|
Debate E-conference “Beyond the Community” on Scaling Up Community Management of Rural Water SuppliesGet the complete document (115 KB), downloaded or by e-mail in PDF format.Table of contents:
IntroductionBetween 3 June and 12 July 2002, an E-conference on Scaling Up Community Management of Rural Water Supply was organized by the IRC International Water and Sanitation Center, WSSCC (Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council), WaterAid, Plan, SKAT (Swiss Centre for Development Cooperation in Technology and Management) and WEDC (Water, Engineering and Development Centre). Facilitation of the conference was conducted by Patrick Moriarty and Ton Schouten of IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, Delft, The Netherlands.The starting point of the conference was:
In light of this, project staff, managers, directors of water supply projects and programs, policy makers and politicians were encouraged to participate in the conference. During the course of the conference, a wealth of ideas and experiences were shared around the three main themes of the conference:
This web tool has been developed in order to capture the vast range of inputs from the conference and make them easily accessible for participants and others. The main emergent topics, with a summary of the discussion around them, are presented.
General overview of the e-conferenceThe topic “Problems communities face in managing their water supplies and actions needed to scale up community management” was the fist topic addressed in the e-conference. During week one's discussions, it became clear that the conference participants unanimously agreed that communities can play a key role in the management of their water supplies. On the other hand, many also stated that the problems that communities face after agencies have left are often too numerous to count. Eagerness to learn from models to scale up community management used in other countries was also expressed. It also became clear that conference participants continue to search for ways to scale up community management through addressing such important factors as policies, legislation, regulation, O&M and funding. One participant noted that in development work there is a danger to try an approach for one decade, measure the results and then jump on the next approach (e.g. private sector participation). However, the problem is not solely that we fail to conclude that the approach was right after all, but also that it was not tried for long enough or it was without the necessary investments. In contrast, this e-conference and participant's contributions are intended to build on the approach chosen, community management, and in turn to strengthen it. The E-conference's second week saw two examples of large scale implementation, one from Ethiopia and the other from Zimbabwe. The first mention of a critical, but often overlooked, aspect of sustainability -the sustainability of the water resource itself - also arose with an example of groundwater over-abstraction from Morocco. Finally, the geographical focus was extended, with contributions from Angola, Thailand, and Morocco. While the focus theme of third week of the conference was ‘obstacles’, a range of issues were addressed and more experiences from a variety of countries were shared. The general emergent view was: support to community managed systems is not a recent thing, so why is it not happening or happening on such limited scale? In week four, a number of resources were mentioned by participants, and it was announced that links to a website on rainwater harvesting and an article on VLOM, would be added to the resource list on the website. Interesting resources were again mentioned in week five, including one on decentralization of WSS services in Latin America and the case of community management from Switzerland. Finally, during week six, documents were submitted including model contracts used in South Africa. All links, models and case studies contributed throughout the conference have been included on the Community Water Supply Management website: http://www.irc.nl/manage/debate/materials.html. A summary of participant's contributions, organized by topic, follows below.
Summary by topicThe relevant emails have been noted at the top of each topic in the summary of contributions, in order for those interested to be able to access the original email for further reading in detail. I. “Community” dynamics and scaling upEmail: [04] Discussion on the topic of community dynamics highlighted that the concept of “community” in itself may be a hurdle in scaling up. To act as a community, as a united group, to overcome problems can be complicated in and of itself. If this does not happen, a system, such as a community managed water supply system, can easily break down. While only briefly touched upon, the topics of gender and diversity did arise with regard to the issue of representativity in management and decision making. Imbalance in water committees, for instance, is a problem: it was stated that children, women and ‘poor’ community members should be involved right from the start. The role of children was also specifically mentioned a couple of times. A number of participants made note of the role that elite groups can play in community initiatives. Specifically, discussion brought forth the view that groups with status or with power tend to capture the water system, depriving others access. Additionally, it was noted that powerful groups may monopolize discussions, and reference to the dominance of corrupt individuals was also made. Conflicts that arise between community groups was mentioned, as well as the difficulties communities have to overcome these conflicts. To overcome problems with community dynamics and the lack collective willingness, one participant felt that local governments or NGOs should offer support through mediation of conflicts or disagreements.
I.A. Demand, needs and “the poor”Email: [37] [45] [55] [56]It was repeatedly commented and acknowledged that most projects, due of their focus on communities who demand, and can afford, water-lifting devices and O&M of a system, do not tend to focus on ‘the poor’. Thus, it was felt that for ‘the poor’ other approaches are needed. One suggestion was to start with communities that are in most need of improved water supply systems and to scale up to communities in a better economic position thereafter, instead of the other way around as is current practice. Participants felt that if a system works in the poorest, most technically difficult locations, it should work anywhere and should also provide a more realistic picture of costs. Examples were shared of this approach used in projects in Tanzania and Zimbabwe which started with the communities in most need of improved services. From this starting point it was easier to scale up. Another interesting experience from Morocco was of a toilet constructed by a frontrunner in the community that was soon followed by others. Thus, it was concluded that “need” is not the only criterion that must be met, current processes and dynamics in the villages should also be anticipated. Demand was further addressed along the lines that all stakeholders should work towards facilities that communities are capable of managing. I.B. Preparation of the CommunityEmail: [04] [22] [28] [30] [32]Some felt that communities are not prepared well enough for management of a system. Often, participatory methods are not used, donors may force their water systems on communities without consultation or participation, and even implementing and maintaining a system remains problematic. Despite this, the heart of community management, as it is currently practiced, lies in the development of community capacities. In the Bikita (Zimbabwe) experience it was stressed how supporting people to successfully undertake tasks for themselves leads to the growth of confidence and capacity. In the Ethiopian experience, water boards initially had a make-up of 2/3 community and 1/3 external support. External support was gradually withdrawn over the course of the project, leaving in place a stable management structure. The flip side, however, is that failure can lead to the collapse of confidence. In one example offered, Asian communities were rapidly overwhelmed by systems that were too complex and a desire to move too quickly - particularly in terms of scaling up. Thus, people must be prepared properly to undertake tasks required of them, success will breed confidence, while unrealistic expectations can lead to loss of confidence and failure. An extensive list of community training and other actions carried out by Development Workshop in Angola to develop community structures was provided. It would be interesting to know, from the point of view of going to scale, what the cost implications are of such activities and how long it takes - both the whole process in years, and also in person days over that time? For instance, a team of 4 making 10 one day visits to a community over a 3 year period is 40 person days. The cost and time of community capacity building is frequently given as one of the main obstacles to community management, yet properly documented and analyzed case studies of what those costs include remain scant.
