Ways for Sustainability of Rural Water supply and Sanitation Service Delivery in Ethiopia Supervisors By Beshah Mogesse Adj. Prof Tapio Katko Doct. Candidate at TUT, Finland Adj. Prof Jarmo Hukka Lecturer at Arba Minch University, Ethiopia Dr. Gashaw Y October 17, 2012 Second ReCMP workshop
Outline • Background • Research questions • Research objectives • Methodology • Selected kebeles from different woreda • Few field observation
Background • 2.5 billion People of the developing countries lack improved sanitation facility where as over 780 million are without safe drinking water (Unicef, 2012) • The problem is multidimensional – it related with health, education, socio-economy and privacy (dignity) • Waterborne diseases caused due to lack of adequate sanitation result in health problem – rural community spent significant amount of money for medication from their little annual income and to make the matter worse the working force deprived from the developmental activity.
Cont’d… • Children spent their time in fetching water and they stay away from their school – thus the futurity of the children and the need of education remain unattainable • Where there is no sanitation facilities women and girls suffer more due to privacy and losing dignity. • When we think about Sustainable development, the primary thing to be addressed should be the provision of water supply and sanitation for all. And it have to be sustainable delivery.
Cont’d … • For the same reason, efforts have been made towards water supply and sanitation coverage in developing countries following the MDGs. The campaign is massive and involves several donors and actors, who are investing huge money and human resources. • Thus, we need to give equivalent attention to functionality as currently we do for the coverage of water and sanitation facilities.
Cont’d… • Because, water points that estimated to be 25% of the implemented in any year found to be non-functioning in two years of their inauguration and • 33-50% of the overall water supply systems become none functioning before their expected service life (Dandida, 2007) (WaterAid, 2011) and (Taylor, 2009).
Background What is CMP and how it emerge? • Community Development Fund (CDF) model in Ethiopia is introduced in 2002 to Ahmara Region by the support of the Government of Finland (Harold lockwood, 2011, p 128). • It was developed under the Finish-supported Rural Water Supply and Environmental Programme (RWSEP). Having had started in Amhara in 1994 now it is running in benishangul Gumuze (Chaka et al., 2011) • CDF an implementation approach which focuses on strengthening ownership feeling over services, and improve transparency in the use of fund and quality of system (Harold lockwood, 2011, p 104)
• Why CDF come to exist? • Efficient utilization of the Partners’ resources: • Enabling an environment for optimizing woredas ’ capacity • Establishing a genuine role of the communities for sustaining the benefits of investments • Building up the private sector’s role in construction, maintenance and spare part supply • Creation of decentralized, material, goods and services supply chain, including spare parts supply (Closure of RWSEP, 2011)
Introduction • Since August 2011 CDF is incorporated into the National WASH Implementation Framework. The principles and basic procedures of the CDF approach are built into the WaSH program as part of the Community Managed Project (CMP) funding mechanism (WIF, 2011). • Community Managed Projects (CMP) and nationwide scaling-up started 2011 to 2014.
Statement of the Problems • Water supply coverage of the country, especially the rural is so small; • Constructed water points not sustainable; • The scientific implication of CMP is not studied so far and • Appropriate approach of implementation is vital in attaining MDGs
Research questions • Is CMP approach the best of other managed projects ? • Is there significant impact over the past projects executed by the Finnish-Government under CDF and CMP approach when compared with none CDF and CMP? • Can indigenous knowledge of water system management contribute for sustainability of water and sanitation facilities? • What experience be obtained from WMP and NGOMP, and how we can incorporate them in CMP to come up with sustainable water and sanitation delivery?
Objectives • To investigate the scientific reaction of CMP on sustainability of Rural water supply systems and evaluate advantages and disadvantage of CMP comparing with other approaches. Specific objectives • To identify principal factor(s) of none functionality of water systems in Ethiopia • To learn the relationship between principal factors and approaches, and the significance of their interface on sustainability. • Investigating good experience of indigenous knowledge of water supply sources management. • Come up with a new approach integrating the advantage of approaches under consideration. • Scalability of CMP to medium and large scale schemes ???
