AMHARA REGION Ahmed A. Muhumed Bachelor thesis research Hamk - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SUSTAINABILITY OF WATER SERVICES IMPLEMENTED USING COMMUNITY MANAGED PROJECT (CMP) APPROACH IN AMHARA REGION Ahmed A. Muhumed Bachelor thesis research Hamk University of Applied Sciences Supervisor: Dr. Harri Mattila

Objectives & Research Questions  Main objectives  To examine the sustainability of CMP approach in rural water services  To observe factors and issues affecting and undermining sustainability &  To find solutions for those factors threatening sustainability  Specific Objectives  To ensure whether the sustainability of CMP approach is above 90 %.  To find mechanisms and strategies to improve sustainability of water schemes implemented using the CMP approach.

Research Questions Is sustainability of CMP approach of water service system 1. really above 90%? If yes what is the reason? If not what went wrong in previous findings? How CMP approach affect sustainability of water services in 2. rural areas? And what kind of effects sustainability have on beneficiaries? What are the mechanisms and strategies needed to improve 3. the sustainability of CMP’s water service system?

Methodology  Qualitative  Is all about exploring issues, and understanding phenomena and answering questions like why and how, rather than what, when and where  Quantitative  It refers to systematic empirical investigation of social phenomena via statistical, methamatical or computational techniques  Data Collection  Interview of stakeholder and locals  Data recieved from the field visit  Data analysis  Is aprocess of inspecting, cleaning, transforming and modelling of data with the aim of highlighting useful information and making a final conclusion

Area of Research  Five Woredas were chosen purposely  Fogera & Guangua (CMP woredas)  Farta & East Estie (Both CMP & non-CMP woredas)  Libo kemkem (non-CMP woreda)  Total number of 33 Water points were chosen randomly  16 CMP and 17 non-CMP water schemes  4 non-functional CMPs and 4 non-funtional non-CMPs

FINDINGS & DISCUSSIONS

Sustainability as a concept  As a definition sustainability might mean:-  As a social definition : The continued satisfaction of basic human needs- food, water, shelter, as well as higher-level social and cultural necessities such as security, freedom, education, employment, and recreation ( Maslow 1970)  As Environmental Science definition: The quality of not being harmful to the environment or depleting natural resources, and thereby supporting long- term ecological balance (Dictionary.com)  As a water service definition : This would mean that water continues to be available for the period for which it was designed in the same quantity and at the same quality as it was designed. (Abrams, L. (1998)

Cost Continuing Motivation Maintenance Recovery Support Figure 1: The sustainability chain, Carter et al 1999 Motivation : This means the motivation of beneficiaries in taking part in pre and post construction of the project. Cost Recovery: This means contribution of user groups for future new scheme construction if major break down or failure happens. Continuing Support: This means beneficiaries ’ full support everlastingly. Maintenance : This means having all capabilities and techniques to main the system constructed and preparing all necessary maintenance materials.

Sustainability in former WaSH projects  According to Zemenu Awoke’s Master’s thesis work of Assessment of challenges of sustainable rural water supply conducted in Quarit Woreda in Amhara region was discussed the following factors to undermine sustainability in that area  Low community participation in design phase  Poor construction quality  No demand-driven and this causes dissatisfaction and then resulted low ownership feeling  Uganda According to (Uganda’s Ministry of Water and Environment, Brecht Mommen, Jacinta Nekesa) sustainability of rural areas is undermined by:  Technical issues ( spare parts supply, mechanics) &  Social ones (users role).