II. Community management and scaling upII.A. OwnershipEmail: [11] [16] [18] [27] [30] [35]Ownership was frequently addressed during discussions. It was expressed that lack of a sense of ownership causes problems in community management. To combat this, communities should own their systems as early as possible, not only after handing over, but beginning in the design phase. Indeed, one participant emphasized that handing over should be considered as a project phase in its own right. The speeches of high officials in front of the television cameras should not be exaggerated as they occasionally seem to think that their speech and the shining hardware are the end of the story. Communities must be massaged into community management, they must be enabled to move from a situation where government or donors do everything for them to a situation where they take up ownership. It was suggested that ownership at the family level will always be stronger than communal ownership and that where possible/practical the family should be the starting point for initiatives. Other participants highlighted the fact there are not only problems with ‘sense of ownership’ but also with real, legal ownership. Often, despite symbolic acts to donate projects to communities, assets remain, in fact, property of the state. Lack of a clear legal framework, allowing for transfer of assets and responsibility for assets, is a problem in scaling up community management. Thus, legal ownership must be clear, otherwise, people will not pay for a service if they think benefits will go to someone else or that others may hijack the service. In Costa Rica legislation was passed to grant legal status to community bodies to manage their own systems. Nonetheless, ownership of the systems remains with the state. Legislation to easily create legal community bodies is therefore essential to scaling up. Finally, the point that ownership (or at least sense of ownership) and involvement should be present from the start was repeatedly emphasized - something of a golden rule seemed to be emerging: ‘In community management there is no handing over’!
II.B. Financial issuesEmail: [18] [23] [28] [35]Many participants reported on financial problems in communities: lack of book keeping, lack of accountability, lack of transparency, lack of financial skills, lack of a bank to safely store the money, theft, and also simple lack of money. Enforcement of payments was mentioned noting that it might be too difficult for a magistrate court 100 km away to enforce payments, and in this case a local tribal court may be more effective. Several participants repeatedly addressed the problems of communities making the ‘cash’ part of their contribution. In the Angolan example, Development Workshop relies on communities’ ‘sweat equity’ rather than on cash contributions. Additionally, by compartmentalizing sector projects we risk demanding too much from communities by way of financial contributions, as they may be being asked to contribute to a range of projects at the same time. Nonetheless, at the end of the day someone, somewhere pays cash - if not for maintenance then certainly for sustainability. Communities’ lack of access to cash seems to be one of the key obstacles to increased sustainability. It was then suggested that one way around this cash problem is to opt for the cheapest possible technologies. II.C. Technology ChoiceEmail: [CMup2-24] [CMup2-26] [CMup2-27] [CMup2-32] [Cmup2-33] [CMup2-35]On the topic of technology choice, different problems were mentioned including: lack of spare parts for the technology constructed, faults in design, poor construction quality, inappropriate location, lack of technical knowledge, overly complex technology, and technology that communities can not afford. Implementing the ‘right’ technology remains a problem and the crucial role of simpler technologies in scaling up community managed water supply systems was stressed. Others emphasized again the importance of working at the level of the family in order to bypass the complexities of working at the level of the community. One example was the Upgraded Family Well (UFW) fitted with a steel windlass in Zimbabwe. This family-level based technology has had great success with 45,000 UFWs implemented serving some 900,000 people. Families have taken full responsibility for maintaining the wells and adapting them in times of (water)crisis. It was the contributor's sense that optimum use of the technology has been made. The same technology was used in Sierra Leone with the same rate of success. There, local blacksmiths manufacture and repair the windlasses resulting in less dependence on technology imports and donor funding. Thus, although realizing ‘good governance’, national policies and guidelines may take a long time, focussing in the meantime at family level, through supporting families with low-cost, locally produced technologies, can result in significant achievements. It further was commented by one participant that community management did not originate from a failure of governments to maintain implemented water supply systems. Rather, it was expressed that international donors have created the problem by each importing its own handpump design. In other words, technology choice is often imposed by the donors, ignoring the capacities of communities. Technology choice should fit with the chosen management model. Where simple technologies options are used, scaling up is a reality. Three management models that could fit well with a specific technology choice were shared: The VLOM-model (bucket and rope or ultimately a rope pump); the government support model (a cheap public domain pump for which government develops the standards and the supply chain); and, the privatized model (higher quality of service with the private sector as the service provider). Often, the right fit between technology and management is obscured by “WIFM” (What's In For Me), when donors have a home-based interest in importing a certain type of technology. One participant went so far as to state that in his view, technology choice may be the most important aspect for sustainable water supply. It was observed that often if a water supply system is not maintained it is because it is too complicated, not ‘attractive’, or too expensive. Case studies in the field of small scale irrigation show that the most successful interventions were the ones with the cheapest technologies. Updated information on pump options is important to allow users to compare water pumps to select ones that they can best maintain; focus should be on family wells instead of communal water supply; and production and use of ceramic, colloidal silverwater filters should be encouraged. Additionally, it was noted that users need to understand how a technology works in order for maintenance to be successful. Contributors continued to note family-based water systems as a good example, with the proviso there is not always a free choice, that is, much depends on hydrological conditions. It was acknowledged that where aquifer levels fluctuate seasonally, more expensive community- based systems are needed to relieve the burden of women in particular.
