / READ OUT / 1. Yes, sometimes GO TO QUESTION D27 2. Yes, all the time/almost all the time GO TO QUESTION D27 3. No, none at all GO TO QUESTION Е1

(999) Difficult to answer GO TO QUESTION Е1 D27. Please complete the following table indicating the number of people in each age range in your family that have experienced healtproblems in the last 12 months. /GIVE AN ANSWER IN EVERY LINE/

children uo

children 1-5 children 6-1 adults of adults adults older than Non

a) Gastrointestinal Diseas 2 3 4 5 6 9 b) Hepatitis 2 3 4 5 6 9 c) Headaches 2 3 4 5 6 9 d) Skin Problems 2 3 4 5 6 9 f) Other ___________ ___________________

2 3 4

5

6

g) Other __________ ___________________

2 3 4

5

6

D28. What do you think is the main cause of these illnesses? /DO NOT READ OUT. SPECIFY ONE REPLY/

(1) Poor water quality (2) Poor environmental conditions, including general air pollution (3) Poor housing conditions, e.g. lack of running water (4) Poverty related – i.e. lack of money for proper food (5) Other /SPECIFY)_________________________________________________ (999) Difficult to answer

E. Willingness to pay

E1. Please evaluate three parameters related to water supply in your settlement, in particular water supply frequency, water quantityquality. Please use the scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means “very bad”, and 5 – “excellent”. /INTERVIEWER, PLEASE SPECIFY THE ANSWER IN EACH LINE /. So, how would you evaluate …

Very Excellent Bad

“ “ “ “ “

Difficult to

a) Water supply frequency 999b) Water quantity 999c) Water quality 999

Е2. Now I am going to read out some statements related to water supply and sanitation, please evaluate on the scale from 1 to 5 how impor

are they for you and your family. Please use the scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means “not important”, and 5 – “very important”. /INTERVIEWER, PLEASE SPECIFY THE ANSWER IN EACH LINE /. So, how would you evaluate …

Not Very

important important Difficult to

a) Your house is connected to central water system

1 2 3 4 5 999

b) Your house is connected to central wastesystem

1 2 3 4 5 999

c) Water is available on demand 1 2 3 4 5 999 d) The water does not need to be treated befdrinking

1 2 3 4 5 999

Е3. How much do you think you would benefit from improvement of water supply?

(1) A great deal (2) Nothing will be changed (3) A little (999) Difficult to answer

Е4. Would you be willing to pay more for your domestic water if the supply/service delivery is improved, e.g. water is always availabledemand)?

116

(1) Yes GO TO QUESTION Е5 (2) No GO TO QUESTION Е6

Е5. How much are you willing to pay monthly for the service improved?

1. <50

2. 51-100

3. 101-150

4. 151-200

5. 201-300

6. 301-400

7. 401-500

8. 501-1000

9. >1000

10. Do not know GO TO QUESTIO

E6. Why do not you like to pay? /DO NOT READ OUT, MORE THAN ONE ANSWER CAN BE SPECIFIED/ (1) Government should pay (2) I would like to, but cannot afford it (3) There are more important things to spend money on (4) I don’t believe it would be possible to improve the reliability of the central water supply (5) There are no problems with regularity of the water supply (6) The quality of water is more important (7) Other /SPECIFY /_________________________________________________ (999) Difficult to answer

E7. Would you be willing to pay more for your domestic water if the quality of the water was improved, e.g. water would be cleaner an

less polluted etc.? (1) Yes GO TO QUESTION Е8 (2) No GO TO QUESTION Е9

Е8. How much are you willing to pay monthly for improved quality of water?

!__________! Tenge (999) Difficult to answer E9. Why do not you like to pay? / DO NOT READ OUT, MORE THAN ONE ANSWER CAN BE SPECIFIED /

(1) Government should pay (2) I would like to, but cannot afford it (3) There are more important things to spend money on (4) The quality of water is sufficient for my use (5) I have already spent money on installing own water purification/treatment system (6) How would I know that the water quality is improved (7) Other /SPECIFY /_________________________________________________

(999) Difficult to answer E10. Do you think that the consumers should have a say in the way water is managed?

