Community Managed Rural Water Systems: What makes them Sustainable? Ryan Schweitzer Doctoral Student University of South Florida-Tampa Civil and Environmental Eng. rschweit@mail.usf.edu James R. Mihelcic, PhD Professor University of South Florida-Tampa Civil and Environmental Eng. jm41@eng.usf.edu 6 th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29 th Nov-1 st Dec 2011
Outline 1. Context: Dominican Republic 1. RWS Sector 2. Other Factors 2. Community Management Case Study 3. Overview Sustainability Assessment Tool 4. Results 1. Sustainability Assessment 2. Correlation Analysis 5. Conclusions 6 th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29 th Nov-1 st Dec 2011
Dominican Republic Rural Water Sector * 84% population access (2008) RWH (≤ 15 min walk, including tankered and bottled water) ??? Community Level Systems † 87% Windmill Mixed <1% Gravity Grid Diesel Solar 7% 43% Electric Generator 1% 31% 5% Hand pumps 10% *ENHOGAR (2008) † Schweitzer (2009) 6 th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29 th Nov-1 st Dec 2011
Other Factors Centralized Management * • National Water Institute (INAPA) - 71% • Corporations - 10% • Community Managed - 19% Urbanization † • Urban: $17.35/person • Rural: $4.38/person Income Disparity (25 th /136) ‡ * Rodriguez (2008) † Abreu (1999) ‡ CIA world factbook (2010) 6 th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29 th Nov-1 st Dec 2011
Case Study Sample Database Cohort: 185 • ≤2,000 population • CM training • Functioning w/in past yr Sample: 64 (23 INAPA, 41 Peace Corps) Geographically Stratified Random Sampling 6 th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29 th Nov-1 st Dec 2011
Data Collection 61 Water committee Focus Groups 75 Plumber/Operator Interviews 25 External Stakeholders Interviews ~1200 User Surveys (10% households) Observation/Secondary Data Sources 6 th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29 th Nov-1 st Dec 2011
The Directive -- “La Directiva ” “ASOCAR” – Rural Water Associations 7-10 Members 7-10 Members 18+, read/write, current w/ tariff, Dominican No requirements 1-2 year process 1-2 month process Community Ownership INAPA retains ownership of infrastructure In Kind Contribution (labor, materials, Incorporation of ASOCAR equipment, and transportation Institutional Support Mechanisms Institutional Support Mechanisms Monthly visits (2 years) Biennial follow up (average) INAPA Social Promotions division Follow up volunteer (9/40) 6 th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29 th Nov-1 st Dec 2011
6 th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29 th Nov-1 st Dec 2011
Targets Measures Indicator Sustainability Sustainability Sustainability (reference) Unlikely (SU) Possible (SP) Likely (SL) Activity 1. Active water committee 1 person or less 2 people 3 people or more Level members (Yanore 1995) 2. Average percent attendance 50% ≤ X < 66.6% Participation at community meetings Less than 50% 66.6% or greater (Narayan2002;Prokopy 2002 ) Democratic decision Majority decision 3. Decision making process Minority decision Community discussion Governance Transparent but (Hodgkin 1994; INAPA 2008) No transparency Water committee Arbitrary process facilitates 4. Percent debtors Tariff 80 ≥ X >10% (Sara & Katz 1997; Fragano Greater than 80% 10% or less Payment et al. 2001) Do not use ledger Use ledger Use ledger 5. Accounting ledger Accounting AND OR AND 6. Report Frequency Transparency Report less than Report at least Report at least once a (Prokopy 2002; INAPA 2008) once a year once a year year 7. Wages 8. Costs 9. Tariff Income ≤ O&M Income > O&M 10. Average level payment Income > O&M Financial AND OR 11. Connections, 12. Savings AND Durability Less than "significant "significant savings” (Lockwood 2004; Dayal et al. "significant savings" savings" 2000). 13. Downtime (Carter et al. Repair 1999; Tynan & Kingdom More than 5 days 1 to 5 days Less than a day service 2002). 14. Average Hours/Day Pump System Pump System 8 ≤ X<12 System 15. Average Days/Week Both 12 hrs or more Function (Fragano et al. 2001; Tynan & Less than 8 hrs Gravity Systems Gravity Systems 8 ≤ X<16 Kingdom 2002) 16 hrs or more 6 th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29 th Nov-1 st Dec 2011
Sustainability Assessment 6 th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29 th Nov-1 st Dec 2011
Correlations • Tariff Payment maintenance activities • money spent on wages (for (% hh complying) plumbers, operators and tariff collectors 1. Increased maintenance correlated to preventative maintenance 2. Results independent of tariff amount (i.e.-better to have a lower tariff if higher compliance) • Accounting Transparency System Age • Financial Durability (negatively correlated to…) • Activity Level (# active individuals) 3. Communities reported loosing motivation or enthusiasm (“ animo ”) with time. 4. How to improve? Response: Increased visitation by support institutions 6 th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29 th Nov-1 st Dec 2011
More Correlations • • Activity Level Younger systems • Higher service level (less shared taps) • Water Committee Meeting • More systematic and inclusive Attendance decision making process • More frequent water committee meetings • More frequent elections • Tariff Compliance • Accounting Transparency • System Function • Institutional Support • Financial durability • Community Participation 6 th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29 th Nov-1 st Dec 2011
Conclusions • Reliance on a few motivated individuals “Charismatic Individual Effect” • Kayser (2010), Rivera (2010), Lockwood (2003/2004) demonstrated importance PCS---- “Animo effect” • Importance of “unquantifiables” participation, social cohesion, etc. • Intuitive findings (accounting transparency, system age, financial aspects) 6 th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29 th Nov-1 st Dec 2011
Acknowledgments Funding support from State of Florida 21 st Century World Class Scholars Program Critical Input: • Harold Lockwood (Aquaconsult) • Marcos Rodriguez (INAPA) Logistics Support/Data Collection • Esther Reyes (AECID) • Mary Dominguez, Alejandrina Rosa, Nelly , Carlos Rodriguez, Maximo , Carmen, Juan Toledo, Jose Santana (INAPA-AR) • Margo Mullinax, Charlie Requatt, Bobby Lehman, Joel Alex , Meredith Camp, Jay Thrash (Peace Corps-Dominican Republic) • Ernesto dos Santos and Clara María Mosquea Jiménez • Peace Corps-Dominican Republic Staff • INAPA-Rural Aqueducts Staff 6 th International Rural Water Supply Network Forum : Kampala, Uganda : 29 th Nov-1 st Dec 2011
Recommend
More recommend