II.D. Appropriate technologyEmail: [05] [32] [35] [CMup1-62] [CMup1-63]From the topic of technology choice, the discussion shifted to examine the idea of what is ‘appropriate’ in terms of technology. Simple, hard wearing technology with easily available cheap spare parts was the emergent key recommendation. However, mechanisms must be in place for selection of appropriate technology: i.e. technology that communities can manage, own, maintain, sustain and scale up. Communities must be supported in their attempts to fabricate their own tools and spares. Simple, local technology must be valued by engineers. Examples of appropriate technologies that have had great success in Latin America include the rope pump (in Nicaragua) and Baptist and EMAS pumps (in Bolivia). Both technologies are easy to maintain (even without formal training) and use locally available materials. Most importantly, both are cheap enough to be suitable for household, rather than community, use. However, others expressed the belief that there is ‘no simple technology’ - that all technology brings with it the need for training. A South-South partnership to exchange information and models on appropriate technology was proposed as participants expressed their appreciation of the contributions on low cost technology. The importance of appropriate technology for sustainability was acknowledged, although it was wondered whether the communities in the case studies, in Nicaragua for example, were given alternatives for technology choice. II.E. Separating strategic from day to day managementEmail: [15] [32]A crucial issue in managing more complex systems is the need to separate the overall strategic control of the system from day to day operation and maintenance. The former can be carried out on a voluntary basis without the need for great technical or management training, however in any but the most simple systems, the latter requires professionalism. In large Ethiopian gravity-fed systems a voluntary board of elected representatives maintains overall control of the system, while leaving the day to day O&M to a paid management team. This issue was also reflected in the case studies from Switzerland and Colombia available on the Manage website.
III. Support frameworks for community managed water suppliesAn Enabling Environment: NEWAH's ExperienceFrom Nepal, NEWAH's contribution to the e-conference showed that sensitivity and understanding of conditions in communities can strengthen, yet also hamper, community management. NEWAH's learning process over the years, including the recognition of constraining factors in communities, have made NEWAH adapt and fine- tune its policies and methods constantly. A highly nuanced description of methods and approaches that NEWAH adapts, in particular the GAP approach, can be read in e-mail number [CMup2-16]. Enabling environment issues were also addressed in their contribution. In their approach, NEWAH includes local government (VDCs) in its projects and asks local government to contribute funds to project implementation in communities. This is done to increase responsibility and ownership in local government. NEWAH plans to make more support visits to communities and use an approach that allows communities to indicate their needs for support in maintaining their systems. Despite the fact that in Nepal policies are in place to address community management, implementation remains weak. In particular, the lack of awareness in governmental organizations has hampered implementation of policies. Yet, awareness is growing, and one of the main reasons is the success of community management in rural Nepal. Yet often fear of loosing control inhibits changes in the approach of government organizations that still believe they should own water supply systems. NEWAH feels government policies are often too rigid and impractical. Top down in their approach, (e.g. the Decentralisation Act) policies are made without community involvement and do not address gender and poverty issues that bear great impact upon development in Nepal. NEWAH has stated that all stakeholders must be included in making an action plan to scale up community management and one of the routes now being followed is the creation of coordination bodies at the district level to strengthen local government (DDC and VDC) - the level closest to communities and which is most familiar with needs of communities. Coordinating different project approaches of different agencies in one district could also be a task for coordination bodies. NEWAH thinks that advocating its GAP approach to donors is important in influencing government policy. III.A. Enabling environmentEmail: [39] [41] [43] [45] [46] [49] [52] [53] [59] [60] [CMup2-07] [CMup2-11] [CMup2-13] [CMup2-16] [CMup2-19] [CMup2-20] [CMup2-31]Support needed by communities was addressed in a number of emails. In particular, the role of local government was addressed as it is closest to rural community water services. But, national government has a role to play too, said many. Good governance was addressed as well as stakeholder cooperation. And, simple and standard technology was highlighted as a crucial part of an enabling environment. Additionally, national policies and legislation are needed to legitimize participatory approaches and prevent obstruction by political interests. Including local government from the beginning, and allowing it to participate fully in the process of going from pilot to scaled up implementation will help to build support for this approach. The importance of appropriate technology for sustainable rural WATSAN was mentioned again in the context of an enabling environment. Community participation is not the only influencing factor for sustainability. In Nicaragua the rope pump is standard technology. Private sector involvement is big: manufacturing, spare part supply and repairs are in the hands of the private sector and social acceptance of the technology is high. In fact, most organizations active in the country use the technology. Most interestingly, it was the Nicaraguan population that indicated their preference for rope pumps which have contributed to a large increase of coverage in the country. The main reason for this success has not been community participation and training programs, but the choice of a technology that is simple and cheap, that can be produced and maintained locally and which after initial support is withdrawn, can be sustained without, or with very little, government or donor intervention. In reaction to the question on why support systems failed to be established, a participant wrote that the development ‘community’ itself has created the impression that infrastructure can be managed autonomously by communities and that donor projects can side step under-resourced governments. It is wishful thinking on our part that a community can be ‘wound up’ like clockwork, and that a system would then run for ever. All E-conference participants were urged to be as critical about our own concepts as we are critical in turn of governments.
From Uganda a participant expressed doubt about whether communities appreciate newly built infrastructure and whether it will be sustained upon project completion, as assumed by many implementing agencies. In referring to the role of the ‘intermediate’ level, the participant also emphasized that decentralization is new and structures can still easily change. Capacity building is needed, but it is not always certain if we are aiming at the right target. The limitations of the project management cycle approach in relation to community managed systems were also noted. The most suitable moment for designing long term backstopping is during the evaluation of implementation, but by then the agency has already left. Projects do not, and can not, build on the expertise in specific locations as they are over-designed before any field experience is built. Finally, the often troublesome relationships between public water authorities and users were also mentioned. Penalties are not always the right means of improving water services. Both the user and the supplier should be concerned about meeting their interests. III.A.1. The Role of Local/National PoliticsTo begin with, it was expressed that politicians and technocrats must speak the same language: i.e. no empty promises for free water, no “babying” of communities and treating them as toddlers, no politics or funding that make communities dependent upon external support. In a contribution from Zimbabwe it was noted that politicians aren't always the ‘enemy’. Local politicians, Ward Councilors in this case, have the knowledge and democratic credentials to give support and legitimacy to local government implemented water and sanitation schemes. ‘Politicians’ (seen as bad) are often separated from ‘leaders’ (seen as good). Yet, where a decentralized democratic system works well the two should be largely the same. Also, it is not just policies that must be in place, but also mechanisms for their enforcement. Policies need to be in harmony, not clashing with each other. That is often not the case. Finally, echoing earlier discussion it was emphasized that support must not be divided into before and after ‘handing over’. Support must be a continuous process starting in the design phase and lasting long after completion of the system.