Factors affecting sustainability of water services in rural areas  The main findings of this research is categorised into 4 different categories  Social factor (Community participation, Ownership feeling & Gender equity)  Technical factor (Maintenance & Spare part availability, Local contractors (artisans) & techical capabilities (training)  Financial factor(O & M fee, Recovery cost and willingness to pay)&  Environmental factor (environmental sustainability)

SOCIAL FACTORS

Social factors Community participation

Social Factors Ownership feeling Woreda 5 % CMP Community 95 %

Social factors Gender equity  Improvement of scheme management regarding majority of WaSHCOs gender combination of 3 females and 2 males plus chairperson  Unlike non-CMPs WaSHCO Gender Composition 3F & 2M 2F & 3M Others 12 % 29 % 59 %

Artisans’ male and female gender combination Gender distribution of artisans Male Female 41 41 40 25 11 8 4 4 Farta Fogera East Estie Guangua

FINANCIAL FACTORS

Financial factors Operation and Maintenance fee  Majority pay 1 birr/HH/M  Compensation money from federal government  Money from communal land grass  Not enough comparing to dynamic price of spare parts

Financial factors Schemes’ financial savings Financial savings for O & M 7 Amount of money in Birr 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 300-500 600-800 >1000 No Birr Birr Birr savings No. Of water points 5 7 3 1

Financial factor Willingess to pay CMP 9 % Yes No 91 %

TECHNICAL FACTORS

Maintenance and spare parts availability  Two different local spare parts suppliers  RWSEP (Finnida) furnished spare part stores &  Private owned spare parts suppliers  Some areas like Fogera woreda some artisans already started delivering spare parts to locals and at the same time changing the defected parts  Delivery time of one week to one month  Increasing spare part price & static O & M fee

Afridev hand pump spare parts price change between 2008-2012 (average price of suppliers) Spare parts price distribution between 2008-2012 80 70 60 Axis Title 50 40 30 20 10 0 Bush Rod U-seal Bobin O-ring biring centralizer 2008 unit price (Birr) 30 27 27 27 31 2012 unit price (Birr) 51 35 45 43 48 price increase (%) 70,0 29,6 66,7 59,3 54,8

RWSEP (Finnida) stores complaints  Money devaluation (revolving fund)  Selling non-profitable spare parts  No potential NGO to finance furnishing stores  Lack of sufficient space in stores (multi-purpose store is currently used in some areas)

Local contractors (Artisans)  They had 2 months of both theory and practical training and finally were certified to dig one HDW and one SPD  Their duty is to construct, maintain and install schemes and hand pumps  Their are paid on work done basis.  Missing of good co-operation between beneficiaries and artisan during scheme development.

Artisien complaints Comparison of artisans payment of current & previous CMP artisans CMP (Now) CMP (Previously) 9000 6000 4000 2000 HDW SPD

Artisien complaints Artisien payment guideline No. Description of 2003 EFY(old 2004 EFY(new activity payment payment amount amount) 1 Well digging to 1361 560 depth of 15 meters including dewatering 2 Cylinder 1364 1920 production and installation 3 Well head 851.24 1243.2 construction Total 3576.2 3723.2

COMPARISON OF CMP AND NON-CMP

Comparison of contribution of CMP & non-CMP beneficiaries Beneficiary constribution CMP Non-CMP 25 16 13 12 7 6 5 5 5 4 Cash, Labour Labour work Natural Cash and Labour No contribution work and natural construction work construction material material

Social Factors Ownership feeling Who owns the scheme?.. By CMP Who owns the scheme?.. By non- resondents CMP respondents Wored CMP Non-CMP a Community Woreda 5 % 20 % 80 % Commu nity 95 %

Comparison of payments of CMP and non-CMP artisans Comparison of artisans payment of current & previous with Care artisans CMP (Now) CMP (Previously) Care International 9000 7000 6000 4000 2500 2000 HDW SPD

Conclusion Scheme challenges Shortage of water Low water quality & sanitation Flooding Technical problems users increase logistics 5 % 10 % 5 % 10 % 60 % 10 %

Conclusion  Having an average functionality rate of over 98.6%.  Having Ownership feeling of 95%.  Having a community contribution of 92%.  Willingness to pay of 91%.  Participation in the planning (site selection & technology type) of 87%  Having saved money for O & M for schemes under the control of beneficiaries of 100%.  Having almost a gender balance in scheme management of 59% of females in WaSHCO committee and 16 % of females in local contractors (artisans).  According all those above mentioned data this study strongly supports that sustainability of CMP approach is over 90%.