Methodology • Methods to be used in this research are ideal, cross- sectional survey and case study. Cross -section al • Base line study Subsequent study Survey Water and Sanitation with (after) project improvement Control Area/Village without improvement Cross-sectional study : in selected Woredas of Amhara and Benishangul Gumuze regions
Cont’d … Case study Base line study Subsequent study Water and Sanitation with (after) project improvement Control Area/Village • Case study : will be done in Konso and Borena where there are good indigenous water management system.
Cont’d … • The surveys expected to collect both qualitative and qualitative data, with the help of group discussion, questionnaire and observation. • information sources of the study : WASHCO, elders and local leaders, woreda water officers/technicians, implementing agencies and user communities.
Site selection and criterion • The Finn-WASH project has five intervention Woredas Google Earth • Of which Dibate, Pawi and Mandura were considered due to • Having multi approach projects • Accessibility and • availability of medium and large scale schemes by CDF
Site selected Mandura Woreda Sr. Organizatio PA Selected PAs No n 1 UNicef Ejenta, Tumadalush, Dunzababuna, Du’a gubash, Du’a maksegnt, Tuni, 2 FinnWASH Gilgel Beles, jigda silase, Adida #2, 1. Dunzababuna, Photo majare and Genet mariam 2. Du’a gubash 3 EBM adida #2 3. Adida #2 4 CRS photo majare, Du’a gubash 4. photo majare 5 Chisp Dunzababuna, Du’a gubash, Du’a 5. Genet mariam meksegnt, Jigda silase, Adida #2, • Pawi Woreda photo majare and Genet mariam – 9 shallow wells ------ 6 will be considered in the research stratified Random sampling – 40 hand dug wells ---- 16 will be considered in the research by stratified random sampling – The rehabilitation of the Ali Spring will also include – as how to upscale CDF/CMP approach
Dibate • Parzayit, Simanda and Kido PAs are selected as research focus • Due to serious breakdown and community ownership conflict
Whom I met and their comment • COWASH staff== Amhara Region Abreham Kebede (Technical Advisor) • • The region is where the Finland-Ethiopia bilateral project running for two decades The intervention is large, inters of: • Many administration units 271/470 coverage • Different aged water schemes (Since 1994). • Different climate • Approaches (RWSEP CDF CMP) and • Availability of sister organization for comparison
Site selection criterion • The criterion for selection of woredas in Amhara Region are • Worwdas which involve CDF/CMP before 2 years • Woredas where there is water schemes that constructed by other approaches • Climate regions (woredas of Humid, semi-arid and arid) and • Accessibility
Selected Sr No Woreda Kebele (PA) 12 East Estie Mikri Hana 1 Farta Arga (kimir Dingia Zuria 13 East Estie Mikri Kuskuam 2 Farta Awzet 14 East Estie Gena Memcha 3 Farta Ayiban’ibi 15 East Estie Licha 4 Farta Kolay 16 East Estie Disekuam 5 Farta Kanato 17 East Estie Alemaya 6 Farta Ata 18 East Estie Gindatiba 7 Farta Saharna 8 Fogera Shina 9 Fogera Wagatera 19 Guangua Bizrakani 10 Fogera Wereta Zuria 20 Guangua Tiru Birhan 11 Fogera Kuhar Mikael 21 Guangua Dega Abo 25 Dega Damot Zikual Wegem 22 Guangua Tirgi 26 Dega Damot Fenkatit 23 Guangua Dangula Gindwiha 24 Guangua Addis Alem 27 Dega Damot Shangi Dereke 28 Dega Damot Feresbet Michael
Field observation • It is difficult to get the right responsible and knowledgeable person at woreda level due to meeting, and other duties. • All woreds of the Metekel Zone entirely relay on the zone’s technical staff. • Sanitation issue under each woreda considered as secondary element according to the preliminary discussion we had with woreda’s water offices. • Off course village(s) which claim fund for water development imposed to have toilet for each members to get an approval. In my view they are rarely assisted technically and trained for behavior change. Thus, I have doubt whether such toilets are in use or not. • Staff turnover is obstacle to the progress of projects and created technical gap
Recommend
More recommend