III.A.2. Type of support neededEmail: [26]When the question ‘why have support systems failed to be established?’ was posed, one answer suggested that government and implementing agencies do not see the need for such systems. Support work does not help to meet construction targets and this is coupled with the assumption that social mobilization in communities is sufficient to manage systems long term. For instance, suggested one participant, the VLOM bucket and rope model made it too easy for governments and agencies to opt out of long term involvement (see: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/orgs/well/resources/well-studies/summaries-htm/task0162.htm). Thus, it is the mind-set of agencies and governments that must be changed. One way of doing so would be to see that coverage rates reflect the number of operating pumps and piped systems which may change the emphasis in the sector. With regards to types of support required by communities, one participant felt that a crucial aspect of support required by communities is quality assurance and contract management. The role of the Fire insurance provider in the Swiss system was clarified as the ‘subsidizer’ of the construction of water supplies, but only once it has assured itself of the quality of the system. The fire insurance provider therefore acts as a technical advisor and controller acting on behalf of the community - who might otherwise lack the technical skills to properly supervise private sector contractors. Skills to manage and supervise construction projects are often not available in communities or local government. Therefore, an external expert, such as the Swiss fire insurance provider or the ‘support agency’ envisaged under the South African legislation, is a crucial stakeholder if quality is to be assured in more complex systems (read the South Africa case study). III.A.3. Models for supportEmail: [06] [09] [11] [14] [17]On the topic of models for support one example was the role of district government to provide tools for repairs to handpump menders in Zambia. Spares and pumps are now being imported by traders based in the capital and not by an agency. However, prices are subsidized and efforts to involve the private sector in selling spares have not been successful. In reply, a participant warned that government supply systems for spares, tools and skills NEVER can be sustainable and that full transition to the private sector, with an example of such a transition in Pakistan, should be the goal. Furthermore, structured and routine visits to communities are key to sustainability. Backstopping communities was referred to although no models or examples of backstopping were mentioned. What backstopping should involve remains to be discussed further. Some interesting efforts to support community managed systems were shared including an O&M membership system where communities subscribe to structural O&M support and also WatSan Banking Organizations. Both efforts are aimed at making community managed water systems truly sustainable and less donor-dependent. Institutional support for scaled-up community managed systems in Nicaragua was also shared. The challenge was to provide long-term support to water committees of community managed systems that were implemented in the 1990s. This was done by so-called “O&M promoters”. In 7 years’ time, promoters grew in number from 3 to 10, covering 55% of communities with existing systems. Local government, equipped with enhanced responsibilities, paid the promoters. In this set up, collaboration between the key stakeholders was a prerequisite for success. Many participants said that support should address all levels and all stakeholders. Policies must give attention to community management and all actors must speak the same language. One participant noted that if we are serious about scaling up, we need to be serious about the entire service system from the centre out to the edges. Finally, commitment is not only needed from communities, but also from support agencies.
III.B. Training / Capacity buildingEmail: [05] [39]More, and better, training and capacity building in communities is needed, both for artisans and committee members. The positive effects of good training in Zambia, where training of handpump menders was carried out with sufficient funds and as a result communities had a great demand for these handpump menders, was offered as an example. The services of the handpump menders are valued highly by communities. A lively history of water supply services in Uganda gave details on how the government is trying to scale up community management through building capacity at district level. However, work remains to be done on harmonizing policies. III.C. Institutional linkagesEmail: [09]Linking communities with other agencies and government departments, is defined as being crucial for sustainable management. One important remark was that the interest of the rural sector must be safeguarded in national sector reform programs that tend to ignore the rural sector and focus on urban areas. If this is so, then what are the concrete linkages required between communities and intermediate level agencies? In Switzerland the Municipality is responsible for ensuring that all citizens have access to water. Similarly, under new legislation in South Africa (see the case study on South African water sector reform) local government has a statutory duty to ensure water provision. However, in both models local government is also given the flexibility to find service providers from a number of different sources (utilities, communities, NGOs etc). III.C.1. The role of governmentEmail: [11] [39] [41] [43] [46] [49] [53] [59]“Good governance” must be addressed in order to be able to move away from islands of success. In Malawi, although every stakeholder has a role to play in “good governance” and quality, stakeholders frequently ignore the guidelines set out by the ministry, resulting in a common view that “good governance” is proving to be a hollow concept. Additionally, some disputes between users may be too hard for communities or traditional authorities to solve, necessitating an outside body that regularly and systematically monitors and provides support to communities. It was further noted that a small, but crucial, constraint in the enabling environment in Zambia has been that communities have problems collecting money in advance due to problems with keeping it safe and that bank charges exceed interest earned on community funds. Furthermore, government (local, regional and central) needs to change its role to support an environment in which community management can be successful. Some say that government is responsible for creating the right infrastructure and working practices and four government roles were mentioned by one participant. Firstly, creating an enabling environment for the private sector to be in full control of supply of spares, skills and tools. Secondly, conducive legislation for community management. Thirdly, prevention of political interference. Fourthly, genuine community management. Regarding the role of local government one participant contributed that each local government should have a WATSAN Unit to handle maintenance issues in communities and to conduct repairs beyond community capacity. Furthermore, the state and local government should monitor and supervise O&M of systems that are owned by the communities. Government should organize training workshops for community staff and enact legislation to prevent embezzlement of WATSAN funds by politicians and public servants. As local government is the closest level of government to communities, technology, management structures and financial systems should be fully in line with local government capacity, structures and administration systems. External support agencies should target their support at local government rather than directly at communities. One example offered of local government capacity building, is an initiative in the Philippines where in July 2002 a Service Delivery Fair was organized for local government employees, exposing them to models that showcase innovations in technology, partnerships, financing and community mobilization. Finally, one participant expressed the view that water services are the duty of government and if the government declines this duty, passing it on the private sector or NGOs, this will result in discrimination of rural communities who are often left on their own. While it is good for communities to be less dependent on government, this should not result in dependency on “aliens” such as private enterprises or NGOs. Ongoing discussion on the role of government and how it can articulate the work of communities, private donors and state officials for the best of public interest, is needed. A promising development in Albania was offered as an example where a plan is envisaged to include all big players, IMF, the World Bank, bilateral donors and the Albanian government to support a national community management approach. This arrangement is intended to ensure that everyone is adhering to the same guidelines and approach.