(1) Yes GO TO QUESTION Е11 (2) No GO TO QUESTION Е12

E11. In what way the consumers should be involved? /DO NOT READ OUT, MORE THAN ONE ANSWER CAN BE SPECIFIED/

(1) By writing to the appropriate authority (2) By arranging public meetings (3) By sitting on official committees, River Basin Councils (4) Other /SPECIFY)_________________________________________________ (999) Difficult to answer

GO TO QUESTIOE12. Please specify, why do you think the consumers should not have a say in the way the water is managed? / DO NOT READ OUT, MTHAN ONE ANSWER CAN BE SPECIFIED /

(1) The consumers are not experts in this matter (2) The consumers are not interested in these issues (3) The authorities will not listen to what the consumers say

117

(4) Other /SPECIFY)_________________________________________________ (999) Difficult to answer

К. Information Sources K1. Please specify, do you read newspapers and magazines?

(1) Yes (2) No GO TO QUESTION K3

K2. Which newspapers, magazines do you mostly read? /INTERVIEWER, SPECIFY SEPARATELY NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES /

A) NEWSPAPERS !_____________________________________________________________________________________!

!__________________________________________________________________________________________! (999) Difficult to answer

B) MAGAZINES !__________________________________________________________________________________!

!__________________________________________________________________________________________! (999) Difficult to answer

K3. Please specify, do you listen to a radio?

(1) Yes (2) No GO TO QUESTION K6

K4. What station do you mostly listen to? Please specify.

STATION / ______________________________________________________________/ (999) Difficult to answer

K5. At what time do you mostly listen to this radio station in different seasons?

A) Summer B) Winter In the morning 1 1 In the afternoon 2 2 In the evening 3 3 At night 4 4 Difficult to answer (999) (999)

K6. Please specify, do you watch TV?

(1) Yes (2) No GO TO QUESTION K9

K7. What Kazakh (Kazakh or Russian language) channel do you watch most? (1) ORT Kazakhstan (2) Habar (3) КТК (4) El Arna (5) ТАN (6) Other /SPECIFY)_________________________________________________ (999) Difficult to answer

K8. At what time do you mostly watch this channel in different seasons?

A) Summer B) Winter In the morning 1 1 In the afternoon 2 2 In the evening 3 3 At night 4 4 Difficult to answer (999) (999)

K9. Do you ever receive information on water supply/water quality issues?

(1) Yes (2) No GO TO QUESTION K11

K10. From what sources do you receive it? /DO NOT READ OUT, MORE THAN ONE ANSWER CAN BE SPECIFIED/

(1) Water organisations such as Vodokanal

118

(2) Newspapers (3) Radio (4) TV (5) Neighbours (6) Other /SPECIFY /_________________________________________________ (999) Difficult to answer

K11. Would you wish to receive more information on water supply and water quality?

(1) Yes (2) No GO TO BLOCK L

K12. Where would you think this information should be provided? / DO NOT READ OUT, MORE THAN ONE ANSWER CAN BE

SPECIFIED / (1) Shops/bazaar (2) Schools (3) Hospitals/doctors (4) Akimat (5) Libraries (6) TV (7) Radio (8) Local newspapers (9) Other /SPECIFY /_________________________________________________ (999) Difficult to answer

K13. Now I am going to read out different sources of information, please specify how much do you trust the information related to w

supply and water quality obtained from these sources? /READ OUT. SPECIFY ONE ANSWER IN EACH LINE/ Much con Some Conf Very little co No confi Not appla) Radio 1 2 3 4 98 b) TV 1 2 3 4 98 c) Newspapers, magazines 1 2 3 4 98 d) Local authorities 1 2 3 4 98 e) Public organizations 1 2 3 4 98 f) Neighbours 1 2 3 4 98 g) Internet 1 2 3 4 98 h) Other (specify)_________________ 1 2 3 4

G. Socio-Economic And Demographic Information G1. Number of member in your family, including yourself:

!_______! members G2. Please fill in table below about your family members:

Family member S Age+ Occupation*

Nationality

a) You b) NA NA c) NA NA d) NA NA e) NA NA f) NA NA g) NA NA h) NA NA i) NA NA j) NA NA *In column “occupation” it is required to specify whether a member is working, studying, retiree, unemployed, housewife, invalid. NA means information not required. ++Interviewer for age Please code under the following:

1. <5 years 2. 5-15 years 3. 16-25 years 4. 26-35 years 5. 36-45 years 6. 46-55 years

119

7. 56-65 years 8. 66-75 years 9. >76 years

G3. Please specify, your education level? /READ OUT/

1. Secondary uncompleted 2. General secondary school 3. Secondary specialist/technical school 4. Higher uncompleted 5. Higher 6. Does not wish to reply

G4. Type of your dwelling:

1. Household GO TO QUESTION G6 2. Cottage GO TO QUESTION G6 3. Multiple dwelling GO TO QUESTION G5 4. Other (specify) ___________________________________

G5. If you live in a multiple dwelling, what floor do live on?

