From 2007-12, the Global Water Initiative supported service delivery to improve access to domestic water supply, water for livelihoods and sanitation in Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania and Uganda. In order to support the sustainability of these services, GWI is experimenting with various monitoring instruments with the intention to provide with feed-back to communities, water committees local government and mechanics to overcome identified challenges.
While the focus of GWI’s second phase has shifted to improving investments in water for agriculture, the initiative continues to support sustainability monitoring of schemes until 2017 so that a longitudinal body of data on factors affecting scheme functionality can be built up. Based on the lessons learned in previous years, GWI’s sustainability monitoring focuses on various governance aspects including the technical and financial management capacity of the community-based management organisation (usually a water committee), the committee’s transparency and accountability to its user base and the external support it receives. The Governance into Functionality (GiFT) questionnaire used in 2013 can be found here.
In total, the GiFT survey of 2013 captured 219 schemes (151 schemes in Uganda, 57 schemes in Ethiopia, and 11 schemes in Tanzania). The scheme types supported by GWI are very diverse and differ widely in user numbers. The detailed results of factors affecting sustainability can be found in the regional synthesis paper.
Water Point Mapping
In addition to gathering data, GWI EA is also keen to communicate project information. As such we have made use of the Water Point Mapper, developed by Water Aid to geo-locate water points in our areas of operations, to allow our own researchers and others a better opportunity to monitor information from the field.
This dashboard contains links to several live water point maps, such as this one that shows water points in GWI EA’s areas of operation in Uganda.
There are links to other water point maps, each displaying different live data throughout this dashboard.
Assessing functionality under GWI
GWI used two different measures for functionality:
- The scheme’s functionality on the day of the survey, widely used in sector government water scheme surveys across sub-Saharan Africa.
- The respondents’ judgment of the scheme’s overall functionality since its establishment.
Depending on the measure of functionality, the results show quite a different picture of functionality across the three countries.
Analysing factors affecting sustainability
When looking at the reasons that focus group discussion participants gave for the poor functionality status of their scheme since establishment, the three key aspects are mechanical failure (34%), followed by ‘other reasons’, often related to the lack of water or seasonality (33%) and poor management (25%). These reasons are not exclusionary by nature. For example, low demand for a scheme can lead to poor management, which, in turn, makes the repair of a scheme less likely once a mechanical failure occurs.
Factors that are likely to affect functionality since scheme establishment based on GWI’s survey results
GWI used a test (Fisher – Exact) to examine the relationship between scheme functionality since establishment and the results of different variables obtained from the Governance into Functionality survey. The test highlighted that some variables are significantly related with functionality while others are not. Below, we display and explain the key governance factors that showed a significant association with scheme functionality when analysing the data from all three countries together. Generally more than one factor affects scheme functionality, and they include factors other than governance, such as water quality perceptions and water availability.
A functioning water user committee affects scheme functionality
One aspect that was significantly related to scheme functionality since establishment is the existence of a functioning water user committee. User committees existed in 92% of all schemes – the exception were water wells in Ethiopian schools and health institutions. On its own, this result is hardly surprising. However, note that the relationship can go both ways –a scheme can breakdown and remain non-functional for a long period of time if the committee is not active; but it can equally be the case that the physical breakdown of a scheme can lead to the disintegration of the committee, particularly if community members have access to alternative – protected or unprotected water sources.
The committee’s operation and maintenance capacity, and its transparency and accountability affect water scheme functionality
The user committee’s operation and maintenance capacity was strongly related to scheme functionality. The committee’s frequency of holding meetings and whether it collected user fees showed the most significant association with scheme functionality since the scheme’s establishment, as shown in the two graphs below.
GWI 1 supported the construction of water supply and sanitation services in three districts; Miyo, Dugda and Bora located in Oromiya Region, implemented through CARE Ethiopia, Catholic Relief Services and Oxfam America with their local partners. The 2013 functionality assessment covered 57 of these water supply schemes, composed of bore holes fitted with motorized and manual pumps, roof catchment systems, sand dams, rock and ground catchment systems and upgraded traditional wells.
On the day of the inventory 61.4% of the schemes were functioning (see water point map) and 56% of the schemes were rated as providing very good or fair service based on a number of criteria such as: how often they break down, how long it takes to get them repaired and yield.
Looking at factors that affect functionality, the lack of a water committee or responsible authority at school and health post water supply services emerged as a major concern affecting the functionality of schemes in Ethiopia. In comparison with the GWI schemes in Tanzania and Uganda, it is interesting that, while a high number of the schemes raise funds, fewer committees are undergoing external audits. The other aspect standing out in Ethiopia is a low level of water committees’ awareness about bye-laws, written rules and procedures and a poor practice in keeping functionality records up-to-date.
Download the full Ethiopia report here.
In Tanzania, GWI 1 supported the construction of water supply and sanitation services in Same District, located in Kilimanjaro Region, implemented through CARE Tanzania, Catholic Relief Services and the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and their local partners. This functionality assessment included 11 water supply schemes, covering 20 communities in Same, composed of bore holes fitted with motorized pumps, gravity water schemes and a hand dug well.
At the time of the inventory all schemes were functioning (see water point map) and 45% of the schemes were rated as providing very good or fair service based on a number of criteria such as: how often they break down, how long it takes to get them repaired and yield.
Looking at factors that affect functionality, in Tanzania, the rationing of water due to overall water scarcity affects the low rating of overall service levels compared to the functionality on the day of the survey. In comparison with the GWI schemes in Ethiopia and Uganda, committees are judged to function well, which is confirmed by the fact most committees hold regular meetings, and all raise funds and are undergoing external audits.
Download the full Tanzania report here.
In Uganda, GWI 1 supported the construction of water supply and sanitation services in Otuke District, in the North Eastern part of Lango sub-region. The schemes were implemented or rehabilitated in partnership with three international NGOs: Action against Hunger, CARE Uganda and Catholic Relief Services. The 2013 functionality assessment covered 151 water supply schemes, composed of bore holes fitted with manual pumps, hand dug wells fitted with hand pumps and traditional wells.
On the day of the inventory 78.8% of the schemes were functioning (see water point map) and 61% of the schemes were rated as providing very good or fair service based on a number of criteria such as: how often they break down, how long it takes to get them repaired and yield. In Uganda,
In Uganda, all water schemes had a committee, but 28% of the committees were assessed as not functioning very well. In comparison with the GWI schemes in Ethiopia and Tanzania, committees tend to hold meetings frequently, they are well aware of the scheme’s bye-laws, written rules and procedures but weaker on fund-raising.