III.C.2. The role of international NGOsEmail: [38] [40] [46] [59] [CMup1-61] [CMup1-67] [CMup2-02] [CMup2-12] [CMup2-17]Referred to by one participant as ‘Alien NGOs’, the intentions of international NGOs were questioned, wondering if they really are interested in the needed sustainable development. It was suggested that they are only interested in creating local success stories to satisfy their home donors. The project approach was described a crash approach, not reflective of the reality of development and learning. Failure is then blamed on communities and resolved by proposing more training of communities. International NGOs should question their own approach, acknowledging past mistakes and re-considering targets and approaches. Their focus should be on effective support to existing local structures, while refraining from implementing projects themselves. In another participant's view, international NGOs claim a “bottom up” approach while in fact they use a “guided bottom up” approach which does not necessarily express the needs of the community but the hidden needs of the funding agencies to replicate programs without paying too much attention to socio-economic, religious and political context. However, the facilitator added the view that too much attention to context might also hinder scaling up to the hundreds of thousands of communities in need of sustainable services. Another critique was that agencies tend to go for quick success which is likely to be acquired in better-off communities. Efforts of Helvetas in Cameroon to move away from the project approach and support the creation of a service provider that is not involved in system construction were shared. Such service providers, in the view of the contributor and a number of other participants, have a bright future. It was further noted that the efforts of an international NGO, such as Helvetas, can be frustrated due to the lack of “enabling environment”. An international NGO, can not do much, if the institutional framework, a key aspect of the enabling environment, is not present. It was proposed as a remedy that local councils be autonomous with a mandate to directly collaborate with agencies. This is more or less in line with the dominant role of local government that was promoted in the conference. One means of support from donors would then be to construct fewer systems and instead spend remaining funds on capacity building and support services. The role of donor funds was also examined. One participant expressed dismay at the current situation in which donor funds are increasingly hard to find. Concern that programs will collapse and community efforts will grind to a halt until the next donor hopefully arrives were expressed. The impact of such a situation on the process of scaling up should not be underestimated. Lack of coordination between agencies is also a problem. In East Timor such lack has resulted in a wide variation in approaches, quality (physical and social) and sustainability. While many organizations claim to use a participatory approach, not all do so to the same extent. Maximum community involvement is needed for sustainable systems. One participant said that sector wide approaches (SWApS) for the water sector have the potential for enormous scaling up, compared to project type interventions.
III.C.3. The private sectorEmail: [09] [39] [43] [54]The example of Zambia was again noted where efforts to involve the private sector have been made but with limited success. However, the example from Pakistan, where hand pumps are locally manufactured and the government plays a facilitating role in involving the private sector was emphasized. The opinion that government should not set up a spares distribution network, because there is no incentive to do the job was strongly emphasized. Instead, it must be done by the private sector. The parallel between system repairs/spare part supply and bicycle repair made by one participant, was not seen to be valid as the bicycle repairs is fully in the hands of the private sector. Also, there are many more bicycles in an area than hand pumps. This said, there is also an opportunity of going to scale! Subsidies were not thought to be ideal, but what if a community genuinely can not pay the full price of spares? Should government not organize cross-subsidy? Would the private sector be willing to provide cross-subsidy? One participant advocated for private ownership of WATSAN projects. He reported on private owners using facilities for commercial purposes while others allow community members to obtain services free of charge. In his view, private ownership also avoids long processes of decision making when communities own systems. In reply, another participant warned of the role of private companies in the new wave of private sector involvement. They might take over community services, charge communities and defer compensation to an unreliable justice system. A final voice in favor of privatization mentioned privately managed boreholes with distribution networks in Portharcourt (Rivers State, Nigeria - see Email CMup 54), where water is sold at affordable prices to consumers. It was advocated to make water a commercial business. III.C.4 The role of donorsEmail: [18] [09] [15]The role of donors was discussed several times and not always positively. It was stated that donor money is mostly tied to the country of origin instead of being used for purchase of locally manufactured goods. In this way aid money destroys local capacity and encourages dependency. It was further expressed that donors should not concentrate on construction only, but should use part of their funds to support development of enabling environments to help communities manage their systems for 20 years. Ideas on roles to be played in a scaled up structure are included in the case studies on the Community Manage website http://www.irc.nl/manage/debate/materials.html.