!_______! floor G6. Please specify, is your house own or rented:

1. own (by your family) 2. rented by you (your family)

G7. How long have you lived in your village /town?

/_______________/ YEARS G8. Do you intend to move from your place?

(1) Yes GO TO QUESTION G9 (2) No GO TO QUESTION G11

G9. Why do you intend to move? /DO NOT READ OUT, MORE THAN ONE ANSWER CAN BE SPECIFIED /

(1) The living conditions here are very difficult and harsh climate (2) The village/town/city has no gas/electricity (3) Poor water supply system and water quality (4) There is no work here (5) People are leaving the area and there will be no one left (6) There are better opportunities elsewhere i.e work/education (7) Other /SPECIFY / ___________________________________ (999) Difficult to answer

IF THE MAIN REASON IS THE POOR WATER SUPPLY OR WATER QUALITY GO TO QUESTION G10, IF OTHERWISE GOQUESTION G11 G10. Would you stay here if the water supply/quality was improved?

(1) Yes (2) No G11. Do you have a garden plot?

(1) Yes GO TO QUESTION G12 (2) No GO TO QUESTION G16

G12. How big is your plot?

/____________/ SPECIFY NUMBER OF SOTKA (999) Difficult to answer G13. How much of your food do you get from your garden plot?

(1) Less than 20% (2) 20-40% (3) 40-60% (4) 60-80% (5) more than 80% (999) Difficult to answer

G14. Do you have your own farm?

120

(1) Yes (2) No GO TO QUESTION G16

121

G15. How much of your food you get from your livestock production?

(1) Less than 20% (2) 20-40% (3) 40-60% (4) 60-80% (5) More than 80% (999) Difficult to answer

G16. Please specify your total family income in the last month? To do this you have to summarise the amount of all real earnings, pensions, scholarships and others gained by your family members in the last month. Do not account for the salaries unpaid.

1. less than 5000 tenge 2. 5001 – 10000 tenge 3. 10001 – 15000 tenge 4. 15001 – 20000 tenge 5. 20000-30000 tenge 6. 30000-50000 tenge 7. more than 50000 tenge (999) Difficult to answer

G17. Now I am going to read out some expense items, please specify, how much do you spend on each of them? So, how much do you spend on: /READ OUT AND SPECIFY ON EVERY ITEM/ Amount We spend n

a/ Tobacco per week.............................................................................................................. !________!............... (97) b/ Bread per week .................................................................................................................. !________!............... (97) c/ Food per week ................................................................................................................... !________!............... (97) d/ Transport/ petrol and car service per week ........................................................................ !________!............... (97)

e/ Utility bills (except for water) per month, e.g. electricity.................................................. !________!............... (97) f/ Water bill per month.......................................................................................................... !________!............... (97) f/ Non-food household items, such as soap, hygienic stuff, etc. per month.......................... !________!............... (97) g/ Clothes, shoes per year ...................................................................................................... !________!............... (97) h/ Service, such as health, education – per year..................................................................... !________!............... (97) i/ Celebrations, parties, feasts per month .............................................................................. !________!............... (97) j/ Other /SPECIFY _____________________________________________________ !________!…………(97)

G18. What do you think are the three most important issues affecting your town/village/settlement. (respondents may be shown list) Most important Second most important Third most important Unemployment Low living standard of Po High price of food Lack of heating Problems with water suppquality

Poor roads and transport s Environmental pollution No entertainment for yout Alcoholism/drug abuse

122

Lack of pasture for livesto Lack of hot water Poor education standards Other [specify] READ OUT TO THE RESPONDENT: These are all the questions we planned to ask. If you have any question you may contact us by telephone in Astana: 32-78-52. Thank you very much for your assistance!

INTERVIEWER! DO NOT FORGET TO SPECIFY THE EXACT TIME WHEN THE INTERVIEW WAS COMPLETED. NOW IT IS: !_____!_____!: !_____!_____! O’clock.

INTERVIEWER, PLEASE STATE CLEARLY YOUR FULL NAME ____________________________________________________ The Interviewer’s guarantee: I certify that the interview was conducted in accordance with the INSTRUCTION by personal interview method with the respondent selected as per the Instruction. The interviewer’s number!_________! Signature ____________________

Date of interview: ________ date ________________ month 2003

©The Institute for Comparative Social Researches CODE ENTER

123

Appendix 2 The administration of the questionnaire by Oblast.