IV. Going to scaleEmail: [07] [09] [14] [21] [32] [CMup2-21]Numerous questions about and ideas on going to scale were exchanged. To launch the topic, “how to extend coverage to 100% without loosing quality?” was asked. It was commonly expressed that rather than “Rolls Royce” solutions, it is “Henry Ford” solutions that are needed. It was noted that sustainability requires long term support, even if at a low level of intervention. A learning model, where to begin with, support staff is trained; lessons are learned form their experiences and then scaled up to the district, the province and the nation was proposed. In this manner, learning starts in communities where projects provide a wealth of experience, which becomes the seed of success at the scale of a nation. That solutions must be context specific was further acknowledged. Each community is different and therefore, community specific solutions must be found. But it was queried that if we are going to scale up, then what issues MUST be left to individual communities and what issues can be standardized in blueprint approaches? Two interventions shared dealt directly with experiences of going to scale. The first was a case study on scaling up in practice as experienced in Zimbabwe http://www.irc.nl/manage/debate/capacitybuilding.html. In Bikita district, implementation of a district-wide project was carried out THROUGH local government. Capacity was developed to plan, prioritize, liaise with communities and manage the private sector. Contrary to what is often heard in the WSS sector, where ‘politician’ tends to be something of a dirty word, the point was made that a crucial factor in the success of the scheme was the involvement of the lowest (most directly implicated) tier of directly elected representatives. Ward councilors live in, and are members of, the communities they serve as part of Rural District Councils. In the second example of going to scale, examples of vast community managed schemes in Ethiopia were offered. Demonstrating that community management is not just for small rural communities, systems serving tens of thousands of people with hundreds of kilometres of pipes have been successfully implemented and sustained. Amazingly the three schemes have been successful despite a lack of enabling legislation to allow them to open their own bank accounts. It is hoped that more information on what role government plays, if any, once the water boards are formed will be shared. Several conference participants raise the issue of coverage versus sustainability. One commented that “...governments have to recognize the importance of community participation and adopt measures (administrative and fiscal) that support it. How do we do this?” In partial self-reply the participant noted that “I would argue that additional funds are required to create the institutional environment we know is needed, and that in the meantime we should continue to ensure that funds are allocated as needed by governments to provide services to the poor”. Another participant responded that reality is that the process of providing much needed coverage cannot be stalled until the institutional structures (at community or intermediate level) are ‘right’. Each year the number of schemes implemented without significant community involvement out numbers those with. Creating an enabling environment for community management needs to be done in parallel with ongoing efforts to put infrastructure on the ground. As capacity is developed, increasing existing and new structures can then be taken into the enabling environment. In addressing the topic of sustainability versus coverage, the implicit belief of many practitioners that improved sustainability is achieved by ‘nurturing’ individual communities was underlined. But, the facilitator enquired “Is this really the case?” A request for submission of case studies where return visits to previously (but no longer) nurtured communities found the community continuing to manage their scheme better than surrounding communities was made. Finally, it was emphasized that scaling up starts within the community. The example of the history of community management in Switzerland, where the ‘better-off’ initiated improved water supply systems, because only they were able to afford the substantial investments needed in the beginning was again highlighted. The private clubs were forced by legislation to become public bodies and serve the whole of the community at a later stage.
IV.A. Scaling up mechanisms and modelsEmail: [CMup1-61] [CMup1-67] [CMup2-01] [CMup2-02] [CMup2-05] [CMup2-06] [CMup2-09] [CMup2-12] [CMup2-16] [CMup2-19] [Cmup2-22] [CMup2-29] [CMup2-33] [Cmup2-34] [CMup2-35]What should be done to scale up community management? Some of the answers are given in the other sections: policies that build on community realities, coordination at intermediate levels, change of attitudes of government staff, inclusion of local government in project implementation, learning from field experiences, acknowledging that decentralisation processes and structures are new and insecure. Some other ideas on what is needed to scale up are summarized below. Firstly, dialogue and inclusion of all relevant actors is highlighted by many participants. Dialogue should address needs, adequate design, acceptable location, cost implications and management by the community. Scaling Up in MozambiqueThe SAS pilot program employed a range of approaches to achieve its aim of scaling up in Mozambique. To begin with, a dialogue with civil society representatives of the small town of Malema was organized to inventorise needs and preferred management models: the choice was between private, community or district operators. Representatives chose a specific private operator in the town. However, in Mozambique there is no legislation for alternative management models other than the district administrator. An attempt to address this at national level was blocked by the ministry creating an institutional vacuum.To overcome this problem, an evolutionary approach was then tried. Firstly, only the core elements of the water system were constructed with the chosen future operator involved as a trainee. Then, the future operator started to market house connections and stand posts as households had to pay in advance for their connection. In this way, the distribution network was constructed on a demand basis. But, this was blocked by the provincial water department that wanted to wait for ministerial decisions which were only made some years later. The decentralized framework finally created in Mozambique was designed such that legal ownership remains with the government. Key roles in the framework are played firstly by the system owner, i.e. the district administration. Secondly, there is the operator, which in order of preference could be (1.) a private operator, (2.) the community, or (3.) the district administration - in which case there is a strict division between the roles of owner and operator of the district. The regulator also has a key role to protect the interests of consumers and to supervise the contracting parties. Finally, water committees, together with the regulator, approve water tariffs. The leading principle for this institutional framework is the separation of the regulatory and controller role on the one hand and the role of daily operator on the other hand.
One model for scaling up is currently under way in East Timor where government has taken up the role of regulator and monitor. In a first program phase the needs and desired solutions of the communities will be gathered by local NGOs and a staff member of the government Water and Sanitation Service (WSS). On the basis of the outcomes a District Strategy will be developed. Prioritization will then be done by local government structures. In the second phase the District Strategy will be implemented, using government defined standards. It is envisaged that in two years East Timorese agencies (government and NGOs) will have the capacity to implement and sustain systems themselves. The arising question is however, what will happen after the program has finished and funds are no longer available? NEWAH reported that it uses the ‘seeing is believing’ principle to scale up by organizing exposure visits between communities. Another participant said that it is important to assist communities to compare and exchange their experiences so that they can learn from each other. More information on this type of experience was sought by a number of participants. Another scaling up model promotes federation building of communities. In Nepal for example, communities are isolated and have no voice. However, through a federation their position could become stronger in the sector. One of the case studies on the IRC website for this E-conference reports on a similar experience in Colombia http://www.irc.nl/manage/debate/colombia.html. Communities's choices will determine the opportunities for scaling up (replication). The chance of success is greatest in communities where needs are high, the system can be managed and key actors are rewarded. On the issue of replication, communities can share experiences but the capacity for replication must be built in organizations. For a country such as Cameroon, for instance, where in one participant's opinion, there is lack of political will, four feasible strategies were suggested. Firstly, training of field staff, secondly, strengthening the capacities of formal education and training institutions, thirdly working with communities through the organizations that implement their projects and finally, collaborating with rural councils. An interesting initiative in Cameroon to strengthen the capacities of municipal councils that are at the point of rehabilitating their systems, was also shared. In one district an association of caretakers was formed under the control of the rural council. In this case, community management is no longer a support component to construction, but a unit that can be solicited independently and improve sustainability of water supplies. In response to this comment however, it was suggested that we should look beyond training of field staff. If donors are not ready to allow staff to follow up on participatory processes, a trained staff member can not contribute to scaling up.
A conference delegate from Kenya warned that despite 40 years of investment, 60% the Kenyan rural population still has no access to a safe and reliable water supply. In his view a paradigm shift is needed to identify the key factors to stimulate rural communities to draw from their own resources, to stimulate governments to support these efforts and NGOs to facilitate shorter learning curves. Another delegate was of the view that community management is a transitional and pioneering model that is needed to overcome the time that governments require to establish legislation for the transfer of management to private operators. In that intermediate stage community management is the most appropriate model. However, the importance for any management model to separate between the function of control and the function of day-to-day management was again stressed. Water committees often do not make that distinction, which will sooner or later cause conflict especially around the control of funds and tariffs. In South Africa policies and legislation provide opportunities for communities to play a role in water supply provision. Although the municipalities are responsible for water services, community based organizations (CBOs) can act as water service providers. Experiences have brought problems to the surface and municipalities are concerned about the legal status of community-based service providers. The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) and the Mvula Trust have therefore developed model documents to contract CBOs. The model contracts have been piloted and the experiences discussed with municipalities. Labour legislation can become an administrative burden to CBOs. DWAF has developed methods and models to overcome these problems e.g. by using Support Service Agents (SSAs) to provide support to CBOs. These CBOs have a two-level structure: a governing board with non-paid members representing the community, which contracts staff for daily operation. The contract is between the municipality and the governing board. A clear contract is crucial as well as a capable manager for staff supervision. Mechanisms to scale up community management in Colombia were also shared on this topic. The first mechanism is the association of community based water supply associations. Aquacol gathers some 50 community based water supply associations. Representatives of all associations received training from CINARA. In this way CINARA could increase the impact of its training. Aquacol has also obtained a voice vis-à-vis the government and now government seeks its advice. Through Aquacol members can more easily obtain relevant information, and Aquacol established community-to-community capacity building. Aquacol is still small and member associations differ widely, but it is one good model for scaling up community management. A second mechanism shared from Colombian experience is the Team Learning Projects (TLPs). In TLPs, communities, local governments and other stakeholders participate to improve the management of their water supply services. Local government representatives can use the lessons in other projects in other communities in their jurisdiction. Constraints include the bureaucratic character of local governments and the fact that local government officials often change posts. CINARA feels that facilitating such processes (Associations and TLPs) is a typical role for resource centres and encourages other resource centres to do the same. It was then proposed to add a fourth management model next to the VLOM (presented earlier) comprised of a government supported and privatized model: concessions (on a not-for-profit basis) to supply water in rural regions. The contributing participant believes that this model will result in concession holders having more interest in long term sustainability. As a final note on this topic, the importance of participation of communities right from the identification of problems to technological or social intervention was emphasized. The sentiment could be summed up as “if there needs to be a ‘handover’ then the project, or model, was flawed from the start”.
IV.B. Demand creationEmail: [05]Investment in demand creation was called for by participants. Invest in hygiene education, promotion of water for productive uses (water for animals for example) and promotion of private sector involvement also enter the discussion here. Demand is further created by involving women and children because they have the most interest in a continuous supply of water. However, it was noted that communities must be given time to opt in, joining if they are ready, indeed joining if the demand is clear and outspoken. Demand has become a leading concept in the implementation of rural water supply. But whether it is the most useful concept for scaling up remains to be explored in detail. IV.C. Water as an economic goodEmail: [05] [17] [64]The call to view water as an economic good was made. Indeed, raising cash for the water supply system must be part and parcel of life in communities. A model of WatSan Banking Organizations that operates on this basis was offered. One wrote that optimum sustainability of systems will depend on the availability of alternative sources. Where water is a basic requirement for survival, support can build upon existing demand. In reference to the Zimbabwe case, it was said that in the drier areas, water systems were valued for watering cattle, cropping and construction by the men, and for domestic purposes and hygiene by the women. In wetter regions there was no ownership and no sustainability. In such conditions water systems are being viewed as welfare. The challenge is to ensure sustainability where water is not perceived to be a major concern. IV.D. Water resourcesEmail: [31]In the only reference to water resources as a key component of sustainability, the risks of encouraging un-controlled abstraction from multiple sources for multiple activities in Morocco was raised. In the example, overuse of groundwater led to shortages which in turn led to abuse of the water supply system. The problem of over-abstraction of groundwater for agricultural use is a familiar one around the world, with particularly acute examples from India.