Akmola City Kokshetau 90

Stepnogorsk 41 Esyl 19 Atbasar 25

Total 175 Settlement Shortandy 30

Kabanbai Batyr 30 Sosnovka 1 Borisovka 27 Zhaksy 30 Prirechie 24 Novokievka 30 Bereznyakovka 29

Total 201 Total

Oblast 376

Aktobe

City Aktobe 150 Shalkar 15 Hromtau 20

Total 185 Settlement Pokrovka 30

Aktam 30 Taldysai 30 Tumalykol 31 Aksai 31

Total 152 Total

Oblast 337

Atyrau

City Atyrau 85 Makat 46 Total 131 Aibas 30

Settlement Myaly 34 Mahambet 34 Total 98

Total Oblast

229

East Kazakhstan

City Ust-Kamenogorsk 185 Zyryanovsk 21 Semei 170 Ridder 54

124

Total 430 Settlement Belokamenka 30

Sosnovka 30 Bolshenaryn 30 Georgievka 30 Samarskoye 30 Kamyshynka 30 Berezovka 30 Butakovo 30 Kamenka 30 Sergipol 30 Total 300

Total Oblast

730

Zhambul

City Taraz 181 Zhanatas 21 Chu 21 Total 223

Settlement Igilik 30 Kyzylsay 30 Tasotkel 29 Karatas 30 Kumshagal 30 Buryl 31 Turymkul 31 Berlyk 30 Mamai 30 Total 271

Total Oblast

494

West Kazakhstan

City Uralsk 100 Aksai 30 Total 130

Settlement Serik 26 Karauzen 30 Kopzhasar 30 Bumakol 27 Socialism 30 Kuznetsovo 30 Total 173

Total Oblast

303

Karaganda

City Karaganda 285 Zheskazgan 106 Balkhash 48 Temirtau 118

125

Total 557 Settlement Kiik 31

Botakara 20 Koktas 30 Zarechnoye 30 Total 111

Total Oblast

668

Kostani

City Kostanai 126 Rudnyi 72 Arkalyk 25 Lisakovsk 25 Total 248

Settlement Kuryn 1 Zabelovka 29 Pereleski 30 Uzunkol 30 Burevestnik 30 Aman-Karagai 30 Borovskoi 30 Sarykol 30 Total 210

Total Oblast

458

Kyzlorda

City Kyzylorda 126 Aralsk 28 Kazalinsk (Aiteke

bi) 28

Total 182 Settlement Algabas 31

Enbek 31 Basykara 32 Akkum 29 Total 123

Total Oblast

315

Mangystau

City Aktau 80 Fort Shevchenko 16 Æàíà Îçåí 37 Total 133

Settlement Kuryn 21 Shetpe 21 Total 42

Total Oblast

175

126

Pavlodar City Pavlodar 142

Aksu 33 Ekibastuz 68 Total 243

Settlement Enbek 20 Irtyshsk 21 Mutkenova 30 Boyanaul 30 Uspenka 30 Total 131

Total Oblast

374

North Kazakhstan

City Petropavlosk 100 Taynsha 24 Total 124

Settlement Dmitrievka 31 Kozha-Korgan 31 Presnovka 31 Shuchie 30 Podgornoye 30 Novogrechnovka 31 Kishnekol 30 Total 214

Total Oblast

338

South Kazakhstan City Shymkent 260

Lenger 22 Arys 22 Turkestan 111 Total 415

Settlement Koksu 30 Zhambyl 30 Bozai 30 Komesh bulak 30 Nikolyevka 30 Kyzyl-Kum 30 Zhanadala 30 Badam 30 Yntymas 29 Abibala 30 Presnovka 1 Kyzyl-zhar 30 Aimatas 30 Tonkeris 30 Kyzy-tu 30 Kogam 32 Algabas 30

127

Maktaly 30 Aktobe 30 Ilych 30 Kyzylkiya 32 Aktas 30 Ikan 30 Total 664

Total Oblast

1079

Almaty

City Taldykorgan 83 Sarkand 50 Zharkent 50 Kapchagai 50 Total 233

Settlement Bolek 30 Mukry 30 Koktal 30 Terekty 30 Kokshetal 30 Kapal 30 Pogranichnik 30 Akshatogan 30 Enbek 30 Amangeldy 30 Kyzyl Kairat 30 Kargaly 30 Narynkol 30 Zholaman 30 Shengeldy 30 Karashoky 30 Kyzylsharyk 30 Karaultobe 30 Kerbulak 30 Total 570

Total Oblast

803

City of Republican Standing Astana 256 Almaty 590 Total survey sample 7515

Appendix 1. The administration of the survey questionnaire by Oblast indicating the city and settlements surveyed.