IV.E. Sustainability vs. scalabilityEmail: [03] [04] [05] [07] [17] [37] [45] [47] [49] [50] [53] [58] [59] [CMup1-62] [CMup1-64] [CMup1-65] [CMup1-68] [CMup2-03] [CMup2-14]Discussion around this topic commenced with numerous clarifying questions. For starters, “What is sustainability - or sustainability of what?” This was followed by the interesting question of whether 100% sustainability is realistic or achievable. It was instead suggested that the issue of risk is examined. In particular, what is the risk of a system breaking down, and what alternatives exist if this happens? Another perspective is perhaps to focus on the service rather than the specific system. The service must be sustainable - people must be able to rely on receiving a supply of a given quantity and quality, in many cases securing the necessary level of certainty may mean managing multiple systems and sources to achieve these aims. The sustainability vs. scalability dilemma was introduced followed by some interesting discussions on how to move from pilot to scale. Ways to tackle the dilemma from two projects were presented, one in Nicaragua using the “Cadillac approach” and in particular addressing the ‘sustainability’ objective. The other one in El Salvador was implemented with a narrow time frame and focus was on quantity, addressing the ‘scalability’ objective. The question is how much investment in sustainability is reasonable or effective for an approach to make it scalable? The conference facilitator posed the question: Shouldn't we be much more systematic in calculating and documenting the costs and benefits of approaches in order to be able to answer this crucial question? Institutional learning and strategic diffusion are needed to go from a pilot project to mainstream scaled up implementation. Where do you start, with which communities do you start and how do you start to create the best chances of replication? In the WAMMA experience in Tanzania mentioned previously, the initial approach was “needs” orientated (read the Tanzania case study). When the communities with greatest need were served, “word spread” to other communities of how the agency could assist them with water and sanitation problems if they were ready to do certain things. Scaling up was organic: news of the benefits spread through “seeing is believing”. The program could then respond to demand and continue to provide support through maintenance and regular visits to communities. In Zimbabwe a similar approach was offered where villages with the greatest needs were identified through a massive data collection exercise, the results of which were discussed at ward level and developed into ward plans. Everything was done with full participation of district councilors allowing them to take ownership of the process and take up support services after the program ended. This organic approach took six years to gradually cover the whole district. Scaling up in the Philippines(See email CMup 59)The success of the pilot Dona Flavia Water Supply Project generated extension and replication to other water supply projects in the same municipality. However, the contributing e-conference participant felt strongly that the pilot project must be maintained and cherished because every project is a never ending story. She emphasized that a community must be ready for scaling up and that training must be continuous and sustainable. Donors should not only invest in implementation but also in support projects.
The fact that the heterogeneity of communities might hinder scaling up was broached by a participant who referred again to the analogy between water technology and bicycles. In his view, the analogy is not accurate because community decision making is very different from individual decision making about a bicycle. Due to the heterogeneous character of communities, they need tools to facilitate community decision making. The facilitator then interjected with the query: “Shouldn't we adopt a common approach that allows differences between communities to be taken into account, but at the same time can be used repeatedly in many communities?” One conference delegate noted that in large programs the number of key players is too great to scale up successfully, while in pilot projects, per capita, project staff and resources are high and can be maintained while scaling up the project. This sentiment was shared by others, one emphasizing that magnitude of scaling up means that we are not talking of thousands of communities but of hundreds of thousands of communities. In response to the submission on community management in Switzerland one participant has experienced that initially, communities had different motives for adhering to an improved water supply: watering cattle and ease of daily life. Only later was improved health considered to be a positive effect. This brought him to the conclusion that as time goes by people will increasingly value their water points for diverse reasons. Practice from Kenya mentioned the slow pace of scaling up community management and suggested that this is due to capacity problems and under-performance of important actors. Another noted interesting experiments in the RWD project in West Kenya. In that participant's view, communities’ willingness to pay must be accelerated by creating linkages between water use and system management with economic benefits. As an example he mentions pastoral communities who are capable of managing expensive borehole systems. Other participants also raised the issue of demand for systems and its role in scaling up. Experiences from Cameroon were shared, including an instance where, after realizing that government could not keep up maintenance of systems, the president declared in a public statement: “Community take over your water!”. Finally, from a South African delegate there was a proposal to be less “hung up” on water quality. Instead of “state of the art water treatment” that treats the entire supply, we should only treat drinking water with simple technology. The Kenyan participant was in agreement with this belief, writing that unless you only focus on providing drinking water, delivering sufficient water quantity is more important than water quality. V. ObstaclesEmail:[14] [32] [CMup2-09] [CMup2-10] [CMup2-16] [CMup2-17] [CMup2-18] [CMup2-20] To begin with, a distinction between obstacles to scaling up and obstacles to sustainability was made. Obstacles to sustainability included: the lack of a properly functioning spare part supply chain; theft of hand pump downhole components or other hardware; communities stuck with replacement costs that are too high to bear. On obstacles to scaling up, the fact that it is difficult to expose communities to successful water projects in areas geographically adjacent, was raised. Also, examples communities are exposed to may also be the ‘wrong’, or inaccurate examples: e.g. organizations paying the users to manage their own resources. Relief programs are also inappropriate examples of scaling up. Finally, people underestimating their capacities because they are being patronized can hinder the process of scaling up.
An extensive list of obstacles to scaling up was compiled from the contributions under the following categories:
Although many know that support to community managed systems is needed, there remains unwillingness to accept this - except by those right at the ‘coal-face’. In a number of messages on the topic of obstacles, doubt about willingness, vision and commitment to scaling up was expressed. Two strong points for sustainability were however included: Firstly, a good level of maintenance backed by people with good repair skills and a good data system to monitor pump performance. VI. The value of this E-conferenceEmail: [37] Although many expressed their value of the e-conference, there were also critical notes. It was expressed that it is easy to throw around ideas, but they remain paper-based solutions. The e-conference organizers [WSSCC, WaterAid, SKAT, Plan, WEDC and IRC] commented in reply that the conference is more than paper work to them. The experiences and ideas that this e-conference provided will be used in the synthesis report on this e-conference; as inputs to the 3rd World Water Forum in Japan in 2003; in a publication for decision makers; to stimulate more research on models for scaling up; and, in advocacy campaigns, etc. In December 2001 the organizers first gathered to address the topic of “scaling up”. Since then, they have worked together to pursue this theme and will continue to do so. It is the intention of the organizers to keep participants involved and continue finding ways to cooperate. For instance through keeping this mail-serve list alive after the discussions have ended in order to use this forum for exchange of experiences and information, to announce events, publications etc. (for the conference statement and the report from December 2001, see http://www.irc.nl/products/publications/online/scalingup/). VII. ConclusionMore information on a host of topics was requested by a number of participants, hence the development of this webtool and the continuation of the list serve. Future topics could also include ways to make these e-mail discussions available to decision makers, politicians and representatives of donors as well as ideas on whether they should be involved, and how to do so.A remark made by many is that we must know the reasons why some programs are successful. From examples we can gather lessons on how to scale up community management. Future discussions could therefore attempt to distill a summary of the actions needed for 'success' in scaling up. In closing, it was also said that the teacher must be willing to learn.
|